Scratch

jvvg wrote:

MoreGamesNow wrote:

jvvg wrote:

He totally answered the question!!!
He said that the low gas prices were a result of the really bad economy under Bush. He then also said that he doesn't want that same economy, which sounds like answering the question to me...

The question was:

Your energy secretary, Steven Chu, has now been on record three times stating it's not policy of his department to help lower gas prices. Do you agree with Secretary Chu that this is not the job of the Energy Department?

Discussing energy in general doesn't mean that he answered the question.  He did not state whether it was the energy department's job to lower gas prices.

To be quite honest, I used to be guilty of the same thing (e.g. addressing questions either very vaguely or simply discussing parallel topics), but I've gotten better, especially over the last two years.  Probably the single most important piece of advice to most writers is "address the prompt".  Obama (and Romney) did not address many questions posed to them, but instead responded with a slew of positives and negatives on the general topic the question touched on.  This is, in my opinion, part of the reason the debate(s) sound(ed) so repetitive.

He was asked about whether it was the energy department's policy to lower gas prices, and he said it's not, because what lowers gas prices is a bad economy.

...And a bad economy like this won't get any better with Obama in office for another 4 years...

CN12 wrote:

jvvg wrote:

MoreGamesNow wrote:

jvvg wrote:

He totally answered the question!!!
He said that the low gas prices were a result of the really bad economy under Bush. He then also said that he doesn't want that same economy, which sounds like answering the question to me...

The question was:


Discussing energy in general doesn't mean that he answered the question.  He did not state whether it was the energy department's job to lower gas prices.

To be quite honest, I used to be guilty of the same thing (e.g. addressing questions either very vaguely or simply discussing parallel topics), but I've gotten better, especially over the last two years.  Probably the single most important piece of advice to most writers is "address the prompt".  Obama (and Romney) did not address many questions posed to them, but instead responded with a slew of positives and negatives on the general topic the question touched on.  This is, in my opinion, part of the reason the debate(s) sound(ed) so repetitive.

He was asked about whether it was the energy department's policy to lower gas prices, and he said it's not, because what lowers gas prices is a bad economy.

...And a bad economy like this won't get any better with Obama in office for another 4 years...

Except for the lowering unemployment?

thebriculator wrote:

unemployment has increased since Obama took office
News Site

I know!

zubblewu wrote:

CN12 wrote:

jvvg wrote:

He was asked about whether it was the energy department's policy to lower gas prices, and he said it's not, because what lowers gas prices is a bad economy.

...And a bad economy like this won't get any better with Obama in office for another 4 years...

Really? It's already improved drastically from the downward spiral it was in when he was put in office, and he would do a lot more if the republicans in congress didn't oppose him nearly every step of the way  . I wanna ask you, are you in the top 1%? If you are, you have no morals, if you aren't, then I don't even know what to say...

I don't know if I'm in the top 1%. Probably not.

stevetheipad wrote:

CN12 wrote:

zubblewu wrote:

Really? It's already improved drastically from the downward spiral it was in when he was put in office, and he would do a lot more if the republicans in congress didn't oppose him nearly every step of the way  . I wanna ask you, are you in the top 1%? If you are, you have no morals, if you aren't, then I don't even know what to say...

I don't know if I'm in the top 1%. Probably not.

I think you'd know if you were in the top 1%. 

You mean like really rich?

CN12 wrote:

jvvg wrote:

MoreGamesNow wrote:

jvvg wrote:

He totally answered the question!!!
He said that the low gas prices were a result of the really bad economy under Bush. He then also said that he doesn't want that same economy, which sounds like answering the question to me...

The question was:


Discussing energy in general doesn't mean that he answered the question.  He did not state whether it was the energy department's job to lower gas prices.

To be quite honest, I used to be guilty of the same thing (e.g. addressing questions either very vaguely or simply discussing parallel topics), but I've gotten better, especially over the last two years.  Probably the single most important piece of advice to most writers is "address the prompt".  Obama (and Romney) did not address many questions posed to them, but instead responded with a slew of positives and negatives on the general topic the question touched on.  This is, in my opinion, part of the reason the debate(s) sound(ed) so repetitive.

He was asked about whether it was the energy department's policy to lower gas prices, and he said it's not, because what lowers gas prices is a bad economy.

...And a bad economy like this won't get any better with Obama in office for another 4 years...

Well, Romney's tax plan that will either explode the debt or slam the middle class will kill the economy even more.

Why I'm against Romney, reason one:

NBC politics wrote:

Obama talked about being attacked after his overseas trip in 2008 for being "a celebrity because I was so popular with our allies overseas. And I have to say I'm impressed with how Governor Romney has avoided that problem."

[source]

CN12, how exactly is mitt better than barack?

Last edited by Laternenpfahl (2012-10-19 12:15:03)

jvvg wrote:

Firedrake969 wrote:

Why I'm against Romney, reason one:

NBC politics wrote:

Obama talked about being attacked after his overseas trip in 2008 for being "a celebrity because I was so popular with our allies overseas. And I have to say I'm impressed with how Governor Romney has avoided that problem."

[source]

Nice. 

My face when I read it: 

"I was actually hoping the president would bring Joe Biden along this evening, because he'll laugh at anything."
I don't even care who said this (it was Romney), that's a huge burn.

jvvg wrote:

Firedrake969 wrote:

jvvg wrote:

Nice. 

My face when I read it: 

Mine when I read it: 
I don't smile much.

MoreGamesNow wrote:

zubblewu wrote:

Really? It's already improved drastically from the downward spiral it was in when he was put in office, and he would do a lot more if the republicans in congress didn't oppose him nearly every step of the way  . I wanna ask you, are you in the top 1%? If you are, you have no morals, if you aren't, then I don't even know what to say...

Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have no morals?  What evidence do you have?  Keep personal attacks to a minimum please.

I'll revise that statement. Those in the top 1% who are greedy with their money and don't think it should be given to people who need it more have no morals.

Warren Buffet actually said he needs to be taxed more. To prove a point, his secretary pays a higher tax rate than him.

zubblewu wrote:

MoreGamesNow wrote:

zubblewu wrote:

Really? It's already improved drastically from the downward spiral it was in when he was put in office, and he would do a lot more if the republicans in congress didn't oppose him nearly every step of the way  . I wanna ask you, are you in the top 1%? If you are, you have no morals, if you aren't, then I don't even know what to say...

Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have no morals?  What evidence do you have?  Keep personal attacks to a minimum please.

That's not what I said is it? I didn't specifically say everyone in the top 1% has no morals, just that the only people who would benefit from Romney is the top 1% at the expense of everyone else. Most people in the top one percent want to vote for money because they're greedy (again, not saying everyone in the top 15 is greedy.)

Most people who are in the top 1% aren't greedy, in fact, most of them are quite generous and donate some of their riches to charity.