The one who just keep spouting his depensive talking points over 2 or 4 years just simply got more agressive with no new ideal, solutions, & rebuttal. Still the incumbent hasn't passed a budget ((D) controling the house & senate on 09-11) since entering office, and still spending & borowing at twice the rate of his predecessor. Devaluing the dollar (pay cut) further as the feds prints (Quantitive Easing) & buy back what they can't sell to international countries is nothing more than money laundering. More borrowing & spending wont cut the deficit, just as it didn't cut the 9 trillion deficit to 4.5 trillion deficit & ended up with 17 trillion deficit instead. Australia's dollar use to be worth half that of the U.S. now ist worth more & probably 5 - 10 times more if the incumbent gets re-elected.



The incumbent tauts 4.5 Million jobs created but fails to mention 4.3 Million jobs lost 4.5 million added minus 4.3 million lost is only 200k NOT 4.5 million. There's been no surge in the past month for new start up, chains, mom & pops business, & expansion in existing industries, textile, manufacturing, retail, struggling USPO, refineries, educations, transportation, even finance & many other struggling along with a number of bankrupt cities such as stockton, prichard, & san bernandino.

The incumbent's ideas in job creation amounts to loan guarantees, waivers, tax exemptions, tax credits, & loop holes, Solyndra, Abound Solar, Solar Power, GE paid 0 taxes who outsourced more than half of its labor force to China & India, Fiscar of Finland, GM who got bailed out 3 times in the course of 6 months till undergoing structured bankruptcy with bonuses to change its costly habits, got 45.5 Billion tax credits, closed down hundreds of dealerships, boost productions in foreign (china/russia) GM plants (outsourcing ring a bell?) to be imported by the U.S. You can bet they won't get a tax increase if the incumbent gets re-elected.



The only thing the incumbent understand about economics is when you borrow money, the more money you can spend & since government can print money legally why not keep printing to fund his runaway spending. Its like a friend borrowing money from everyone close to them by faking cancer to go on a world tour or a lavish wedding. Its not about making money through trade, materials, goods, manufacturing, entertainment, or service, but making money by exhausting every ones money.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...

The terror act the incumbent claims he addressed wasn't aimed at the terrorist whose ideology are bent on destroying the west giving the notion it could be anyone when there have been prior attacks by Islamist. A coptic christian fed up with the injustices perpetrated by islamist in the middle east are the perfect scapegoat with this administration to adhere to UN resolution 1618 as the incumbent displayed in his U.N. speech even appearing in 5 talk shows for weeks tauting on the video as responsible for the attack & deaths of 4 Americans on the night of 9/11, 'NOT' the policy & security measure the incumbent has implemented in the mid east, & specially middle eastern Islamist terrorist group.

A subordinate following policies put in place has balls to take responsibility before the one in charge promoting & putting in place policies that even lara logan disagrees with in tackling islamist ideologue extremist-ism, tells me that the wrong person is occupying the office who's chair has been vacant the last 4 years for leisure, fame, & glory sake whether it be in house concert, party, dinner, celebrity presence, talk show atmosphere, etc. as eye candy for the public away from security briefings & other strenuous administrative duties.

State secretary taking the bullet for the security failures of benghazi does not excuse the administration's attempt or scheme to redirect focus or jin up protest over a video through amb. to U.N rice who takes orders from the executive house in an attempt to water down danger & return of Al Queda in the spotlight in an attempt to be sensitive to islamist under UN resolution 1618 that essentially over rides the 1st amendment.

http://virginiavirtucon.wordpress.com/20...

http://news.yahoo.com/candy-crowley-self...

http://www.policymic.com/articles/16154/...

http://www.examiner.com/article/benghazi...

Romney won it because of the substance of his answers. Obama looked a lot better than he did in the first debate, but that was not because for the quality of his answers, it was because he attacked Romney on every question. After a while, he began to look like a sore loser, attacking everything Romney said seemed more important to him than stating his own position on the issues.

Romney. Obama was better than last time, but Romney had answered each question clearly and honestly. Obama was on the defensive the whole time, while Romey made clear and descisive points.

Romney

Romney was good, but Obama really improved his game from the last debate and the fact checkers sided with his claims more.

Obama wins.

Obama

Sorry Republicans but Obama was better than Romney.

Most say, Obama won.