Msnbc Debate: Who Fed Romney The Answer?? Listen Again

He says he works with In-Ear systems daily. It's not like he's *lying*.


Who do you trust?

 

There's no proof for or against this argument, I'm simply pointing out your inaccuracies. Obviously by your tone of posts you can tell you think it was a simple mic air. There's no credible sources on the incident that will tell you what happened because only the host of the debate knows.

 

Right, and I'm a computer specialist who works with data recovery daily. Please send me your computer for repairs. Wow.


It's not like I'm *lying*, seriously send me your PC.

 

No credible sources? What do you want that is more credible than the company that broadcast the debate?? (Live, I might add.)

You are a sad, sad, person indeed. No trust in anyone. Do you carry a gun in your pocket, too?

 

Now you get angry and resort to ad hominem instead of having an actual debate.

What did I expect from someone citing Digg comments as sources anyways?

 

Well, I'm not angry. And it's no good source unless you prove that I am It only takes reasonable doubt.

Regardless, this debate is over. Cheers

 

It's over because there's nothing to debate, there never was. You posted a link claiming to debunk what happened. That "debunk" link was utter bullshit and you've been called on it.

Fact is we'll never know where that noise came from. Try taking an objective look at it instead of trying to debunk it instantly.

 

I don't have to. My SOURCE already did.

I guess a good time to re-iterate this: I'm not angry. you started throwing the swear words out there.

I did take an objective look at it. Then I saw that others that were actually there and ran the equipment already had. There was no need for me to, and nothing to dispute. So I surrendered to it. (not like it was difficult to)

 

Yawn, I also think this was uneventful. It was almost certainly just a moderator being sloppy with the microphone. One thing I didn't like last night was that Dr. Paul's microphone seemed to have the reverb cranked up on it and it was very difficult to listen anytime he was speaking. Add to that the fact that they edited out the huge applause after the Iraq War question during the re-air, and seemed to randomly turn up the applause during one of the other candidate's answers, and it definitely does look like a bit of fooling around with the sound. But I don't buy this Romney thing.

 

So why do we have a court system? We can just ask the criminals if they're guilty or not right? We should just ask them if there was any funny business going on. They'll tell us if there was right? Surely they would never lie.

Seriously what do you expect a link directly from their website to say? Would you expect it to say ANYTHING else but that?

Face it whatever they say isn't proof enough to debunk what happened.

 

We don't trust digg commentors. And neither would you if he wasn't backing up your preconceived opinion.

This respected, reliable source (the kid on digg) is only making the point that sound from an ear piece wouldn't make it to the mic. But what he doesn't address, Which was my first thought, Is that the audio come from wireless interference.

It's common for two separate wireless devices to interfere with each other. One picking up the others transmission and visa versa.

Two things strike me as odd, They would strike you as odd too if you had even a shred of integrity.
1) The sound was isolated, Deliberate and very clear. If that was from an open mic the speaker would have had to been whispering directly in to it. The sound wasn't something captured or said by accident
2) Romney repeated practically word for word exactly what was heard in the whisper instantly afterwards.

But you leave thinking to grown-ups. Got any more reliable quotes from your trustworthy sources, Ya know, Kids on digg who claim to be an authority?

 

I have made a better avatar for you chulium.

 

I think you're too late. Once reason and facts entered the conversation his status symbol went from green to blue.

 

It was karl rove, story over.

 

I can't help but notice someone negative repping me. I find it hilarious you useless people can't even argue but just negative rep people. At least leave something better than the words "yuk" you illiterate fool.

 

Probably someone from the CGS (Crazy Gang Squad), that's as much power they have, or I should say little.

 

It's shocking to me that anyone could be excited enough about Mitt Romney to spend their time defending him. I mean seriously, Mitt Romney? Yeah, if he were campaigning to be "Used Car Salesman of America" I could see it.

 

Romney's got strong support from the Mormon community. I'm quite sure the second most popular candidate with the Mormon community is Ron Paul.

But when it flat out comes down to ideas, I'm not sure there is much of a competition. Romney talks about doubling the size of Guantanamo, and I find it hard to believe (and admit a lack of knowledge) that this would conform to Mormon values.

I think if Cleon Skousen was alive today, he wouldn't be voting for the Mormon candidate.

 

Mormons have a tough decision on their hands. This is probably the farthest a Mormon candidate has ever made it towards the presidency, and it would do wonders to bring their religion into the mainstream, but Romney does have some beliefs and ideas that aren't fully compatible with Mormon teachings. You are definitely right that in my experience Paul comes in an uncontested 2nd place for Mormon voters (from my personal experience). Interesting to see how that develops as time goes on.

 

I don't get the whole religious world domination thing. I don't see why a Mormon voter would choose a candidate based on religion. That's pure ignorance. If an atheist candidate ran, he would NOT automatically get my vote for being an atheist.

Btw a total of like 3 neg reps counts as -1 point from you morons. Your neg reps don't even carry any weight, so continue.