Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

The 3rd Presidential Debate

Last response: in News & Leisure
Share
October 23, 2012 1:23:54 PM

Available on Youtube...

The 3rd Presidential Debate

To get the ball rolling I submit the following...
1) Neither Romney or Obama came out with an win, I call it a tie
2) Obama wore the same smirk and smug face that makes the Democrats cheer and the Republicans dislike him more
3) There were many issues that Romney could have hit Obama hard on but walked away (Bengahzi, Fast & Furious, etc)
4) Obama showed that he definitely has more foreign policy knowledge than Romney
5) Neither candidate offered any new issues and it was a re-hash of previously stated positions and policies
6) Romney seemingly change positions on the Afgahnistan 2014 pull out since the first debate
7) When it came to China, Romney was more on point and seemed to have a better understanding of China's world view than Obama
8) Winning lines included, Obama, "We have these things called aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines.", Obama, "We no longer use horses or bayonets", Obama, "The 1980's called and want their foreign policy back." Romney, "Attacking me is not an agenda.", Romney, "I see our influence receding, in part because of the failure of the president to deal with our economic challenges at home.'', Romney, ""I congratulate him on taking out Osama bin Laden and going after the leadership in al-Qaida. But we can't kill our way out of this mess."

Your thoughts?
October 23, 2012 1:35:38 PM

Also FYI Iran has a large coastline with access to the gulf. Does not share a land border with Syria.


More of the same from both. But Obama did hammer Romney more than we have seen, to his advantage. Im also not sure how in the first debate cons were singing Romneys praises when he was being rude, condescending, and running over the moderator. But when Obama is more dominant the table flips, interesting.

And why the hell would Romney agree with Obama so much? It seemed odd after like the 5th time he said "I agree with the president....."

Even Glenn Beck gave us this gem "I am glad to know that mitt agrees with Obama so much. No, really. Why vote? "
October 23, 2012 1:57:45 PM

Quote:
8) Winning lines included, Obama, "We have these things called aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines.", Obama, "We no longer use horses or bayonets", Obama, "The 1980's called and want their foreign policy back."


These lines didn't win over the undecided voter. Sure, those already who supported him were cheering and laughing. They were funny; not presidential though.

Though, I was reading we still do use horses and bayonets in the military. The arrogance I believe hurt Obama with the undecidedly decisive voter. :) 
Related resources
October 23, 2012 2:06:52 PM

wanamingo said:
Also FYI Iran has a large coastline with access to the gulf. Does not share a land border with Syria.


More of the same from both. But Obama did hammer Romney more than we have seen, to his advantage. Im also not sure how in the first debate cons were singing Romneys praises when he was being rude, condescending, and running over the moderator. But when Obama is more dominant the table flips, interesting.

And why the hell would Romney agree with Obama so much? It seemed odd after like the 5th time he said "I agree with the president....."

Even Glenn Beck gave us this gem "I am glad to know that mitt agrees with Obama so much. No, really. Why vote? "


Realistically they should agree on some things. No matter how different, this is one America and certain paths should be the same. They may agree on a subject but different on the path to get there. To do a full 180 on everything Obama would also be turning back things done well/right by other Presidents as well. Pick and choose the areas to concentrate on.

For example, getting out of Afghanistan is good. Setting an exact date, I agree with Romney is not a good idea.
October 23, 2012 2:26:00 PM

wanamingo said:
And why the hell would Romney agree with Obama so much? It seemed odd after like the 5th time he said "I agree with the president....."
Oldmangamer_73 said:
Romney pussy'd out. He could have hit several home runs but decided to be the "nice guy" and agree with Obama instead. Disappointing and a wasted opportunity for Romney.
riser said:
Realistically they should agree on some things. No matter how different, this is one America and certain paths should be the same. They may agree on a subject but different on the path to get there. To do a full 180 on everything Obama would also be turning back things done well/right by other Presidents as well. Pick and choose the areas to concentrate on.

For example, getting out of Afghanistan is good. Setting an exact date, I agree with Romney is not a good idea.
I agree with all of this. The joke is, is essence, both Obama and Romney effectively agreed to extensions of the Bush foreign policies. I took away Romney's repeating, "Attacking me is not an agenda." and telling Bob Schieffer that he would not entertain a hypothetical situation about Israel demonstrated that Romney's strategy, seemingly, was to take the high road and stay above the point-for-point arguing with Obama like in the 2nd debate. Romney needed to avoid coming off a war monger and/or eager to perpetuate the conflicts in the Middle East any longer than the electorate is able to tolerate. While Romney's performance was not as aggressive as some people would have liked he did prove that he is able to get his point across without snarky comments and without baiting his opponent.

The horse and bayonet line from Obama was bogus, truly. Several Marines have tweeted or posted that horses are very useful getting around in Afghanistan. Bayonets are an essential tool for hand to hand combat. When the enemy is closer than 7 yards, you better be prepared to engage them hand-to-hand, and combat knives/bayonets are part of boot camp basic training for that exact reason.
October 23, 2012 2:33:20 PM

The bayonet line was fine... in context. I dont remember him calling for the removal of bayonets. He literally said we have fewer horses and bayonets, which is true. Kind of sounding whiny gentlemen.....

Quote:
The historical records of the Navy show that in 1916, the Navy had 245 ships. This was also the year that President Woodrow Wilson signed into law the Naval Act of 1916, which put the United States on a crash course to build a world-class Navy.

But take a look at some of the types of ships on the list — steel gunboats, torpedo boats and monitors.

These types of boats aren’t on the list anymore. Instead, the current list of Navy ships includes behemoths such as aircraft carriers, “SSBN” (nuclear-powered, ballistic-missile carrying submarines) and “SSGN” (cruise-missile submarines).

In other words, this is an apples-and-oranges comparison.

The current level of ships, 285 in fiscal 2011, is actually not even the lowest since 1916. The historical list shows that the lowest ship force was reached during the Bush administration, when the number of ships fell to 278 in 2007. Given the change over time in the composition of the naval force, that probably is the most relevant comparison — and the trend line is up.
October 23, 2012 9:51:13 PM

My take was a slight win for Obama. He pretty much trounced Romney when it came to military spending and the middle east. As far as the military spending, Romney used ship numbers going centuries back when one aircraft carrier today would of destroyed all of them by itself. Can't expect to have the same number of ships compared to then when one ship today equals 100's back then. Also Romney said we should always be prepared to fight a war on two fronts like we have been since WWII, isn't that an old way of thinking when looking at the world today?

I did get annoyed by how much both of them strayed from the topic and repeated talking points from the last debates, even the moderator had to tell them to get back to foreign policy.

I also liked Romney mentioning intellectual property and counterfeiting in China. American companies are losing out on millions, probably billions of dollars due to this. The even more troubling aspect is it will also lead to a devaluation of the opinion on U.S. goods. American goods are seen as high quality around the world and this could be diminished in one of two ways. Either people think that American goods have gone downhill or they become less popular because you never know if your getting the real stuff or knock offs.

October 23, 2012 10:15:51 PM

wanamingo said:
The bayonet line was fine... in context. I dont remember him calling for the removal of bayonets. He literally said we have fewer horses and bayonets, which is true. Kind of sounding whiny gentlemen.....

Quote:
The historical records of the Navy show that in 1916, the Navy had 245 ships. This was also the year that President Woodrow Wilson signed into law the Naval Act of 1916, which put the United States on a crash course to build a world-class Navy.

But take a look at some of the types of ships on the list — steel gunboats, torpedo boats and monitors.

These types of boats aren’t on the list anymore. Instead, the current list of Navy ships includes behemoths such as aircraft carriers, “SSBN” (nuclear-powered, ballistic-missile carrying submarines) and “SSGN” (cruise-missile submarines).

In other words, this is an apples-and-oranges comparison.

The current level of ships, 285 in fiscal 2011, is actually not even the lowest since 1916. The historical list shows that the lowest ship force was reached during the Bush administration, when the number of ships fell to 278 in 2007. Given the change over time in the composition of the naval force, that probably is the most relevant comparison — and the trend line is up.

They have things today better than bayonets and horses, Id hope the boats are better as well, so no soup for you or Obama
October 24, 2012 10:34:55 AM

chunkymonster said:
Available on Youtube...

The 3rd Presidential Debate

To get the ball rolling I submit the following...
1) Neither Romney or Obama came out with an win, I call it a tie
2) Obama wore the same smirk and smug face that makes the Democrats cheer and the Republicans dislike him more
3) There were many issues that Romney could have hit Obama hard on but walked away (Bengahzi, Fast & Furious, etc)
4) Obama showed that he definitely has more foreign policy knowledge than Romney
5) Neither candidate offered any new issues and it was a re-hash of previously stated positions and policies
6) Romney seemingly change positions on the Afgahnistan 2014 pull out since the first debate
7) When it came to China, Romney was more on point and seemed to have a better understanding of China's world view than Obama
8) Winning lines included, Obama, "We have these things called aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines.", Obama, "We no longer use horses or bayonets", Obama, "The 1980's called and want their foreign policy back." Romney, "Attacking me is not an agenda.", Romney, "I see our influence receding, in part because of the failure of the president to deal with our economic challenges at home.'', Romney, ""I congratulate him on taking out Osama bin Laden and going after the leadership in al-Qaida. But we can't kill our way out of this mess."

Your thoughts?
My thoughts is that Obama trounced Romney in this debate and made him look plain stupid.From his talking about smaller Navy Romney mentioned to China saying that they make their currency lower for their own benefits.A lie Israel and other countries make their currency rate much lower than China.Romney cowering to Obama at the end of the debate agreeing with him about the Middle East . Romney has no inkling about foreign policies at all.
October 24, 2012 12:55:06 PM

chunkymonster said:
Obama, "We no longer use horses or bayonets"

Epic fail.

SpecOps uses horses. And since the mid '80's, DoD has ordered over 400,000 M9 bayonets to replace the older M7's.

October 24, 2012 1:17:20 PM

So do we have more bayonets now? I'm confused....

It seems to me that some people are really hitting this one out of context.

Im more worried about the guy who cant seem to figure out where countries are.... Especially ones he plans on possibly invading. Embarrassing.
October 24, 2012 1:38:59 PM

Well Obama with his community organizer "expertise" is certainly no military genius, and IMO Romney with his experience running large organizations is possibly more qualified than Obama with 4 years of vacations & golfing - er, I mean experience as commander-in-chief.

The thing about having more ships available instead of just a few large & powerful ones, is that you have more flexibility deploying them. Not that I'm suggesting getting rid of the carriers or subs of course, but instead supplementing them with more of the littoral combat and other specialized vessels. And our Navy has been on a roll these last couple of decades, testing advanced weapons systems, etc - what's gonna happen to that with the defense cuts Obama insists are fine with our joint chiefs?

My bet is that if you talk to the admirals (and generals) not so tightly controlled by the political appointees, you'll find they think it's a bad idea - we're going to be down to fighting one war at a time instead of 1.5 or 2, which would be OK if the enemies would just line up and wait their turn like in some bad kung fu movies :p . However they are probably a bit more opportunistic than that and would jump on any vacuum created by our military redeploying elsewhere. North Korea comes to mind should we get into a shooting war with Iran, which IMO is very possible if Israel attacks their nuke facilities.

BTW, MSNBC has no mention at all of the Benghazi emails showing the White House knew about the el Sharia terrorist group claiming responsibility for the attack 2 hours after it started.. Guess they don't want the American public to know the White House lied about it, to keep the idea of Al Queda being destroyed alive for political reasons..
October 24, 2012 2:10:40 PM

wanamingo said:
So do we have more bayonets now? I'm confused....

It seems to me that some people are really hitting this one out of context.
Look at the bayonet issue this way, if the total number of marines in 1990 was 196,965 Marines (enlisted and officers) and the total number of Marines in 2010 was 204,163 Marines (enlisted and officers) and if they issue one bayonet per Marine, then is stands to reason that there are more bayonets in service now than there were 20 years ago. This is not counting the number of bayonets on the civilian market and widely available at any weapons retailer; heck you can buy and M9 bayonet on eBay!

Regarding the context, Obama made a poor choice in using bayonets and horses as an example of how the Marines and Army have evolved and can take advantage of new technology and weapons to minimize the need for hand to hand combat; but even in context, Obama was incorrect.

Fact is, in 2001 the marines re-implemented their CQC program to be the MCMAP (Marine Corps Martial Arts Program) which includes unarmed combat, edged weapons, weapons of opportunity, and rifle and bayonet techniques to select the appropriate amount of defensive or offensive force needed to subdue or restrain a combatant. I think of it as the American equivalent of the Israeli Krav Maga.

October 24, 2012 3:24:05 PM

So in a debate about foreign policy we end up talking about a comment made about bayonets? Really? Considering Mitt pulled a Palin in regards to geography? All Obama was saying was that warfare has changed fundamentally and strength is not judged by the amount of ships you have.

As for the navy, every carrier has a battlegroup that consists of supporting vessels. Why would they need more? How would this somehow increase their effectiveness when 99.9% of the time they are used as a show of force? When we spend 10 times more than the next nation on defense spending how can this not be one of the first places we look to help balance the budget?
October 24, 2012 3:41:20 PM

Russia and China are both building up their navies. It would be smart to keep that in mind when discussing our navy.

Our ships are a major deterence since they are moving targets, hard to track, and capable of launching long range weapons from anywhere. That's why it is very important to keep a strong navy.
October 24, 2012 4:06:37 PM

johnsonma said:
When we spend 10 times more than the next nation on defense spending how can this not be one of the first places we look to help balance the budget?
Maintaining a Navy and the Marines are enumerated powers within the Constitution. If anything, the government has a responsibility to maintain these forces.

However, and where I agree with you is when it comes to cutting out the Army and Air Force. The founding fathers were vehemently against maintaining a standing and professional Army (hence the citizenry being the militia and one of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment) let alone maintaining a standing and professional Air Force. Can you say Military Keynesianism?!
October 24, 2012 6:09:29 PM

Remember, when Clinton balanced the budget, 95% of every dollar used to do so was from military cuts.
Pelosi and Feinstein screamed about doing this and getting it done, being a Dem desire, then screamed again when they were planning on shutting down bases in Cali.
Not in my backyard indeed.

Yes its possible to alter our ways and reduse certain aspects of our military, but to move slowly in these times is wise.
I find it unfortunate the lack of openess about Libya, weak and possibly decieving about whats officially been said and truly unfathomable as to why the president hasnt addressed this issue, instead of worrying about who pays what taxes, which shows a lack of openess and honesty, no plans going forwards and attacking Romney instead of working on an acceptable budget, telling us whats happening and understanding redistributing wealth wont fix anything, only adds to government and a great ally is ignored, claims again to attack Romney, where he hasnt had foreign monies coming in, where Obama has had much, our greatest enemies within their own minds, like him, and sadly this is either ignored or OK
October 24, 2012 6:48:03 PM

I remember the military cuts. A lot of people got out of the military and couldn't find jobs because they didn't get the college education, or have a skillset that was required in the citizen life. A lot of my friends were bought out.. then a couple years later we had to ramp up our military even more because the cuts hurt so much.

Ask yourself.. how many terrorist attacks did we suffer under Clinton? How many under Bush? How many under Obama?
October 24, 2012 6:58:58 PM

riser said:
I remember the military cuts. A lot of people got out of the military and couldn't find jobs because they didn't get the college education, or have a skillset that was required in the citizen life. A lot of my friends were bought out.. then a couple years later we had to ramp up our military even more because the cuts hurt so much.

Ask yourself.. how many terrorist attacks did we suffer under Clinton? How many under Bush? How many under Obama?


Bring back the GI bill, let soldiers get trained. But I also think its important not to rely on the Military Industrial Complex as an employer, because legitimately there arent always wars to fight. Eventually you will have to make those swords back into plows....
October 24, 2012 7:02:53 PM

riser said:
Russia and China are both building up their navies. It would be smart to keep that in mind when discussing our navy.

Our ships are a major deterence since they are moving targets, hard to track, and capable of launching long range weapons from anywhere. That's why it is very important to keep a strong navy.


Have you seen China's "super carrier"? It looks like a hot wheels toy. I am all for spending more then our "rivals", but cutting some spending will not make our navy impotent.

On a side note : http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/...
October 24, 2012 7:41:03 PM

wanamingo said:
Bring back the GI bill, let soldiers get trained. But I also think its important not to rely on the Military Industrial Complex as an employer, because legitimately there arent always wars to fight. Eventually you will have to make those swords back into plows....


Many skills aren't certified in t he military for civilian use. I have a friend who refueld jets and whatnot. He got out of the military and wanted to work at an airport. They told him he needed to take an 18 month certification course on how to do what he had been doing for years.

When at war, sure I understand.. but some of those skills need to translate into the civilian world as well.
October 25, 2012 3:28:45 AM

jsc said:
Epic fail.

SpecOps uses horses. And since the mid '80's, DoD has ordered over 400,000 M9 bayonets to replace the older M7's.
Where do get your information from some right wing newspaper online.
October 25, 2012 5:41:57 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_individual_weapons...
See first listing
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=spec%20ops%20hor...
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=spec%20ops%20hor...
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=spec%20ops%20hor...'s_Response_Monument&ei=hNGIUL7lMYnQygGRtYCIDg&usg=AFQjCNGd3kS_gQ2KX4rim5B5nt147T46Ow

also whiskey for them and beer for, well you get it

The sculpture America's Response Monument subtitled De Oppresso Liber, is a life-and-a-half scale bronze statue currently located in the West Street lobby of One World Financial Center opposite Ground Zero in New York City. Unofficially known as the Horse Soldier Statue, it is the first public monument[1] dedicated to the United States Special Forces and commemorates the servicemen and women of America’s Special Operations response to 9/11, including those who fought in the early days of Operation Enduring Freedom, which led to the initial defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan. It was conceived by a private citizen, sculpture Douwe Blumberg, and commissioned by an anonymous group of Wall Street bankers who lost friends in the 9/11 attacks. It was dedicated on November 11, 2011 in a ceremony led by Vice President Joe Biden and Lt. Gen. John Mulholland, commander of Special Operations Command.

From the very last link
October 25, 2012 1:20:02 PM

riser said:
Ask yourself.. how many terrorist attacks did we suffer under Clinton? How many under Bush? How many under Obama?
The number of publicized and documented cases of both domestic and foreign terrorist attacks under these Presidents;

Clinton - 6 in eight years
Bush - 17 in eight years
Obama - 10 in less than four years

These are the best numbers that can be found given the varied definitions of a terrorist attack and the level of bias found in reporting of terrorist attacks.

October 25, 2012 1:30:45 PM

jsc said:
And since the mid '80's, DoD has ordered over 400,000 M9 bayonets to replace the older M7's.
musical marv said:
Where do get your information from some right wing newspaper online.
Actually Marv, being DoD, the information is readily available through a google search. And, not to dispute what jsc wrote but to reinforce/add to it, from my quick search, I put the total DoD order at over 500,000 M9 bayonets since it was adopted in 1984.
October 25, 2012 1:34:01 PM

Im not really sure how you came to the conclusion that there was 1 terrorist attack under Bush....

I can think of several off the top of my head. 9/11 - Cole bombing - Karachi consulate attacked - Several diplomats killed in gaza....
October 25, 2012 2:13:12 PM

My bad you are correct. But there was definitely more than 9/11.... There were several diplomats killed under bush.

October 25, 2012 2:38:31 PM

wanamingo said:
My bad you are correct. But there was definitely more than 9/11.... There were several diplomats killed under bush.


Those are not THE FACTS! :D 
October 25, 2012 3:25:16 PM

chunkymonster said:
The number of publicized and documented cases of both domestic and foreign terrorist attacks under these Presidents;

Clinton - 6 in eight years
Bush - 17 in eight years
Obama - 10 in less than four years

wanamingo said:
I'm not really sure how you came to the conclusion that there was 1 terrorist attack under Bush....

I can think of several off the top of my head. 9/11 - Cole bombing - Karachi consulate attacked - Several diplomats killed in gaza....
The Cole Bombing took place October 2000, Clinton was still president.

Admittedly, my first set of number were after an all too quick search in order to post a response. After spending some moments trying to find a definitive answer, the level of partisan reporting in both conservative and liberal media makes it difficult to get an accurate count of attacks. There is a tremendous difference in the count given what is defined as a "terrorist attack". For example, if you count only Islamic terrorist attacks that took place against the West excluding foiled attacks, honor killings, and etc, then you get results found here, "Islamic terror attacks on the West". However, if you don't pay attention to dates, you end up with info like this, "Terrorist Attacks and Presidents"

So, with that said, I revise the above numbers, bolded in the quote above and in the original post are based on the the following link, which I have found to be the most reasonable and within context of Islamic terrorist attacks directly against America and/or within the United States, "Terrorist Attacks in the U.S. or Against Americans".

See mingo, if I'm wrong I'll admit it and post a correction...
October 25, 2012 3:28:00 PM

“Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end.”

-Spock-
October 25, 2012 3:47:49 PM

Clinton had 7 "major" attacks.
Bush had more because "terrorist" attacks were broadly used. We had 9/11, a couple embassy attacks... What else? I don't count foreign military establishments as terrorist attacks to be honest. Attacks against unarmed people would be a terrorist attack.

Ft. Hood in my opinion should be labeled a terrorist attack as it was conducted against unarmed people, both civilians and military.

Attacks against an Embassy, yes. Libya, yes.

Overall, I think Bush had less "major" due to the fact that he didn't give lip service like Clinton and Obama.
October 26, 2012 3:19:52 AM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
GI Bill is alive and well.

http://www.gibill.va.gov/
The GI Bill is still in play in the government.Many soldiers including myself took advantage of this bill during the Vietnam War was over.
October 26, 2012 3:21:45 AM

riser said:
Clinton had 7 "major" attacks.
Bush had more because "terrorist" attacks were broadly used. We had 9/11, a couple embassy attacks... What else? I don't count foreign military establishments as terrorist attacks to be honest. Attacks against unarmed people would be a terrorist attack.

Ft. Hood in my opinion should be labeled a terrorist attack as it was conducted against unarmed people, both civilians and military.

Attacks against an Embassy, yes. Libya, yes.

Overall, I think Bush had less "major" due to the fact that he didn't give lip service like Clinton and Obama.
Bush was a puppet to Cheney that was all he was in his presidency beside being a total moron .
October 26, 2012 12:31:37 PM

chunkymonster said:
Actually Marv, being DoD, the information is readily available through a google search. And, not to dispute what jsc wrote but to reinforce/add to it, from my quick search, I put the total DoD order at over 500,000 M9 bayonets since it was adopted in 1984.


From Foxnews fact-checkers right after the debate, I heard 520,000 bayonets currently distributed to the military.

Personally, given Obummer's reference to horses, I'd bet he meant 'sabers' or 'swords' in lieu of bayonets. Of course the military still uses ceremonial swords as well - my brother had my Dad's mounted on his study wall. But Obummer really mixed up his metaphors - AFAIK, the Navy never deployed horses at sea :p ..

Of course, what can you expect from a community organizer with 4 years extra-credit training on how to take expensive vacations, comedy shows and golfing expeditions all at the taxpayer's expense? I read somewhere that Obummer holds the presidential record for vacation time taken - maybe if he had paid attention to his job once in a while, he could have done several of those things he promised the American people he would do during his first and hopefully last term in office..
October 26, 2012 12:38:57 PM

I cant believe you guys are still on the bayonets thing....
October 26, 2012 1:10:25 PM

Fox actually used fact checkers for the bayonets.....LOL. Must not have anything else to do.
October 26, 2012 1:15:31 PM

fazers_on_stun said:

Of course, what can you expect from a community organizer with 4 years extra-credit training on how to take expensive vacations, comedy shows and golfing expeditions all at the taxpayer's expense? I read somewhere that Obummer holds the presidential record for vacation time taken - maybe if he had paid attention to his job once in a while, he could have done several of those things he promised the American people he would do during his first and hopefully last term in office..


Complete and utter lie.......

A direct comparison places Obama squarely on middle ground of presidential vacation days used. Of the past five presidents, during their first year in office, only two, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton took less time off than Obama. Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush and his son all spent much more time away from the White House than the current occupant. Obama’s retreat to Martha’s Vinyard in August 2011 sparked a particularly high number of criticisms, however at that point in his presidency he had only taken a total of 61 days off. Compared to that same time in office Ronald Reagan had spent 112 days on vacation and George W Bush had been away for a total of 180 days. Bill Clinton, at 28 days, had the least time off of recent presidents. Reagan held the total vacation day record of 436 until the younger Bush left office with a grand total of 977 days away from Washington, representing 1/3 of his presidency.
October 26, 2012 1:16:30 PM

God Dammit Johnson quit bringing logic to a crazy fight.
October 26, 2012 1:32:10 PM

wanamingo said:
God Dammit Johnson quit bringing logic to a crazy fight.


I'm a rebel.....
October 26, 2012 2:11:18 PM

The whole vacation thing is bogus. Presidents are president 24-7. You give up your life for your country. As an aside; it's reported that Obama actually doesn't like Camp David much.
October 26, 2012 3:20:09 PM

Yea, even when talking to school children youre pres, and expected to act so, like not alarming anyone.
No mention of the video?
How strange, since that and that alone was the widest and most used by this admin since shovel ready
October 27, 2012 3:08:52 AM

wanamingo said:
I cant believe you guys are still on the bayonets thing....
I guess nothing else to discuss.
October 27, 2012 3:12:11 AM

ctbaars said:
The whole vacation thing is bogus. Presidents are president 24-7. You give up your life for your country. As an aside; it's reported that Obama actually doesn't like Camp David much.
How do you this have you been with Obama lately? Romney 24-7 that is a joke with his foreign policies.GOD FORBID he elects Bolton we are all on trouble as Secretary of State.
October 27, 2012 3:34:19 AM

I think John Bolton is one cool dude. His honesty and forthrightness is refreshing.
October 28, 2012 12:52:39 AM

ctbaars said:
I think John Bolton is one cool dude. His honesty and forthrightness is refreshing.
I guess you like war hawks if you like Bolton.he is perfect for another hawk Romney.
October 29, 2012 7:12:43 PM

We can simply solve the debate on how Obama has done.

Are you better off today than 4 years ago?

I am not.
October 29, 2012 7:54:44 PM

Recent articles have stated that the average middle class income has been reduced by 40%, the lowest since 1995, and blame Obama's fiscal policies for the reduction and poor economic growth.

With this in mind, I would encourage everyone to visit the Social Security Administration's website (www.ssa.gov) and create an account to view their income history.

My income has been reduced by over $4000 since 2009. I made $300 less in 2011 than what I made in 2008.

riser said:
We can simply solve the debate on how Obama has done.

Are you better off today than 4 years ago?

I am not.
I definitely am not!

I simply can not afford four more years of Obama.


October 30, 2012 1:40:27 AM

riser said:
We can simply solve the debate on how Obama has done.

Are you better off today than 4 years ago?

I am not.
You are a citizen of Australia not the states. Romney will lead this country into a disaster if this turd is elected by the people.Gimme a break what you are stating here.
October 30, 2012 12:09:05 PM

musical marv said:
You are a citizen of Australia not the states. Obama Romney will lead this country into being the next Greece a disaster if this anti-colonialist-social-democrat turd is elected again by the libtards and progressives people. Gimme a break what you are stating here.
There you go Marv, I corrected your statement for you...
!