dayman

Well my language was "not so bad"...not great. Chosen for a reason. And as for the team that once dominated the AFC. That's a blip now it's been about 30 years and the 30 years before that sucked too. It's just a losing team that had some sort of fluke which mercifully allowed them to become the greatest chokers of all time over a 4 year span. I love the Bills but this is what O'Reilly would call "fair and balanced" analysis. Or if you prefer Anderson Cooper...I'm merely keeping ya honest. Bills are one of the worst franchises in NFL history. Our sole brighspot is the part people use to knock us...it's hilarious.

He's being compared to Romo. I would feel sorry for Romney also. No man deserves that.

LOL. Actually a legit LOL when reading that. Poor Romo (and Obama)

Well to be fair when it's bad it's fine. When it's not so bad it's either imperfect or corrupt.

My list would be: 1) Prepare for debate 2) Wait for Obama to "X" 3) Be secretly shocked that Obama fails to say "X" either at all or well 4) Say whatever the hell you want and forget you prepared b/c wtf is this 5) Hug family and walk of the stage victorious 6) Call Paul and tell his ass he better not lose to freaking Biden or you bring in Palin 7) Sleep easy for the first time in a month

Well we've had the jobless recovery already. We're working on the job part now... Haven't read through this thread but what's up anyone say anything about this QE3 or has it not been enough time for that?

Important/accurate as a predictor of the end result? Historically...it's not. But important to Mitt Romney and a huge win? Absolutely. There is no debate about that. C'mon now Marcell...don't be such a party pooper. Repubs are happy b/c Obama did not look as good as Romney. They should be. Let them be. hehe...no need to sour puss everything.

Truer words have never come from a Bills fans mouth.

Are you crazy? Do you just talk speak to fictional characters while talking at real people?

MSNBC: "It appears DC Tom has stacked the rules committee to allow for consideration of rules dealing with what he calls "the idiot problem in America" and those rules only. All proceedings will be closed, no amendments. The committee on defining idiots, also stacked by DC Tom, is terrifying the public as they walk through the street suspiciously eyeing citizens going about their day." She's been around a long time and fundraises her ass off controlling access to party money. That's how. And as if majority of even politically concerned Americans understand Congress and leadership roles.

LOL it's Harry's "do nothing Congress" regardless ... "as mad famous by" if it suits you better...it was the guys campaign. In any event the House could care less of it's approval rating...it's partison nonsense the Repubs hope to impute it on Obama and say he's blaming others if he mentions it and the Dems try to bring it up as much as they can w/ out looking like they're shamelessly blaming others. There is no "Congress" anymore...there is only warring tribes vying for power...no great deliberative body serving as the trustee for American wellbeing...no shame in 11% approval rating.

Congress has delegated more power (hard/soft..whatever) through partisan urges to the President (both sides)...even to the point of failed unconstitutional attempts... And Truman coined the do nothing congress not FDR...in any event the last congress did far less than that congress so it's hard to say they are afraid of being that again

It was nasty until Clinton crushed Gingrich's power march, just as nasty as it was under Pelosi or Boehner. One big problem is that Congress is not independent anymore. The President is the most powerful figure in government, the President is a member of party X, therefore the President is the leader of party X, therefore it is the duty of Party X members in Congress to serve the President. But the real harm is the internal workings of Congress itself. It's rigged TO BE PARTISAN and has been trending that way more and more for 30 years w/ Sir Gingrich kicking it into overdrive. Committees are not deliberative bodies....it's a complete joke. The Speaker is automatically selected based on the party in power...the Speakers doesn't even HAVE to be a member of Congress...in a perfect world it would be someone outside Congress who 60% or more of Congress could agree should be speaker.

The $5T is the tax cuts over 10 years Romney says he'll make specifically through his 20% reduction. That's what happens if you take that specific cut and the few other taxes he's specifically called for, you lose about $5T over 10 years. As Romney made clear despite this "his plan is deficit neutral" b/c...well just b/c he says it is. He says he close enough loop holes (impossible on it's own and it would disproportionately affect lower income people) and otherwise people will be doing so well under his rule that they'll all be rich and paying more taxes to make up the difference (classic trickle rhetoric). Thing is, it won't happen. Romney's big tax cut actually is impossible as he describes it. Not a serious proposal. I mean yes, he can keep saying he won't have a $5T tax cut on stage, but that's the policy he goes around talking about...that's what it is. And when he says he'll make up for it...that's a huge hole (really impossible without doing very drastic things)...yet he doesn't talk about it at all. Revenue is not only off the table, but even more so. If just doesn't work. The bottom line is you can't just go w/ that level of reduction and not talk about the other end...if it were less drastic you could...but it's too much to say nothing and be serious. As for Medicare you choose between the voucher and future Medicare, what it will be. Not the voucher and what current Medidcare is.

Those are the 3 things the debaters take issue w/ themselves in debate and campaigning!...so focus the entire thing on those then end w/ the tribal dysfunction in Washington. You aren't taking issue w/ it...you are making them stay on the topics they take issue w/ themselves. Both candidates were literally just saying whatever they wanted tonight...and nothing was said. Make them focus on these 3 issues b/c that's where they get testy about it...and chime in yourself too (yes I know this is taboo) to make sure it happens and stays focused....then end w/ #4. I have no doubt as a just an ordinary guy...not very smart...I could have moderated better than this schmuck. I mean...like I said earlier I don't have high expectation for debates...but this one was bad and yes I admit it was less bad for Romney (though IMO not that impressive b/c I don't see why it would be but clearly worse for Obama) ...but this isn't really a politically charged point b/c of perception it is just my honest opinion that it was in fact a low point amongst low points in terms of how it went....structurally. And btw w/ those questions as a framework Tony Reali should moderate w/ a mute button.

It really was a bad debate. I get the premise and understand why they thought it would work "ask broad question (3rd grade question) then give 2 minutes then try to run the show" but the show was never run. If I ran the debate I'd have spend 1.5 hours on about 3 or 4 things which we ALL know are the big "lies" or "half truths" both sides take issue with. 1) $5M tax cuts when deficits are an issue. Romney...Obama says that's your plan b/c w/ out more it is. Obama has a different plan you say doesn't do anything and is just politics. You to go at it for extended time.Go for a while. 2) Obama...you DO take $700Bish out of Medicare through a complex negotiation w/ hospitals. Romney says it hurts medicare. You say it doesn't. Go..for an extended time. 3) Mitt...you say Obama picks winners and loser. Obama you had a reinvestment act and that's what he's talking about. Go for an extended time (this should be half the debate...45 minutes...most important part of the last 4 years nobody talks about a lot of good and bad in that bill flesh it out). 4) Mitt you promise you can get things done b/c you worked w/ a democratic Mass legislature. Obama you said you could work together last campaign. The political system is hyper partisan tribal power struggle not viewing the governing of this country as a trustees for the American good but as power to be won and maintained. Explain how during the next 4 years you would hope to change it, and what America must know TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE for you to change it, and if POLITICAL reform is important the national good. (No matter how the timing the last 20 minutes MUST be left for this point) 4 points....go...that's it...1.5 hours...no 3rd grade questions w/ 2 minutes and then nonsense...cut both guys off when they steer off the topic but let them go when they keep on it...these are 4 things to get out of the way right off the bat...the most important 4 things.

He was oddly not willing to step through several wide open doors. It was bizarre. That said, there was nothing said by either candidate. I would give Obama a "D" and Romney a "C-" ... it really was a pathetic debate and the moderator was terrible he was not qualified not only did he not moderate once responses got going but his questions were just...taken from a 3rd grade Q&A. The debate helped Romney no question (he was low anyway it damn well better have) but all in all I'm surprised nobody is talking about the quality of the debate as a whole. It was terrible. Maybe it's just me...and I know some will think I'm just partisan for saying it but I will say Mitt did a bit better than Obama...but the bottom line is debates are usually not great but this was one of the worst. I mean...literally...Mitt said nothing...Obama said nothing...neither guy said anything. Usually both guys say mostly nothing a bit of something. Tonight was just brutal to watch as an American.

Take notes and come tell me what was so impressive by either candidate. I've trolled through it twice now and agree that Mitt did good (certainly based on his expectations) but am sort of baffled by the take-away that he had a bunch of amazing points. I don't see where they are...not saying they aren't there...but I don't know where those who see them think they are.

While I think Romney was nice and aggressive and it helped him (the debate as a whole) I'm really not sure what debate you and many others listened to. This debate was (IMO) even worse than a normal debate and certainly didn't "morph" into an "actual debate." I was not impressed by either candidate, Obama looked very average and hence he lost. I'm not really sure what about Romney has everyone so high...and I say that to ask..what about Romney had everyone so high?

Since nobody thinks we're on the path to playoffs any more than we were then the answer would be no...if you asked me.

lol...actually a good little point you make here...

Obama won on sound bytes? I missed them I guess... To me the thing helped Romney. But the overwhelming takeaway I have is just...how terrible the entire debate was. It was sad b/c it was like the moderator said going in "I'm going to keep these guys on point and make them go back and forth, on point" and then after the first 5 minutes he said "I'm going to sit there and do nothing and let them both just say anything."

whao there let us not get carried away...never said CNN was a real channel hehe

CNN just has them side by side at all times. Good coverage except the stupid "undecided voters" thing at the bottom which should be blown up and then burned and then shot into space

this might be the most toothless moderator in history