We’d love your thoughts on who won the second debate.
So, Who Won The Second Debate?
90About the Author
Wayne Besen is the Founding Executive Director of Truth Wins Out and author of “Anything But Straight: Unmasking the Scandals and Lies Behind the Ex-Gay Myth” (Haworth, 2003). In 2010, Besen was awarded the “Visionary Award” at the Out Music Awards for organizing the American Prayer Hour, an event which shined a spotlight on the role American evangelicals played in the introduction of Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill.
Related Posts
President Obama won the debate, hands down!
Obama, definitely!
Even from waaaaaayyyyy up here in Canada we could see that Obama won that sucker.
Hands down, the President won. He was fired up and ready to go. He challenged the lies and exposed the flip-flops.
The only think I wish he would have challenged was when Romney talked about what a good Governor of Mass. he was and how he balanced the budget in Mass. He didn’t. He left the state with an enormous deficit.
The president of the United States won over the empty suit.
O-Ba-Ma!!!!!
R-O-M-N-E-Y!!!!!!
Obama wiped the floor with Romney.
Obama very easily won. Was there someone he was debating? Oh right, the guy that kept interrupting with comments about putting women in corsets, er, binders.
Mitt is so obnoxious. One can easily tell he is used to ruling the roost. He insists on getting in the last word and bullies the moderator. I really liked it when he got confrontational over Obama’s remarks about his investments. He claims innocence of those because they are in a blind trust. When he was running for office in Mass., he is on tape saying that a blind trust is nothing more than a scam to hide money from taxes and that the owner of the blind trust dictates where the investments are made. Obama really needed to hit him with that.
Two pathetic losers are romney and LINDA @ 7.
Can I not have my opinion about who won the debate? I didn’t attack any of you.
President Obama definitely won over that obnoxious, dishonest Romney…if people can’t see who is the truthful good person who really cares about “ALL” Americans then they are blind…Romney should go to Hollywood and get an acting job!!!
I am Canadian and I hope the Americans can see that Obama is the better leader and always tells the truth even when it may hurt him.
Yvonne, you are expecting a lot if you are expecting Americans to be able to pick a “better leader”. We just got over “electing” George W.
Twice!!!
Linda, you can have your opinion about who won the debate and other people can have their opinion that you’re a pathetic loser. It works both ways.
Linda, where do people like you get the idea that freedom of speech means freedom from criticism?
Nobody won! The American people lost. It was a complete farce, scripted horsecrap.
Ok, Daniel, in my opinion, you are a stupid b***h. You too, RainbowPhoenix.
Oh my, did we hit a nerve Linda?
No, just showing you the result of your logic.
No you just insulted us like a child. Is your last name Harvey by any chance?
Daniel called me a pathetic loser, but I’m the child. hmmmmmmm. ok, I’ll just say that you are a pathetic b***h. or a stupid loser. take your pick. i’m sure they’re both accurate.
I’m male and my IQ is above average, so I’m not sure how either apply. We really must have hit a nerve if you feel the need to insult people like this.
Your IQ can’t be too high if you don’t see that I was called a pathetic loser just for answering truthfully to the question of who won a debate. I guess “pathetic loser” isn’t an insult in your book.
And honey, some of the biggest bitches I know are men.
;)
… guess I hit a nerve with you and Daniel since you resorted to insulting me. must not be too confident that Obama won if you felt the need to attack me.
Actually increased IQ is a standard side effect of being on the autism spectrum. A b**** is literally a female dog, so being male automatically precludes it from applying to me. Also, your answer was not honest and I never claimed you weren’t insulted. I’m also not sure how it was an insult to ask where you got the idea that freedom of speech is the same thing as freedom from criticism.
The word “b***h” has more than one meaning, with female dog being only one of them. English words can have more than one meaning. So much for that high IQ.
You defended someone calling me a pathetic loser. It’s no different for me to call you a stupid b***h. Why do you think that you should be free from criticism?
Word definitions are derived from the original, literal meaning. If the original meaning can not be applied in any sense, the derivitive meanings lose effectiveness.
Also, can you point to where I actively defended the insults against you or where I claimed that I should be free from criticism?
The meaning of words changes all the time. Eventually, they often can bear no resemblance to the original meaning. That’s how new languages appear. You should get a refund for that IQ test.
And you said that Daniel had the right to call me a pathetic loser, so then I have the right to call you a stupid b***h. Stay out of the kitchen if you can’t take the heat.
We haven’t created a new language. We’re still speaking english.
Show me where I said you didn’t have a right to insult anyone. It would greatly help your credibility if you did so without an insult for once.
English is a new language! Language changes constantly. Why do you think that the world has so many languages? They evolve and grow into new languages, and they do it rather quickly. If you went back a thousand years ago to England, you would not be able to understand anyone. Words change their meaning all the time. The fact that you do not grasp this fact is very frustrating. There are many words in common usage today that had completely different meanings just one or two generations ago.
Here is some background for you Rainbow:
“English has been in Britain since around 450 AD, except English has evolved since that time : Old English (450 -1100) was the language of the Anglo-Saxons and was very much Germanic in grammar and structure , with heavy influences form Old Norse and ( although limited) from Celtic languages. British was a language that existed in pre-Saxon England that eventually formed into Welsh, Cumbric and Cornish by 600AD, however these are unrelated to English. English was shunned as the language of the people by the Normans who replaced English with Norman French as the language of the aristocracy and of government until the 15th century. in the 12th century Middle English evolved (1200-1600) and thereafter Modern English developed as a language.”
So you’ve gone on a totally random tangent instead of trying to defend your earlier claims. Get back to me when you can actually defend yourself.
You are the one who went on a tangent, explaining how you couldn’t possibly be a b***h because you aren’t a female dog. But when you can’t win that argument that you started about language, you try to distract.
And defend myself against what? You said that Daniel should have the right to call me a pathetic loser, and I said that I then have the right to call you a stupid b***h. I think I’ve made myself clear. What am I supposedly defending?
So I don’t have a right to defend myself when you insult me? Hypocrite.
You’ve been trying to defend the insults you’ve been throwing out unprovoked while freaking out because someone dared to criticize you.
Defend yourself. Just make sense.
Ok, let me break this down slowly, so that hopefully you will understand.
I was called a pathetic loser simply for stating my opinion on something. I think that was unnecessary and unproductive. You, on the other hand, defended the right of someone to call me a pathetic loser. Isn’t that right?
Soooo, under your rules, I am free to call you a stupid b***h. You, in return, may call me whatever you want. Isn’t that the system that you defended? Did I get that on a low enough grade level for you to understand?
No, I asked where you got the idea that freedom of speech is the same as freedom from criticism, which for some reason you took as a personal attack and responded to with insults, before going off on totally random tirades when you ran out of ways to defend yourself and when I refused to take your attacks lying down.
Do I not have the right to criticize and insult you? Yes or no answer please.
And defend myself against what? My opinion is that you are a stupid b***h. What is there to defend?
Show me where I said you didn’t.
And as far as defending yourself against being stupid, you might as well have been lying down. You don’t even understand that words can have different meanings and that those meanings can change.
If I have that right, why all this uproar from you.
Clearly I’ve touched a nerve since you’re still insulting me. Is your ego really that fragile?
My ego is just great. Let me recap.
Daniel thinks I’m a pathetic loser and said so.
You think that is appropriate.
I think you are a stupid b***h and said so.
You apparently agree that is appropriate.
Girl, what’s your problem? Seems like we’re on the same page.
My problem is that you randomly started attacking me for challenging your misbegotten sense of priviledge and have continued to do so out of pure narcissistic pettiness because I dared to stand up for myself, which goes back to my original point that you clearly think that having the right to say what you want without being criticized for it even while you’re criticizing others.
Not random. I was attacked and you explained to me how that was acceptable. Why, can’t I then attack you? What’s your problem?
Is it ok for Daniel to attack me? (yes or no please)
If he does, can I “dare to stand up for myself”? (yes or no please)
I have criticized you and you have criticized me. What is your problem?
Yes it was random. You apparently took great personal offense at the mere suggestion that you can be challenged when you say something.
And who has the misbegotten sense of privilege? Why did you feel the need to interject yourself into the conversation when I “dared to stand up for myself” after being called a pathetic loser.
“You apparently took great personal offense at the mere suggestion that you can be challenged when you say something.” Back at you.