Charlie Rose

NeilMacCallister  10/23/2012 09:17 AM Report

Hey, .."Richard", ..Romney would have answered those pleas from the Libyan Embassy, ..and let them have a firearm to protect themselves!

Obama told them "No!" ..and that U.S. ambassador was then raped and murdered.

But you go ahead and stick with Obama.

Ricardo_Amaral  10/22/2012 06:20 PM Report

Bob Schieffer the host of “Face the Nation” on CBS TV will be the moderator of today's presidential debate about U.S. foreign policy.

I hope Bob Schieffer brings up the interview that he had with Mitt Romney on June 19, 2012 where Mitt Romney said: “He Could Wage War on Iran Without Congress' Approval”

Mitt Romney Says He Could Wage War on Iran Without Congress' Approval - June 19, 2012

http://youtu.be/0lEsB8p8zc0

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0lEsB8p8zc0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

*****

With the US Armed Forces decimated by over ten years of fighting wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and all kinds of military adventures around the world, a victory of Mitt Romney in the US presidential election of 2012 means you are voting for the “DRAFT.”

If you vote for Mitt Romney you are voting for the return of the draft like during the Vietnam War – and you are voting to send the young members of your family to fight a meaningless war against Iran, and possibly the start of World War III.

It is time for the United States to think about peace, and not about war - and it is time for Americans to demand that the US government start to pay more attention and start rebuilding the US economy and try to fix the massive amount of problems that we have at home in the United States.

Please check the above video and let me know which part is not clear to you that Mitt Romney will start a war against Iran if he is elected president of the United States!

By the way, Mitt Romney has a plan to solve this unemployment problem for the kids age 18 to 30 years old – it is called the “DRAFT”.

Mitt Romney said that if he is elected president he would start a war against Iran ASAP.

Since the US Armed Forces has been decimated by over 10-years of constant wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and all kinds of covert operations around the world – today the US Army is a basket case that can't keep up even with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

If you vote for Mitt Romney he will take care of your children, and grandchildren, and he will keep them busy in the Middle East and North Africa where your loved ones will have the opportunity of being blown up into little pieces, or if they can survive the experience they will become mental cases like the other over 100,000 young Americans who returned home from Iraq and Afghanistan in the last 10 years.

The good news for the American people is that they changed the rules since the Vietnam War, and this time around the woman also will be drafted and they will be sent to be slaughtered in some foreign land with the boys.

.

MittsterMeister  10/20/2012 03:43 PM Report

...and the so-called, media-press, just continues to blather, "I see nothing! Nuthing! I see Nothing!!! blah blah blah". Because that's what works for them; they essentially are being paid to play dumb. This IS what they turned 'the press' into; Hey! why not?! They own it all!! Republican radio, Democrat television. They own it all!! And it's all part of the casino atmostphere. All at the expense of the sheeple audience!

Thats Entertainment! Folks

MittsterMeister  10/20/2012 03:15 PM Report

ALL that money that they won betting on other peoples' lives with other peoples' money and producing absolutely nothing except endless pain and suffering to the majority of people being thrown to both Romney and Obama campaigns spells, 'Hands Off!' 'What's good for them is good for politicians (in or out of office) wink wink

MittsterMeister  10/20/2012 03:04 PM Report

The Fact is, both candidates are phoneys, because Both candidates are Bought, Sold, And Betted on, on Wall Street by the so-called, 1% of plutocratic aristocrats that directly and indirectly control the 'debate' and in so doing, control the "Winner" of the election. . They are 'experts' at 'hedging'. For example, Buddy Roemer, was/is the most qualified candidate to be President of the United States, but he made it very clear from the outset that he couldn't be bought, sold and betted on by the corrupt meddlers that be. He made it clear that he was going to the root cause of American degradation and snub it in the bud, By LEADING BY EXAMPLE; TAKE THE EXCESSIVE MONEY OUT OF POLITICS! TAKE OUT THE WASTE, FRAUD, PERVERSE INCENTIVES, MORAL HAZARD THAT IS DRAGGING THE MIDDLE CLASS INTO THE SHITTER AND WITH IT ALL OF AMERCA WILL GO TOO!!!

No, the plutocrats don't want anything to do with that. So not many people even heard about, Buddy Roemer. The plutocrats just want to keep on nibbling away at the foundation that had been holding this country up since the beginning. And because both Romney and Obama are just playing roles (very distinct and clear ones, mind you)(funny how that works) they are just playing roles like professional wrestlers do, and following the script layed out to them by 'the media', who, guess what, by the way not really , they have their favorites, but it doesn't really matter in the end; because no matter who will be the president with the choices as they are presented, the middle class will continue to sink into the abyss as per planned by the plutocratic socialists elete.

Slim  10/20/2012 06:38 AM Report

Experiments are honest contests to determine the truth of ideas. In order for the election of 2008 to qualify, one would have expected at least an honest trial of the winners positions. The opposition moved heaven and earth to make sure that never happened, while at the same time cynically diverting attention from the result of their trial of philosophies that resulted in the implosion of the economy and near depression of 2007-08. Republican's have always feared an honest contest of philosophies, preferring instead to lie, trick, and buy their way to power.

.

NeilMacCallister  10/19/2012 10:53 AM Report

You have found causation for the thinning number of President Obama supporters -- in everything but the words, deeds, and results of Barack Obama himself.

He campaigned for office saying "I have come to take money (private property) from those who have it, and use that money to hire myself some like-minded partners (government is the only employment sector which has grown), and then 'transform' America into the European socialist model of society" (from which we extracted ourselves 236 years ago).

A lot of college kids and media writers thought this would be a great -- even "historic" -- experiment.

Jobs disappeared, poverty went up -- and we started to follow old Europe down into an abyss of dysfunction.

And you blame everybody but the social scientists who set up this "Historic experiment of 2008"!

Well, the 'peer review' of this experiment's results will be published on November 6, 2012.

Slim  10/18/2012 11:48 PM Report

"Media waterboarding, Candy Crowley blindfolding?, did you forget to take your meds? The media and you right wing nuts have been on Barack's case since his election in 2008. Pew called the negative tenor of this avalanche of media scrutiny, unprecedented. Given this negative media background noise and an orchestrated Republican strategy aimed solely at his defeat, you are really trying to flip the script. Not even a nut could swallow the plot you describe.

NeilMacCallister  10/18/2012 10:57 AM Report

Slim? ..the "run-on blogging" here, and Charlie's 8-man "Wild Bunch", and Candy Crowley's tying of the blindfold upon the badly-bruised America, is simply the Democrat Media waterboarding one more horrible term of Barack Obama down our throats.

They will not stop until America agrees to close its fingers around the pen they have thrust into its hand, and makes a mark upon the ballot they have pressed that pen down upon.

May we meet again in peace, after this Obama War is over.

Slim  10/18/2012 09:05 AM Report

There ought to be some remedy for run on blogging and sight for those who can't see the forest for the trees. Fact checking Romney is an impossible task, everything that issues from his mouth is calculated and calibrated for a specific audience and effect. I don't think he even knows what he believes, oh yea I forgot - Obama must go. Look, if after all this time watching and listening to these guys, you still can't pick out the phony, it's because he's just like you and all the other 1%ers or you're a brain dead

mitttwitt.

Ricardo_Amaral  10/18/2012 05:22 AM Report

If elected president Mitt Romney promises to give this kind of treatment to at least 47% of the US population...

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=c2aefc51bfc215bcf72b6813ab069abb&threadid=240772&perpa ge=6&pagenumber=497

.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  10/18/2012 04:18 AM Report

Charlie, Frank Luntz is correct.

The INDIANA coffin ad may change history if it is shown in Ohio:

http://youtu.be/oLo0Jwj03JU

SharkswithfrikingLazers  10/18/2012 04:11 AM Report

John Dickerson: Opposing strategy was Romney has no new ideas for the next four years vs. Obama has run out of gas.

Yes, Romney the businessman would not go into a deal with Romney the candidate.

Yes, Obama needs to shoot some three pointers and then jog to a steakhouse with a contingent of Secret Service.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  10/18/2012 04:05 AM Report

Mark Halperin: Ohio is the ballgame for Romney. Next debate should be the fiscal cliff but it is on Foreign Policy. Romney has to do something big and it is not the last debate.

Yes Mark, the fiscal cliff NOT foreign policy.

Mark, can we all move to Ohio so our vote will count in this "democracy"?

SharkswithfrikingLazers  10/18/2012 04:00 AM Report

Jon Mecham: debate did not transform the race. Closer to a draw on substance. Romney gave 3 stump speeches all the way through. Both bases are happy but undecideds are not educated.

Yes Jon, too much stumpin' and not enough educatin'.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  10/18/2012 03:57 AM Report

David Leonhardt NAILED IT.

Strongest case: Obama said the economy would be better and it is not (Charlie agrees) but Romney is not the best guy to make that argument because he is too much like Bush.

Yes a bold move would be to lay out the details (any details) even though Obama mentions some in White Papers.

By the way David, Obama didn't break all his promises.

Promises on The Obameter:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/subjects/politifacts-top-promises/

SharkswithfrikingLazers  10/18/2012 03:52 AM Report

Al Hunt you looked great! All that white and a red tie.

You popped off my television screen and you had a Don Draper joke to boot.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  10/18/2012 03:48 AM Report

The name of the moderator was Candy and yet there was no pole for her to work.

Shameful.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  10/18/2012 03:46 AM Report

Romney's dog really hated the ride home from that debate.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  10/18/2012 03:45 AM Report

Republican GOLD: talking over a woman and a black man on national television AT THE SAME TIME.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  10/18/2012 03:43 AM Report

Romney: $2T (to 4% of our GDP)in additional money for military spending?

war, War, WAR!

NeilMacCallister  10/18/2012 02:17 AM Report

Hah!!! ..I thought New York represented the "intellectual circle"???

The "biggest miss" was not catching Candy Crowley in her Benghazi LIE about Obama's on-record response to the MURDERS in Benghazi???

***

There is not ONE honest, responsible "reporter" at this table!

This "War" is NOT about 'Barack Obama' against 'Mitt Romney'!!

It is about 23 million UNEMPLOYED WORKERS in America!!!

How dare you "Top 1%" rich TV talking-heads tell America you think the "WINNER" is (the same guy you have shoved down America's throat for four years!!!) is the same guy who has just DOUBLED America's debt account for our children!!!! -- for absolutely NO benefit to the American people!!!!! (..Oh yeah, ..Charlie HAS no children!)

Charlie??? ..are you really so scared of having to leave PBS an actually work for a living?????

"The Buck (must) Stop in the Phillipines" or something, ..it defininitly DOES NOT stop with the poverty imposed upon us from Barack Obama in America!!!!

***

And who is that BRIT telling America that "the debates against Barack Obama are a waste of time"???????

Let her go back to England and stand in line for 15 weeks to get her foot-bunyon removed!!!

Obama LIED about Benghazi, ..he LIED about American Oil production, ..He LIED about wanting to give ANYONE in America a productive job, ..

....and Candy Crowley LIED about Barack declaring Benghazi a "terrorist attack" the day after the Libyan murders! ..he outstandingly declared those rapes and murders the result of some six-month old video he viewed on YouTube!

Where is Dr. Kevorkian???? ..America is shooting itself right in the head, right here on CHARLIE ROSE!!!

***

President Obama "achieved" nothing here, ..he just circled his wagons of "friends" (..Charlie Rose!!!!!) who helped him escape having to voice the TRUTH about America!

(Al Hunt?? ..Take your millions and get back to your bridge game with Chuck Schumer, and David Axelrod in the Poconos!)

tabs  10/17/2012 08:38 PM Report

NCP3:

Isn't it interesting that when President Barrack Obama was asked about "banning" those AK47's from the hands of American people and thus streets of America, that President Obama basically said, "That while he sees no good coming from the American people having those kinds of weapons he realizes that the real problem is VIOLENCE in America, society and that solutions must be sought to ameliorate that condition rather than the passage of new laws "banning" them." If one is not gravely mistaken this is the first time that one has ever heard President Obama let alone a Democrat politician express such an opinion.

To which one has posted to this Comment Board under the David Remnick interview of 7/25/12 the following parallel

view.

"American Society promulgates the use of violence as a means of resolving ones problems. At the core of the Liberals abdication of moral responsibility is their blaming inanimate objects for this malaise instead of dealing with the core causality. To the Liberal mind it is as if an inanimate object supersedes an individual's responsibility as it has control over the actions men take. Further passing more Gun Laws serves as political theater rather than a useful recourse in solving the core issue of violence. This in the end is just more Liberal delusional thinking, hypocrisy and or just plain being disingenuous."

PERHAPS..is it possible that this Comment Board has more reach than meets the eye?

Ricardo_Amaral  10/17/2012 08:29 PM Report

Reality check:

Here is a preview of what a Mitt Romney presidency would look like for 47% of the US population:

http://youtu.be/dk47saogI8o

.

richard-lipscombe  10/17/2012 07:56 PM Report

Wow what great political theater this Debate turned out to be - it let no body down for drama...

this debate reminds me of that great Chinese banquet that we have all enjoyed with lots of dishes - everyone has a favourite dish to talk about and the discussion is lively about their choices....but, a few hours later all of you are hungry again and looking for some substantial food...

the inconvenient truth here is simple... America is in sharp decline because for more than a decade she has lived off the hard work and the savings of the Chinese people...China supplied the cheap goods America needed to keep middle income low and China supplied the credit need to cover America's unsustainable debt levels...

add to that the probability that future historians will record the fact that America has had the two worse Presidents, G W Bush and Barack Obama, in the history of the nation...it may be that both will have two terms in the White House - how can that be right?

both Bush and Obama have been shockingly inappropriate choices for these times and for the same reasons...both have borrowed to fight wars, both have lacked fiscal discipline, and both have encouraged the printing of money to stimulate a dormant economy... Bush fought wars over ideology abroad (seeking regime change and continued cheap oil supplies) and Obama fought wars over ideology at home (class warfare and continued expansion of government spending to special interest groups)...

America is "between a rock and a hard place" and no voter wants to stand up and be counted when it comes to changing the way the country is governed...change is coming but it will not be led by the White House if Obama is re-elected ...change will come from State Governments and finally it will be imposed on America by outside forces such as global bankers and China when she refuses to lend anymore money for Big Bird and the like...

I believe Romney will win this election by a handy margin...the reason is simple - swing voters can not stomach four more years of Bush/Obama wars and debt...

cheers, richard.

tabs  10/17/2012 07:51 PM Report

NCP2:

Mr Rose says, "President Obama is "PRAGMATIC." Mr Rose is it a"pragmatic" action on the part of President Obama to "NOT HAVE "TRIANGULATED" after the great 2010 Congressional repudiation, as President Clinton did after his Congressional defeat in 1994?

Mr Meachham, being "self aware" is more that being able to be observant in a 360* circle. One can have a "moment of clarity" or "the epiphany on the road to Damascus" but one still has to walk to Damascus in order to know process and mechanism. It is when one knows "process and mechanism" that one can do a lot more than be observant.

And Mr Heilmann one was throughly taken aback when you used the $5 word "visceral." One just wonders where you purchased that word from? All though one generally commends for the nuanced and insighful perspective that you present it does have a few errors in your conclusions.

tabs  10/17/2012 06:55 PM Report

These debates in essence, are two men enter and one man leaves as only one of them will be the Alpha Dog President of the United States of America. As such it is the nuances of the give and take that become important rather than the substance of the visceral argument of the facts and figures.

For all the Pundits and their sophisticated analysis, didja ever think that Romney's agenda was to present himself in this Town Hall format as being an EMPATHETIC FIGURE to counteract the notion that he is a RICH GUY who can't connect with nor care about the plight of the average American? To this end contrast Mr Romney's treatment of Jim Lehrer and Candy Crowley, with Jim, Romney just kept on talking over Mr Lehrer. with Candy he was deferential and polite. Romney had already confronted the President successfully but this time out he needed to present himself as being an empathetic and understanding figure. As such Romney had to give up a couple of points to a resurgent and aggressive Barrack Obama.

Mr Obama on the other hand did what he absolutely had to do and that was show up and stand his ground. Mr Obama did set a trap that Romney walked right into on the Libyan issue and it did not hurt that Ms Crowley supported President Obama by MISREPRESENTING the truth of the matter. To which MS Crowley after the fact has corrected her "BLACK SWAN" error by restating the facts which favor the Romney interpretation of events.

If one were Mr Romney one would present an advertisement showing President Obama's new Debate version of events with the video clip of what President Obama and others of his adminsitration actually said at the time. As they say a video clip is worth a thousand words as to the veracity of this President. Second Mr Romney should be prepared to back up his view of events as being correct even if everyone on that stage disagrees with him, because he ultimately has no friends up there and even if they are neutral they can make mistakes which can cost. Here one needs to put the transcript indelibly into ones memory. Third MR Romney should understand that President Obama has figured out how to get over on him psychologically and has to not only counteract or neutralize that "getting over" but has to anticipate what new nuance MR Obama is going to present. In other words the next debate isn't going to be contested like the last one.

Ricardo_Amaral  10/17/2012 01:32 PM Report

I did watch the 21 Republican Party debates, and I agree with the point of view of this video that all these political debates are designed to reach their "semi-retarded" audience.

Obama, Romney face off in 2nd debate, MSM covers-up candidate arrest – October 17, 2012

http://youtu.be/rZJwcDbIkXw

Pulling the U.S. economy back from the brink, and retaliating for the killing of American diplomats took centre stage, during the second Presidential debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. Meanwhile, police arrested Green Party Presidential candidate Jill Stein and her running mate, Cheri Honkala, after they tried to enter the site of the debate at Hofstra University.

.

Ricardo_Amaral  10/17/2012 12:26 PM Report

Results already reflect the second presidential debate:

Intrade – The World's Leading Prediction Market

As of October 17, 2012

Barack Obama to be re-elected President in 2012 = 65%

Mitt Romney to be elected President in 2012 = 35%

Source:

http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=743474

http://www.intrade.com/v4/misc/scoreboard/

.

REMant  10/17/2012 11:50 AM Report

Let me say at the outset that while I thought Romney was remiss in not sticking to his self-reliance argument, both candidates lost in all the sniping of this debate. Nothing new was said; perception of a winner or loser depends only on the delivery. I certainly don't agree with those who think a person who dominates discussion is a winner. In fact I was surprised to hear ppl saying Romney won the first debate. I initially thought only that he didn't do badly, fully expecting the pundits to score it for the president. It's clear, however, that Obama was not going to try to answer the questions this time as he did last. Romney made the mistake of starting to rebut the president's talking points and Crowley, grievously, of letting them get away with it. Sound bites favor the president; facts, the challenger. In any case Romney's gotcha's are no more accurate than the president's. And surveys show the valued independent voters are turned off by them, so why do it?

Nevertheless, some observations in debate order:

Obama assumes we are going to run out of fossil-fuels in a decade or two, a forecast proved wrong for at least 50 years now. But even so there's no reason why we have to make huge investments in alternative energy to get the job done. Natural gas is inherently cleaner than oil, which is cleaner than the coal we mostly have here, and until recently it has been a lot more economical to avoid cleaning it up.

But the argument about getting cheaper oil in the US is a loser for both men because the oil cos are clearly monopolists and because not much has been done to change that. Certainly ethanol is not an answer. The president apparently believes the solution to all this is electric cars, which tho unquestionably have a considerable introductory hurdle to get over. The price of gas has risen not entirely because of the lack of demand in 2008, but because of the immense money printing since then. That was clear in the '70s "oil shocks," tho you will never hear Keynesians admit it.

No matter what he thinks of Romney's plans, the president still believes we can grow our way out of all this debt, either without balancing the budget, or only by taking the money from the top 2%. The admin has owned the 5.4% claim for the "stimulus" which obviously hasn't occurred. But Romney should know better than to claim he balanced the Olympics budget, when it was done by a massive bail-out, or the Massachusetts budget when it was done by the Fed's post 9-11 bubblenomics.

The president should never reference his impoverished background, which certainly isn't true. Like Romney, his family got him into exclusive schools.

Obama talks largely about discrimination without mentioning the discrimination involved in affirmative action at all.

The evidence is that we can help women most by stopping the incentive given them to sit home and have kids without husbands. That's the only way I see an argument for free contraception. And arguably women are working in such numbers now primarily due to the declining economy of the past 50 years, obscured tho it is by cheap goods from developing economies and misinvestment in houses and shopping centers.

This admin's only free trade deals were begun years before, and this is a red herring, but the president is not a free trader. No Keynesian ever really is. That was evidenced by his comments concerning the Bowles-Simpson proposal to bring multi-national corporate taxation into line with international standards.

The Dems are concerned about the nation's employees; the GOP about the brand, and that's about it. No one wants to change the selfishness, the pandering, or the profligacy. No one wants to admit that people want to come here for the same reason they migrate to urban areas, because this way of doing business impoverishes them. But Romney should know that he cannot win a debate over who's going to give away more stuff even if the economy is in the midst of a depression. And on the question of immigration he should have asked why the net flow from Mexico has stopped, since clearly in a period like 2008-9 no president is going to bring up immigration reform.

The Benghazi incident has all the significance of Quemoy and Matsu. Romney and Ms Crowley appear to be quite wrong.* At first everyone except the professionals thought it was connected to the video. When the next week, it became clear that there was more to it, the admin brought this out on the Sunday talk shows. Susan Rice said as The Post had earlier that the protest was "hijacked." I remember, because, given the hysterics, it surprised me.** Romney, himself, was making a big deal out of the protests, and it appears the president felt obliged to follow suit making a big deal about at the UN. IMHO it was definitely in everyone's interest at the time for it to have been a terrorist attack. And a few more guards would've been a few more dead. It has subsequently become apparent there wasn't much of any protest at all. It is, however, something the admin should have thought about when they decided to save these "civilians."

Given his attitude towards the 2nd Amendment, had the president been alive in 1775, he undoubtedly would have been among those fleeing to Canada.

Worse than "Fast and Furious," the admin has adopted an Iraq-style strategy towards the Mexican drug cartels in order to reduce the violence, tho without much effect on the trade.

Last, if Romney, or Obama, want the Chinese to play by the rules, they ought to make the Fed play by the rules as well. Greenspan and Bernanke blamed China, as well. Aside from this president has the better of this question except for the fact that no country can have all the high wage jobs.

BTW, at least one very reliable model based on economic factors has Romney up in the electoral vote by a wide margin.

--------------

*ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

OBAMA: Get the transcript.

CROWLEY: It -- it -- it -- he did in fact, sir. So let me -- let me call it an act of terror...

OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy?

CROWLEY: He -- he did call it an act of terror. It did as well take -- it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.

ROMNEY: This -- the administration -- the administration indicated this was a reaction to a video and was a spontaneous reaction.

CROWLEY: It did.

Transcript here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/2012-presidential-debate-president-obama-and-mitt -romneys-remarks-at-hofstra-university-on-oct-16-running-transcript/2012/10/16/be8bfb9a-17dd-11e2-985 5-71f2b202721b_story.html?hpid=z3

**The Post's Kessler says: "By our count, it took eight days for an administration official to concede that the deaths in Libya were the result of a "terrorist attack.": http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/fact-checking-the-second-presidential-debate/20 12/10/17/d6d3a7b4-17a3-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_blog.html?hpid=z2 See also: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/from-video-to-terrorist-attack-a-definitive-tim eline-of-administration-statements-on-the-libya-attack/2012/09/26/86105782-0826-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83b f_blog.html

Ricardo_Amaral  10/17/2012 11:44 AM Report

If the American people had a minimum understanding of what is at stake related to Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, and defense spending; then Barack Obama would win this presidential election 70 to 30 percent of the vote.

Ricardo_Amaral  10/17/2012 11:38 AM Report

Barack Obama was the obvious winner of last night's debate.