On October 09 2012 04:50 ticklishmusic wrote: Here is a video of Romney debating himself. His flip flopping is actually that bad.
And here is an article about Obama spending $1.4 billion of taxpayer money on his own family last year..including using money on jets to fly around campaigning for his re-election. Yes, that's right, our money is being used to subsidize his re-election campaign.
Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion dollars on everything from staffing, housing, flying and entertaining President Obama and his family last year, according to the author of a new book on taxpayer-funded presidential perks.
In comparison, British taxpayers spent just $57.8 million on the royal family.
Author Robert Keith Gray writes in “Presidential Perks Gone Royal” that Obama isn’t the only president to have taken advantage of the expensive trappings of his office. But the amount of money spent on the first family, he argues, has risen tremendously under the Obama administration and needs to be reined in.
Gray told The Daily Caller that the $1.4 billion spent on the Obama family last year is the “total cost of the presidency,” factoring the cost of the “biggest staff in history at the highest wages ever,” a 50 percent increase in the numbers of appointed czars and an Air Force One “running with the frequency of a scheduled air line.”
“The most concerning thing, I think, is the use of taxpayer funds to actually abet his re-election,” Gray, who worked in the Eisenhower administration and for other Republican presidents, said in an interview with TheDC on Wednesday.
“The press has been so slow in picking up on this extraordinary increase in the president’s expenses,” Gray told TheDC. (RELATED: Five shocking truths about Michelle Obama)
Specifically, Gray said taxpayer dollars are subsidizing Obama’s re-election effort when he uses Air Force One to jet across the country campaigning.
When the trip is deemed political, it’s customary for the president to pay the equivalent of a first class commercial ticket for certain passengers. But Gray says that hardly covers the taxpayer cost of flying the president and his staffers around on Air Force One.
“When the United States’ billion-dollar air armada is being used politically, is it fair to taxpayers that we only be reimbursed by the president’s campaign committee for the value of one first-class commercial ticket for each passenger who is deemed aboard ‘for political purposes?’” Gray asks in the book.
“And is that bargain-price advantage fair to those opposing an incumbent president?” (SEE ALSO: Millions of taxpayer dollars used for Disney World conference)
In the book, Gray admits Americans want their president to be safe and comfortable but argues the system should be reformed to stop the amount of unquestioned perks given to the president.
“There is no mechanism for anyone’s objection if a president were to pay his chief of staff $5,000,000 a year,” he told TheDC. “And nothing but a president’s conscience can dissuade him from buying his own reelection with use of some public money.”
Aside from a salary, the president gets a $50,000 a year expense account, a $100,000 travel account, $19,000 entertainment budget and an additional million for “unanticipated needs,” he notes.
Can someone please link this gentleman the page in this thread where Obama's supposed excesses were debunked?
I actually looked for something to debunk this and couldn't find anything. Figured this would stir some people up unless someone already had a rebuttal.
On October 09 2012 04:00 oneofthem wrote: whether the outcome of a revolution will 'turn out well for us' is not the overriding consideration. these countries are not jailkeepers for america.
Whether the outcome of a revolution turns out well for us reflects on whether our foreign policy was successful, because part of the goal of foreign policy is tangible benefits for us.
i thought the point of our foreign policy was to spread democracy? not all democracy is going to like is (egypt) but if country that were under dictators now get to deiced with free elections who leads them i think the US is doing fine
On October 09 2012 05:08 kmillz wrote: And here is an article about Obama spending $1.4 billion of taxpayer money on his own family last year..including using money on jets to fly around campaigning for his re-election. Yes, that's right, our money is being used to subsidize his re-election campaign.
Shockingly, it costs money to protect extremely high profile targets as they go around the world. Also shockingly, Air Force One and Two are the most effective ways of getting from point A to B quickly and securely, which is expensive by itself, but also requires an escort.
As pointed out already, this pales in comparison to the costs of even just the last president. Additionally, actual campaigning is paid for by a SEPARATE fund. It's transportation and security that we pay for and it should be obvious why.
Stop regurgitating the shit Fox News would have you believe. They're known as the most inaccurate and blatant liars of any "news" organization for a reason.
I know the polls are close, but I really don't see how Obama wins when Romney has a 16-point advantage among independents and a 13-point advantage in voter enthusiasm. These numbers aren't new, either. Romney has held a huge lead in these categories for months.
On October 08 2012 21:20 BlueBird. wrote: This is getting a little off topic, since the debate isn't really about Romney and Obama, but more Stewart and O'Reilly, and I really felt like Stewart destroyed him, and I was very surprised to see Stewart did not know the difference between debt vs deficit but I guess I didn't know until this election cycle, so can't blame him personally, but I understand that that was weird for someone who's supposed to be on top of this stuff.
Why does Stewart support a year of mandatory service? I don't personally follow his line of thought here, and I'm more to the left of Stewart even. I just feel like being part of the services are not for everyone and no one should be forced, I respect those that do it I have relatives that do it, but I could never do it, and i don't really support most of our military action in the last 10 years. Should only use violence when absolutely no other option is available, and I really feel like that's not how the U.S. currently handles foreign policy, I've heard people say we should nuke Iran. U.S. citizens I've spoken too have said they feel the world would be a better place if we blow up the Middle East. I just don't get it, I know it's a small portion of the population, but seriously.. even respected posters in this thread have said we need fear not respect in order too keep world order/peace, I just don't buy it. I've heard the argument that volunteer based military can be skewed towards the poor because the wealthy have less incentives to join, and this argument makes sense, but i'm for a drastic reduction in the size of our military and world presence. Anyways if someone can shed the light on this, would be great just curious don't know the reasons.
I think Stewart's use of mandatory service includes things like the coast guard, FEMA, plain old service, etc. It's not mandatory offshore service and it wouldn't require people to formally join the armed services, since there are plenty of places and agencies that can use volunteers here in the U.S. The idea is to more actively engage the citizenry in their civic duty, not more actively engage them in the military.
Exactly this.
I guess I just misunderstood, this seems much more reasonable but I don't know if I have an opinion on it yet would need to think more about it. Really doubt anything like this is possible in the current United States though.
I've heard that Korean military service isn't that bad either. I've heard it isn't too bad either, unless you want to go hardcore on that.
it's actually the most hated thing of anyone in their early 20's ^_^
You even get to go home on weekends!
haha, no
The idea that anyone has the right to strip you of your liberty and force you to fight for their ideals seems bizarre to me. I can imagine it in a system like America in which the young are indoctrinated to believe that their lives are subservient to the concept of the United States with pledges etc but as a product of a constitutional monarchy who are kept largely as a curiousity it's just baffling. One advantage of having such an obsolete form of constitutional authority is that whenever they get out of line and start demanding the unreasonable the entire system breaks down.
And here is an article about Obama spending $1.4 billion of taxpayer money on his own family last year..including using money on jets to fly around campaigning for his re-election. Yes, that's right, our money is being used to subsidize his re-election campaign.
Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion dollars on everything from staffing, housing, flying and entertaining President Obama and his family last year, according to the author of a new book on taxpayer-funded presidential perks.
In comparison, British taxpayers spent just $57.8 million on the royal family.
Author Robert Keith Gray writes in “Presidential Perks Gone Royal” that Obama isn’t the only president to have taken advantage of the expensive trappings of his office. But the amount of money spent on the first family, he argues, has risen tremendously under the Obama administration and needs to be reined in.
Gray told The Daily Caller that the $1.4 billion spent on the Obama family last year is the “total cost of the presidency,” factoring the cost of the “biggest staff in history at the highest wages ever,” a 50 percent increase in the numbers of appointed czars and an Air Force One “running with the frequency of a scheduled air line.”
“The most concerning thing, I think, is the use of taxpayer funds to actually abet his re-election,” Gray, who worked in the Eisenhower administration and for other Republican presidents, said in an interview with TheDC on Wednesday.
“The press has been so slow in picking up on this extraordinary increase in the president’s expenses,” Gray told TheDC. (RELATED: Five shocking truths about Michelle Obama)
Specifically, Gray said taxpayer dollars are subsidizing Obama’s re-election effort when he uses Air Force One to jet across the country campaigning.
When the trip is deemed political, it’s customary for the president to pay the equivalent of a first class commercial ticket for certain passengers. But Gray says that hardly covers the taxpayer cost of flying the president and his staffers around on Air Force One.
“When the United States’ billion-dollar air armada is being used politically, is it fair to taxpayers that we only be reimbursed by the president’s campaign committee for the value of one first-class commercial ticket for each passenger who is deemed aboard ‘for political purposes?’” Gray asks in the book.
“And is that bargain-price advantage fair to those opposing an incumbent president?” (SEE ALSO: Millions of taxpayer dollars used for Disney World conference)
In the book, Gray admits Americans want their president to be safe and comfortable but argues the system should be reformed to stop the amount of unquestioned perks given to the president.
“There is no mechanism for anyone’s objection if a president were to pay his chief of staff $5,000,000 a year,” he told TheDC. “And nothing but a president’s conscience can dissuade him from buying his own reelection with use of some public money.”
Aside from a salary, the president gets a $50,000 a year expense account, a $100,000 travel account, $19,000 entertainment budget and an additional million for “unanticipated needs,” he notes.
Can someone please link this gentleman the page in this thread where Obama's supposed excesses were debunked?
I actually looked for something to debunk this and couldn't find anything. Figured this would stir some people up unless someone already had a rebuttal.
Comparison with the royal family is pretty dumb, they handle most of their own expenses from their family money and estates income. It's only official business like travel and security that they get reimbursed for.
On October 09 2012 05:08 kmillz wrote: And here is an article about Obama spending $1.4 billion of taxpayer money on his own family last year..including using money on jets to fly around campaigning for his re-election. Yes, that's right, our money is being used to subsidize his re-election campaign.
Shockingly, it costs money to protect extremely high profile targets as they go around the world. Also shockingly, Air Force One and Two are the most effective ways of getting from point A to B quickly and securely, which is expensive by itself, but also requires an escort.
As pointed out already, this pales in comparison to the costs of even just the last president. Additionally, actual campaigning is paid for by a SEPARATE fund. It's transportation and security that we pay for and it should be obvious why.
Stop regurgitating the shit Fox News would have you believe. They're known as the most inaccurate and blatant liars of any "news" organization for a reason.
Plus, Obama is the first black president. He deserves more money to spend for reparations IMO
On October 09 2012 05:30 xDaunt wrote: I know the polls are close, but I really don't see how Obama wins when Romney has a 16-point advantage among independents and a 13-point advantage in voter enthusiasm. These numbers aren't new, either. Romney has held a huge lead in these categories for months.
On October 09 2012 05:30 xDaunt wrote: I know the polls are close, but I really don't see how Obama wins when Romney has a 16-point advantage among independents and a 13-point advantage in voter enthusiasm. These numbers aren't new, either. Romney has held a huge lead in these categories for months.
EDIT: Hell, I'm not sure what I have to gain. I'm still waiting for all of the liberal jokers to apologize to me for mocking my debate scoring. I'm guessing that I'm not going to get any satisfaction in this thread when Romney wins as I have been predicting for months (and I have been predicting that the republican would win for over a year now).
On October 09 2012 05:30 xDaunt wrote: I know the polls are close, but I really don't see how Obama wins when Romney has a 16-point advantage among independents and a 13-point advantage in voter enthusiasm. These numbers aren't new, either. Romney has held a huge lead in these categories for months.
If Obama loses I'll put anything you want me to on my sig. If Romney loses you'll put whatever I want on your sig. For four years or until we have another bet. :>
On October 09 2012 05:30 xDaunt wrote: I know the polls are close, but I really don't see how Obama wins when Romney has a 16-point advantage among independents and a 13-point advantage in voter enthusiasm. These numbers aren't new, either. Romney has held a huge lead in these categories for months.
Obama needs to dominate every minority vote, including white women. He needs too really great performances in the last two debates, but that might not be enough because people don't give shit about the last two debates. He needs the press to litigate Romney ... and the only way for that to happen is if Romney makes a colossal misstep.
The idea that anyone has the right to strip you of your liberty and force you to fight for their ideals seems bizarre to me. I can imagine it in a system like America in which the young are indoctrinated to believe that their lives are subservient to the concept of the United States with pledges
It's always funny when foreigners say stuff like this about the United States, just confirms that they're just as ignorant of Americans as Americans are of them. Especially in the context of the discussion you made this reply to.
On October 09 2012 05:30 xDaunt wrote: I know the polls are close, but I really don't see how Obama wins when Romney has a 16-point advantage among independents and a 13-point advantage in voter enthusiasm. These numbers aren't new, either. Romney has held a huge lead in these categories for months.
right now, obama only has to win, at a maximum, 3 swing states. He is leading in the polls in 5 of the swing states according to RCP. I still say obama wins this, just by not as much as i would of liked
On October 08 2012 21:20 BlueBird. wrote: This is getting a little off topic, since the debate isn't really about Romney and Obama, but more Stewart and O'Reilly, and I really felt like Stewart destroyed him, and I was very surprised to see Stewart did not know the difference between debt vs deficit but I guess I didn't know until this election cycle, so can't blame him personally, but I understand that that was weird for someone who's supposed to be on top of this stuff.
Why does Stewart support a year of mandatory service? I don't personally follow his line of thought here, and I'm more to the left of Stewart even. I just feel like being part of the services are not for everyone and no one should be forced, I respect those that do it I have relatives that do it, but I could never do it, and i don't really support most of our military action in the last 10 years. Should only use violence when absolutely no other option is available, and I really feel like that's not how the U.S. currently handles foreign policy, I've heard people say we should nuke Iran. U.S. citizens I've spoken too have said they feel the world would be a better place if we blow up the Middle East. I just don't get it, I know it's a small portion of the population, but seriously.. even respected posters in this thread have said we need fear not respect in order too keep world order/peace, I just don't buy it. I've heard the argument that volunteer based military can be skewed towards the poor because the wealthy have less incentives to join, and this argument makes sense, but i'm for a drastic reduction in the size of our military and world presence. Anyways if someone can shed the light on this, would be great just curious don't know the reasons.
Stewart doesn't actually care about mandatory service -- the question was structure in a way that proposed it as an option. Stewart has historically always supported any mechanism that, in principle, made the connection and consequences between mainstream society and our military actions stronger, and more tangible.
Most of America lives in a fucking bubble that want's to be the most powerful military force in the world without paying for it endangering their own lives or the ones they love. Mainstream society sees the military as some kind of self sufficient, cottage industry, separate from the day to day lives of Americans, when in actuality it is a massive expenditure that tax payers pay for.
All Stewart is actually arguing for is a society where America's actually understand and care about what the military actually does. If the government actually raised taxes to pay for wars, LIKE THEY SHOULD, then people would probably wake the hell up.
On October 09 2012 05:30 xDaunt wrote: I know the polls are close, but I really don't see how Obama wins when Romney has a 16-point advantage among independents and a 13-point advantage in voter enthusiasm. These numbers aren't new, either. Romney has held a huge lead in these categories for months.
I assume from your posting you're voting Republican. Is this because you don't like Obama's policies? You like Romney's policies? Or a combination of the two?
I guess I'm just wondering if it's an "anyone but Obama" type of mentality because I honestly cannot fathom Romney's position being good for anybody but the rich at the moment. I don't say that to be rude, but it seems he's been worse than Obama when it comes to no details and flip-flopping.
And here is an article about Obama spending $1.4 billion of taxpayer money on his own family last year..including using money on jets to fly around campaigning for his re-election. Yes, that's right, our money is being used to subsidize his re-election campaign.
Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion dollars on everything from staffing, housing, flying and entertaining President Obama and his family last year, according to the author of a new book on taxpayer-funded presidential perks.
In comparison, British taxpayers spent just $57.8 million on the royal family.
Author Robert Keith Gray writes in “Presidential Perks Gone Royal” that Obama isn’t the only president to have taken advantage of the expensive trappings of his office. But the amount of money spent on the first family, he argues, has risen tremendously under the Obama administration and needs to be reined in.
Gray told The Daily Caller that the $1.4 billion spent on the Obama family last year is the “total cost of the presidency,” factoring the cost of the “biggest staff in history at the highest wages ever,” a 50 percent increase in the numbers of appointed czars and an Air Force One “running with the frequency of a scheduled air line.”
“The most concerning thing, I think, is the use of taxpayer funds to actually abet his re-election,” Gray, who worked in the Eisenhower administration and for other Republican presidents, said in an interview with TheDC on Wednesday.
“The press has been so slow in picking up on this extraordinary increase in the president’s expenses,” Gray told TheDC. (RELATED: Five shocking truths about Michelle Obama)
Specifically, Gray said taxpayer dollars are subsidizing Obama’s re-election effort when he uses Air Force One to jet across the country campaigning.
When the trip is deemed political, it’s customary for the president to pay the equivalent of a first class commercial ticket for certain passengers. But Gray says that hardly covers the taxpayer cost of flying the president and his staffers around on Air Force One.
“When the United States’ billion-dollar air armada is being used politically, is it fair to taxpayers that we only be reimbursed by the president’s campaign committee for the value of one first-class commercial ticket for each passenger who is deemed aboard ‘for political purposes?’” Gray asks in the book.
“And is that bargain-price advantage fair to those opposing an incumbent president?” (SEE ALSO: Millions of taxpayer dollars used for Disney World conference)
In the book, Gray admits Americans want their president to be safe and comfortable but argues the system should be reformed to stop the amount of unquestioned perks given to the president.
“There is no mechanism for anyone’s objection if a president were to pay his chief of staff $5,000,000 a year,” he told TheDC. “And nothing but a president’s conscience can dissuade him from buying his own reelection with use of some public money.”
Aside from a salary, the president gets a $50,000 a year expense account, a $100,000 travel account, $19,000 entertainment budget and an additional million for “unanticipated needs,” he notes.
Can someone please link this gentleman the page in this thread where Obama's supposed excesses were debunked?
I actually looked for something to debunk this and couldn't find anything. Figured this would stir some people up unless someone already had a rebuttal.
Comparison with the royal family is pretty dumb, they handle most of their own expenses from their family money and estates income. It's only official business like travel and security that they get reimbursed for.
And is it just me, or does the Royal Family not actually do anything important?
And here is an article about Obama spending $1.4 billion of taxpayer money on his own family last year..including using money on jets to fly around campaigning for his re-election. Yes, that's right, our money is being used to subsidize his re-election campaign.
Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion dollars on everything from staffing, housing, flying and entertaining President Obama and his family last year, according to the author of a new book on taxpayer-funded presidential perks.
In comparison, British taxpayers spent just $57.8 million on the royal family.
Author Robert Keith Gray writes in “Presidential Perks Gone Royal” that Obama isn’t the only president to have taken advantage of the expensive trappings of his office. But the amount of money spent on the first family, he argues, has risen tremendously under the Obama administration and needs to be reined in.
Gray told The Daily Caller that the $1.4 billion spent on the Obama family last year is the “total cost of the presidency,” factoring the cost of the “biggest staff in history at the highest wages ever,” a 50 percent increase in the numbers of appointed czars and an Air Force One “running with the frequency of a scheduled air line.”
“The most concerning thing, I think, is the use of taxpayer funds to actually abet his re-election,” Gray, who worked in the Eisenhower administration and for other Republican presidents, said in an interview with TheDC on Wednesday.
“The press has been so slow in picking up on this extraordinary increase in the president’s expenses,” Gray told TheDC. (RELATED: Five shocking truths about Michelle Obama)
Specifically, Gray said taxpayer dollars are subsidizing Obama’s re-election effort when he uses Air Force One to jet across the country campaigning.
When the trip is deemed political, it’s customary for the president to pay the equivalent of a first class commercial ticket for certain passengers. But Gray says that hardly covers the taxpayer cost of flying the president and his staffers around on Air Force One.
“When the United States’ billion-dollar air armada is being used politically, is it fair to taxpayers that we only be reimbursed by the president’s campaign committee for the value of one first-class commercial ticket for each passenger who is deemed aboard ‘for political purposes?’” Gray asks in the book.
“And is that bargain-price advantage fair to those opposing an incumbent president?” (SEE ALSO: Millions of taxpayer dollars used for Disney World conference)
In the book, Gray admits Americans want their president to be safe and comfortable but argues the system should be reformed to stop the amount of unquestioned perks given to the president.
“There is no mechanism for anyone’s objection if a president were to pay his chief of staff $5,000,000 a year,” he told TheDC. “And nothing but a president’s conscience can dissuade him from buying his own reelection with use of some public money.”
Aside from a salary, the president gets a $50,000 a year expense account, a $100,000 travel account, $19,000 entertainment budget and an additional million for “unanticipated needs,” he notes.
Can someone please link this gentleman the page in this thread where Obama's supposed excesses were debunked?
I actually looked for something to debunk this and couldn't find anything. Figured this would stir some people up unless someone already had a rebuttal.
Comparison with the royal family is pretty dumb, they handle most of their own expenses from their family money and estates income. It's only official business like travel and security that they get reimbursed for.
And is it just me, or does the Royal Family not actually do anything important?
They provide us topless photos of hot royals? That's a pretty good public service...
On October 08 2012 21:20 BlueBird. wrote: This is getting a little off topic, since the debate isn't really about Romney and Obama, but more Stewart and O'Reilly, and I really felt like Stewart destroyed him, and I was very surprised to see Stewart did not know the difference between debt vs deficit but I guess I didn't know until this election cycle, so can't blame him personally, but I understand that that was weird for someone who's supposed to be on top of this stuff.
Why does Stewart support a year of mandatory service? I don't personally follow his line of thought here, and I'm more to the left of Stewart even. I just feel like being part of the services are not for everyone and no one should be forced, I respect those that do it I have relatives that do it, but I could never do it, and i don't really support most of our military action in the last 10 years. Should only use violence when absolutely no other option is available, and I really feel like that's not how the U.S. currently handles foreign policy, I've heard people say we should nuke Iran. U.S. citizens I've spoken too have said they feel the world would be a better place if we blow up the Middle East. I just don't get it, I know it's a small portion of the population, but seriously.. even respected posters in this thread have said we need fear not respect in order too keep world order/peace, I just don't buy it. I've heard the argument that volunteer based military can be skewed towards the poor because the wealthy have less incentives to join, and this argument makes sense, but i'm for a drastic reduction in the size of our military and world presence. Anyways if someone can shed the light on this, would be great just curious don't know the reasons.
Stewart doesn't actually care about mandatory service -- the question was structure in a way that proposed it as an option. Stewart has historically always supported any mechanism that, in principle, made the connection and consequences between mainstream society and our military actions stronger, and more tangible.
Most of America lives in a fucking bubble that want's to be the most powerful military force in the world without paying for it endangering their own lives or the ones they love. Mainstream society sees the military as some kind of self sufficient, cottage industry, separate from the day to day lives of Americans, when in actuality it is a massive expenditure that tax payers pay for.
All Stewart is actually arguing for is a society where America's actually understand and care about what the military actually does. If the government actually raised taxes to pay for wars, LIKE THEY SHOULD, then people would probably wake the hell up.
Anti-war lefties have been making this kind of argument since the end of Vietnam - it's never worked because the 'disconnect' between most Americans and the military is a myth that exists only in the heads of people like Stewart and yourself.
The idea that if we brought back the draft or raised taxes for war, that the American people would suddenly start putting flowers in their hair and singing "We Shall Overcome" while clogging the streets from coast to coast is a fantasy.
The entire train of thought is an insult to the intelligence of the masses, which of course means it's just an expression of the mindset that the common man is stupid and the purveyor of the argument has risen out of the dust by his own inherent superiority.
On October 09 2012 05:30 xDaunt wrote: I know the polls are close, but I really don't see how Obama wins when Romney has a 16-point advantage among independents and a 13-point advantage in voter enthusiasm. These numbers aren't new, either. Romney has held a huge lead in these categories for months.
I assume from your posting you're voting Republican. Is this because you don't like Obama's policies? You like Romney's policies? Or a combination of the two?
Both. I think Romney will be a good president if elected. I also generally subscribe to what he is selling. On the flip side, Obama has proven to be a horrible leader, and I disagree with almost everything that he has done and wants to do.
I guess I'm just wondering if it's an "anyone but Obama" type of mentality because I honestly cannot fathom Romney's position being good for anybody but the rich at the moment. I don't say that to be rude, but it seems he's been worse than Obama when it comes to no details and flip-flopping.
I have repeatedly said in this thread and others that I think that a plywood board would be a better president than Obama and beat him.
EDIT: I also believe that Romney's "flip-flopping" is grossly exaggerated.
On October 09 2012 05:30 xDaunt wrote: I know the polls are close, but I really don't see how Obama wins when Romney has a 16-point advantage among independents and a 13-point advantage in voter enthusiasm. These numbers aren't new, either. Romney has held a huge lead in these categories for months.
right now, obama only has to win, at a maximum, 3 swing states. He is leading in the polls in 5 of the swing states according to RCP. I still say obama wins this, just by not as much as i would of liked
You can throw out all of the polling from before the first debate. Hell, I'm not sure that the polling will be particularly accurate for another few weeks. As has been discussed previously, there are lots of problems with the polls that are included in that RCP average. I really wouldn't take any solace in them if I was an Obama supporter.
EPT
