Can't Wait to See the Movie; more debate

This time, I heard the whole thing on radio.  I guess it was the whole thing, but it wasn't easy to be sure.  I thought I heard someone throw a punch but couldn't tell who did it.  Probably the totally unbiased moderator, who in no way is out for self promotion.

The questions were selected by the moderator from totally random undecided voters.  Oh, come on, give me a break.   I guess it didn't make any difference since the format of the answers and rebuttals went like this:

Question: blablablabla, so what about blablabla?

Answer: Thank you, Syphilisia, for this question, and thank everyone in the world who I will now name for blablabla.  I'm glad you asked that because it gives me time to tell you that my opponent is a liar, a pedophile, and he hates you...blablabla

Rebuttal: None of what my opponent just said is true and he is a liar, a pedophile, and he hates you..and I'd like to further sa...

Moderator: time's up let's move along

Both candidates: shut up!!

Moderator: OK, Mr President, you can say a little more.  Romney, sit down or die!

I'd like to see how the visual worked out.

I found myself yelling at both of them through the radio.

Some parts were a train wreck.  Whether it splits hairs or not, the pres. did not actually label the terrorist attack in Libya an act of terror until way later than they said.  He danced around it prior to weeks after the fact.  They drew it out of something he said which was totally non committal and meaningless the day after.  Romney, to my dismay, did not hammer him for apologizing for that stupid video over and over.  I would have hammered that.  Why does the president apologize for the freedom we have to create satire, opinion, cartoons etc.?   That was unaddressed.

The rest was a flurry of so many trillion here, and so many there, with each being told he was full of it.

I am not thrilled that neither is really a minimalist where governmental function and authority are concerned, but I know from his own words that Obama sees no real value in limiting government's powers as long as "it works", in his opinion I guess.  Ends justifies the means kind of guy.

Mitt has a bit of that ends justifies means too but maybe a little less gung ho.  As far as big money, I think Obama is the guy for those who manipulate markets and make money off of money.  Mitt is the guy for industries that produce stuff, but maybe steamroll their way a bit.   If you were fooled into thinking dems are all about the poor nobodies and reps are all about daddy warbucks, well--you've been fooled.  It's pretty much not quite like that.  Nobody is for the nobodies, not even the nobodies. They just want their obamaphones, and the little crumbs that buy their votes.

It will continue to come down to the same split seen over much of the world.  Do you want central control of wealth and resources and personal freedom or not?  Lately the or nots are in the minority.  I'd think anyone who has experienced stuff done through committees at work and elsewhere, and who has witnessed the bizarreness quotient which spikes the further up the management ladder you get in many companies, would be allergic to more centralization and proliferation of rules and regs.