View Full Version : Round 3 - Who do you think did better? Won?
gimmethesimplelife
10-22-12, 10:41pm
I have to confess I did not watch this time around, did not even sneak a peak. I am so afraid of four years of a Republican in charge that I just skipped it and I figure I can find out what I need to know online soon enough. This election is turning into a nail biter for me and I just didn't want the emotional overload of watching the debate. Lol. My blood pressure thanks me I'm sure! Rob
Yawn - same talking points we have heard from both sides. Plus for Romney in getting the Foreign Policy debate turned around to the ecomony -- the topic more Americans are really concerned about. No clear winner - if there needs to be a winner at the debates.
ApatheticNoMore
10-22-12, 11:50pm
Plus for Romney in getting the Foreign Policy debate turned around to the ecomony -- the topic more Americans are really concerned about
And couldn't wasting all our money on wars have anything to do with the economy?
mtnlaurel
10-23-12, 12:13am
I just didn't want the emotional overload of watching the debate. Lol. My blood pressure thanks me I'm sure! Rob
The third debate actually lowered my blood pressure quite a bit Rob.
I watched all 3 prez debates and veep debates in full and am very glad that I did.
I am whole-heartedly confident in going in the booth Nov. 6 and pulling the lever for Obama/Biden.
If Romney should win, I must admit that I am secretly looking forward to my 20% tax cut, since I think we will all be getting them, right?
And I also am very curious to see the 12 million jobs he will create.
He is a politically expedient man and he just might have what it takes to be a very effective Jobs Czar, but for the whole package of President, Commander in Chief, Leader of the Free World he would not be my choice in a million years.
I am just completely flipped out by the GOP right now.... I do not think they are choosing battles that are going to move the country into the new ever-changing world.
Why in the world does smaller government need to be linked with archaic social policy? I just don't get it.
I am so ready for Wed. Nov. 7 to get on with the tasks at hand.
freein05
10-23-12, 12:25am
I am looking forward to the 12 million jobs Romney will create. Maybe it will be in the bayonet manufacturing area. I learned how to fix bayonets in the army but that was in 1965.
It was weird how Romney was naming all those countries and his view of what the government should be doing with each and every one of them - WHERE DID HIS IDEA ON SMALLER GOVERNMENT GO?
We're does Romney get the idea that all countries in the world should be are children. Egypt had free elections. We may not like the out come but that is their choice. Does he want to rule the world? That type of reasoning is why so many people in the world do not like the US.
In the countries I traveled foreigners like Americans but do not like our government .
Romney and Obama are such different individuals. Romney is so aggressive and Obama is so deliberate.
Freein05........I agree about the U.S. not being all the other countries' parent. I sooooo wish Obama would have said something as direct as "Its not up to us to make everything right all the time!" He sort of alluded to it when he would say things like "that country needs to take responsibility".........but it wasn't enough. And I wish he would have said to Romney "Listen Bud......its easy to have all those plans of yours when you've never been in my seat." I couldn't believe that Romney kept saying how important it was to have peace everywhere. I think that's the first time I've heard him talk about peace. Usually its about building the military and beating the hell out of everyone.
Obama is a peaceful man and works with people without intimidating them.
Once again, Romney just seemed like a robot to me. I will be really scared for all of us, if he gets elected. Obama might not get everything done that people hoped he would........but I think he can get our country in alot less trouble than Romney can.
Objectively, I'd call it a tie. Romney seemed to calm at least some of my concerns over being a fear mongering military hawk. Obama did a reasonable job reviewing his level headed approach to international politics. Romney keeps talking about getting tough on China, but doesn't get specific enough for me. Other than military spending, they actually seem sort of similar.
From a personal perspective, I think it is well past time that we scale down our role as a global policeman using military might and focus on a global peacemaker with policy and alliances. It's time for other countries to step up, whether it is the NATO or UN alliances or the mid-east addressing their own internal problems.
After the three debates, I think Romney's economic plan has a possibility of helping but is a wild card and so far the "math doesn't add up". Obama is a clear winner on a balanced approach to energy and the environment. And Obama is my choice for toning down the military and a calm approach to foreign policy.
The debates did nothing to show that either has refreshing new ideas or that either is an especially strong leader and speaker. I think Romney will have problems repealing Obamacare. Very generally we are in for four more years of the same regardless and wish we had better choices.
I thought it was a good debate. President Obama laid out the many things he has accomplished overseas, as well as the ways they are working diplomatically to keep us out of future wars. Because he is peaceful and quiet man, as Cathy said, we don't hear of these efforts very often. That doesn't mean they aren't working diligently all the time, we just don't hear about it.
Romney pretty much spent the evening saying 'Yup, me too'
Mr. Romney, IMO, has a Reagan-esque vision of what our military strength can do for us. It is the one aspect of his platform that I am most leary of. It worked 30 years ago, but there are no Soviet Unions in today's world. The most resounding discussion on that point is where I have to side with the President. I liked his analogy about this not being a game of Battleship, meaning we should do more with strategic initiatives and technology and less with raw firepower. I feel the same way.
I do think we should expect a sitting President to be the stronger candidate in a foreign policy debate, and when the discussion was focused there I think that's what happened. It was interesting how often the discussion turned to all things economic. To me its clear that Romney has a better grasp of that and I think that is what most Americans are primarily concerned with right now.
It was refreshing to see two men with obviously opposing views treat each other with respect. Regardless of how much 'handling' it took behind the scenes they both pulled it off. I hope Joe Biden was taking notes. And yes Obama fans, "horses and bayonets" was the best one liner in the debate.
In the countries I traveled foreigners like Americans but do not like our government.
That precisely mirrors our experience as well. In most of the places we've been people just want the American government to butt out. I would be more than happy to oblige.
The Storyteller
10-23-12, 9:58am
Slam dunk for Obama.
And yes Obama fans, "horses and bayonets" was the best one liner in the debate.
Oh, I don't know. I kinda liked that "ships that go underwater" line.
pinkytoe
10-23-12, 10:22am
Am I imagining it or does Romney's voice quality and inflection sound like Reagan? It is creepy to me. I am still undecided on who to vote for but it won't be Romney:)
ApatheticNoMore
10-23-12, 10:29am
Obama is a peaceful man and works with people without intimidating them.
How many countries are we either at war with or drone bombing now?
How many countries are we either at war with or drone bombing now?
And lets not forget about the kill list.
Oh, I don't know. I kinda liked that "ships that go underwater" line.
Either way, its clear to me that neither of them is destined for a post-Presidential career as a late night host. I still miss Carson.
And oh by the way, thanks Bob Schieffer.
Obama is a peaceful man and works with people without intimidating them.
He single handedly committed weapons and other resources to the insurgents in Libya without even bothering with Congress. Have we ever had a President do anything like that before?
And lets not forget about the kill list.
I was expecting the moderator to bring that up. Maybe it takes away from the "peaceful" narrative, or perhaps it would make those old guys in Stockholm look silly.
Hmmmm.....Alan, I'll have to look into that.
He single handedly committed weapons and other resources to the insurgents in Libya without even bothering with Congress. Have we ever had a President do anything like that before?
OH, I suppose we could count the gun-running operation Reagan had going in the White House basement!
OH, I suppose we could count the gun-running operation Reagan had going in the White House basement!
Actually, that was a covert operation which was never tied directly to Reagan, although many people tried.
Do you have another example of a sitting US President openly authorizing military support to insurgents without Congressional approval?
And lets not forget about the kill list.
The kill list? Are you talking about targeting top Al Qaeda leaders? The ones Bush didn't really give a damn about because he was too busy KILLING Saddam Hussein? The same list that included the name of Bin Laden, the guy who ACTUALLY attacked us on 9/11? That kill list?
If Bush had been working a 'kill' list, he would get a ticker tape parade from the republicans!
It just kills the republicans that Obama has been successful in combating terrorism, and bringing to justice the ones who actually were responsible, without getting us into another long, useless war.
Actually, that was a covert operation which was never tied directly to Reagan, although many people tried.
Do you have another example of a sitting US President openly authorizing military support to insurgents without Congressional approval?
Oh, OPENELY! So, we aren't counting illegally...got it.:laff::laff:
The kill list? Are you talking about targeting top Al Qaeda leaders? The ones Bush didn't really give a damn about because he was too busy KILLING Saddam Hussein? The same list that included the name of Bin Laden, the guy who ACTUALLY attacked us on 9/11? That kill list?
President Bush did not kill Saddam Hussein. He was tried, convicted and executed according to Iraq law.
The list I'm referring to contains US citizens. Is that the one you're defending?
Oh, OPENELY! So, we aren't counting illegally...got it.:laff::laff:
So, are you implying that President Obama's actions are illegal as well? If so, I would agree with you.
mtnlaurel
10-23-12, 11:47am
If Bush had been working a 'kill' list, he would get a ticker tape parade from the republicans!
I don't even remember what mission the "Mission Accomplished" banner referred to when W landed on the aircraft carrier in all the brew-ha-ha.
And if Obama and his surrogates are even to mention the killing of Bin Laden at Obama's direct order that equates Chest Pounding.
Please someone tell me the recipe for the Amnesia Kool-Aid that close to half of our population is drinking.
Mr. Romney, IMO, has a Reagan-esque vision of what our military strength can do for us. It is the one aspect of his platform that I am most leary of. It worked 30 years ago, but there are no Soviet Unions in today's world. The most resounding discussion on that point is where I have to side with the President. I liked his analogy about this not being a game of Battleship, meaning we should do more with strategic initiatives and technology and less with raw firepower. I feel the same way.
I do think we should expect a sitting President to be the stronger candidate in a foreign policy debate, and when the discussion was focused there I think that's what happened. It was interesting how often the discussion turned to all things economic. To me its clear that Romney has a better grasp of that and I think that is what most Americans are primarily concerned with right now.
It was refreshing to see two men with obviously opposing views treat each other with respect. Regardless of how much 'handling' it took behind the scenes they both pulled it off. I hope Joe Biden was taking notes. And yes Obama fans, "horses and bayonets" was the best one liner in the debate.
I wouldn't exactly call what Romney has a 'better grasp' of economics here at home. For starters, his math just doesn't add up, and when questioned on it, he just says, 'oh, we'll let you know after the election'. Yeah, right, and Nixon had a 'secret plan' for getting us out of Vietnam!
A pie in the sky wish list of an elevator in every garage and a dancing pony in every barn isn't a plan.
I can stand on a stage and say "I'll create 12 million jobs, bring manufacturing back, lower everyone's taxes, educate every child, and grant every wish every neocon and/or ultra conservative has". So should i be elected? Do I have a 'grasp' of the economy? That is pretty much all he has said. He hasn't said how he will do all these miraculous things, just that he's gonna do it, and in 4 years! Amazing!
It just blows me away how anyone can buy into this hollow person with his 'chicken in every pot' campaign. There is no there, there. And last night should have shown that. No thoughtful answers, no evidence that he gives the rest of the world even a minutes consideration.
The economy is going to do fine. Thanks to the policies that Obama has set in motion, the economy is getting better and will continue to improve. (re-read the housing thread)
But the world stage is very unsettled and volatile, and we need someone who is thoughtful, and careful, and who knows a little bit about history and the nature of diplomacy to steer us forward, or we will find ourselves in yet another war with many more American lives lost. If you have to pay a few more dollars in taxes it won't kill you. But another war will kill. Real lives, on the line. And that's the bottom line.
I don't even remember what mission the "Mission Accomplished" banner referred to when W landed on the aircraft carrier in all the brew-ha-ha.
And if Obama and his surrogates are even to mention the killing of Bin Laden at Obama's direct order that equates Chest Pounding.
Please someone tell me the recipe for the Amnesia Kool-Aid that close to half of our population is drinking.
+1
I don't even remember what mission the "Mission Accomplished" banner referred to when W landed on the aircraft carrier in all the brew-ha-ha.
.....
Please someone tell me the recipe for the Amnesia Kool-Aid that close to half of our population is drinking.
It was the bi-partisan, Congressionally approved mission to bring down the Iraq government and defeat their military, which was a success.
I'm not sure I'd call it Amnesia Kool-Aid, it seems to me to be more in line with Orwell's 'memory holes'. When historical events don't match the current propaganda, they must be purged.
ApatheticNoMore
10-23-12, 12:18pm
The kill list? Are you talking about targeting top Al Qaeda leaders?
Actually they probably weren't all top Al Queda leaders (and we now kill their sons too - justice worthy of the mafia). But really the principle of the thing is more important than whether a person was or was not a top Al Queda leader. Bad things happen in war, and that the frame that excuses it in many minds. However, the President personally deciding who exactly should be targetted really is unprecedented. I really think the key to understanding the horror that is this administration is the NDAA not the kill list though. The kill list may be objectively more horrible, killing people, killing American citizens to boot, but it's more easily "framed away" (time of war blah blah blah even though the war is undeclared and it probably violates most international agreements on war), NDAA can't be framed away.
If Bush had been working a 'kill' list, he would get a ticker tape parade from the republicans!
They Republicans wouldn't be complaining about it yea (I mean a few principled people would, but principled people on the left think kill lists and NDAA are also beyond the pale). Partisans may play a game of: "Democrat did a bad thing!" I play a game of wake up, things are bad and getting worse, see all that's going on and DESPAIR! Haha, but it's the only way I see out of here really, I guess.
And if Obama and his surrogates are even to mention the killing of Bin Laden at Obama's direct order that equates Chest Pounding.
Please someone tell me the recipe for the Amnesia Kool-Aid that close to half of our population is drinking.
You mean the percentage of the population that votes? Take heart, for I believe it's actually less than 50%, less people are fooled than you would think.
mtnlaurel
10-23-12, 12:52pm
It was the bi-partisan, Congressionally approved mission to bring down the Iraq government and defeat their military, which was a success.
I guess that mission didn't leave that great of an impression on me as being accomplished (which you are right that specific goal was met) since we continued to stay heavily entangled in Iraq until just recently....
George W Bush in the fighter pilot suit just seemed a little premature at the time, like my son wanting to celebrate his birthday on the 10th of each & every month.
Can I have a cake for being 5 and a quarter mom?
Shoot, when we went to war with Iraq I kept thinking, "They must have access to information that they can't share with us."
Ends up there just weren't any WMDs --- it was like me writing a college paper where I only pick the quotes that fit my thesis.
Bush led by the NeoCons were bound and determined to get us back into Iraq.
Maybe history will prove him right as he said.... but all the $$$ going overseas and lives of soldiers lost, while we are sucking air here in the homeland feels pretty foolish right this second.
gimmethesimplelife
10-23-12, 1:44pm
I wouldn't exactly call what Romney has a 'better grasp' of economics here at home. For starters, his math just doesn't add up, and when questioned on it, he just says, 'oh, we'll let you know after the election'. Yeah, right, and Nixon had a 'secret plan' for getting us out of Vietnam!
A pie in the sky wish list of an elevator in every garage and a dancing pony in every barn isn't a plan.
I can stand on a stage and say "I'll create 12 million jobs, bring manufacturing back, lower everyone's taxes, educate every child, and grant every wish every neocon and/or ultra conservative has". So should i be elected? Do I have a 'grasp' of the economy? That is pretty much all he has said. He hasn't said how he will do all these miraculous things, just that he's gonna do it, and in 4 years! Amazing!
It just blows me away how anyone can buy into this hollow person with his 'chicken in every pot' campaign. There is no there, there. And last night should have shown that. No thoughtful answers, no evidence that he gives the rest of the world even a minutes consideration.
The economy is going to do fine. Thanks to the policies that Obama has set in motion, the economy is getting better and will continue to improve. (re-read the housing thread)
But the world stage is very unsettled and volatile, and we need someone who is thoughtful, and careful, and who knows a little bit about history and the nature of diplomacy to steer us forward, or we will find ourselves in yet another war with many more American lives lost. If you have to pay a few more dollars in taxes it won't kill you. But another war will kill. Real lives, on the line. And that's the bottom line.Peggy, I agree with most of what you have posted here. My only divergence from what you have posted - I don't personally believe that many are going to see a good economy - in the sense of what we experienced during the bubbles - again in their lifetimes, and this I feel is the case no matter who gets in - even if Obama - who I want to win - gets in. My take is that there are too many people out there and technology is advancing the the point that it is not feasible to employ all of them. I think there are going to continue to be painful adjustments for many, and some few may get to the point where they just leave the US.....Unless I am wrong and things do get better - and who knows, I don't see the future - my take on leaving is not going to seem as radical to as many in another five to ten years. Kind of like same-sex marriage doesn't seem quite as radical to many now as it once did not very long ago. I for one, welcome such dicussion, I think it is long overdue. But back to the original point - I just don't see things getting all that much better no matter who is in charge of the ship. Rob
It was the bi-partisan, Congressionally approved mission to bring down the Iraq government and defeat their military, which was a success.
I'm not sure I'd call it Amnesia Kool-Aid, it seems to me to be more in line with Orwell's 'memory holes'. When historical events don't match the current propaganda, they must be purged.
This is a good reason why the world hates the US government. We don't like a government so we take it down. Where are WMDs?
Am I imagining it or does Romney's voice quality and inflection sound like Reagan? It is creepy to me. I am still undecided on who to vote for but it won't be Romney:)
I was actually thinking the same thing this morning. Maybe his hair is influencing his voice or something. I wonder how much of this is real and how much is part of him marketing himself. I mailed my ballot this morning. I was waiting to see if there would be any surprises through the debates, and I didn't see any.
gimmethesimplelife
10-23-12, 2:35pm
It was the bi-partisan, Congressionally approved mission to bring down the Iraq government and defeat their military, which was a success.
I'm not sure I'd call it Amnesia Kool-Aid, it seems to me to be more in line with Orwell's 'memory holes'. When historical events don't match the current propaganda, they must be purged.My question is this - what gave the United States the right to invade Iraq and do this? To this day I have yet to get an answer that makes any sense to me. No wonder so much of the world hates us, can anyone blame them, given the facts? I am thinking much of the world may envy the consumer culture here in the US - which seems to be on it's way out the door for many - but they don't like how aggressive the US is overall. Kind of like a steamroller demolishing anything that gets in its way.....Rob
..........That is pretty much all he has said. He hasn't said how he will do all these miraculous things, just that he's gonna do it, and in 4 years! Amazing!
Well, at least that's pretty much all you heard. For the record, he repeatedly said 8 - 10 years for most of the plan, not 4. Your guy made the rookie mistake of saying he should be accountable after 4 years and is now probably wishing he would have said 8 - 10 as well.
gimmethesimplelife
10-23-12, 2:56pm
Well, at least that's pretty much all you heard. For the record, he repeatedly said 8 - 10 years for most of the plan, not 4. Your guy made the rookie mistake of saying he should be accountable after 4 years and is now probably wishing he would have said 8 - 10 as well.I remember Obama saying right after he got into office that he would be accountable for his performance in the next elections four years down the road.....and that if the people were not happy, he'd be on his way out. So yeah, I do think he should have mentioned a longer time frame, I totally agree with this. Rob
This is a good reason why the world hates the US government. We don't like a government so we take it down. Where are WMDs?
Probably in Syria. What was the reason behind Egypt and Libya?
My question is this - what gave the United States the right to invade Iraq and do this? To this day I have yet to get an answer that makes any sense to me.
It's pretty much spelled out in the Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution), passed with a 69% majority in the House and a 76% majority in the Senate. As well as The Iraq Liberaton Act of 1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act_of_1998)which was passed during the Clinton Administration by a 90% majority in the House and by Unanimous Consent in the Senate.
You might remember the former as the resolution that John Kerry famously voted for before he was against it.
And, it was an International Coalition rather than just the US.
ApatheticNoMore
10-23-12, 3:20pm
Plus for Romney in getting the Foreign Policy debate turned around to the ecomony -- the topic more Americans are really concerned about.
That doesn't sit right with me. Not just due to interralationships of these things, but it's too pandering, too narrow. I mean being concerned with the economy is fine, I understand that. But not at all being concerned with foreign policy, I don't think a citizen of empire exactly has that right. Not with what empire does to the rest of the world. But they can't possibly be as informed on it as they are on at least what is going on in their local economy? (doubtful many understand the more complex economic stuff). Yea, obviously, and it's probably too much to expect, but empire is afterall anti-democratic (small d) by nature.
gimmethesimplelife
10-23-12, 4:26pm
It's pretty much spelled out in the Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution), passed with a 69% majority in the House and a 76% majority in the Senate. As well as The Iraq Liberaton Act of 1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act_of_1998)which was passed during the Clinton Administration by a 90% majority in the House and by Unanimous Consent in the Senate.
You might remember the former as the resolution that John Kerry famously voted for before he was against it.
And, it was an International Coalition rather than just the US.It was an international coalition, yes, I remember that. So it was not just us. Ok, I give you that. My question is what gives the United States the right to pass these measures over a soveirgn (sp?) country whose leader we may not like or approve of - and the man was bad news, I'm not attempting to defend him here. I just don't get what gives us the right to steamroll into a soveirgn (sp?) country like we did. Rob
mikeymartin1979
10-23-12, 5:00pm
I must admit that I am secretly looking forward to my 20% tax cut, since I think we will all be getting them, right?
He'll probably change his mind by then.
The Storyteller
10-23-12, 5:12pm
He'll probably change his mind by then.
If he hasn't already.
The Storyteller
10-23-12, 5:16pm
It was an international coalition, yes, I remember that. So it was not just us.
Yeah, those Fiji Islanders were behind us 200%.
The Storyteller
10-23-12, 5:21pm
Back to the debate...
Visited my barber (a Republican, like most folks in these here parts) today. She asked me what I thought of it. I mumbled I don't talk politics (at least in real life). She volunteered her thoughts anyway. "Well, just because he's a good debater doesn't make him a good president."
Pretty obvious who she thought won. Refreshing to see not all Republicans are in complete denial.
The Storyteller
10-23-12, 5:31pm
BTW, did anyone else notice how badly Romney was sweating last night? He looked incredibly uncomfortable about the midway point. He obviously isn't used to the humidity. Maybe that is the reason for his poor performance... too close to sea level.
It was so bad I was surprised nobody mentioned it.
I didn't notice Romney sweating. I did notice that on the split screen, if either one of them was getting ticked at what the other was saying, they started blinking alot. haha
I did notice that no one seemed to drink water, like Ryan did.
Birchwood
10-23-12, 6:13pm
I'll try to be as objective, and base my observation as a former highschool and college debater.
1. Obama beat the heck out of Romney point for point.
2. In style and substance, Obama was ahead 5 to 2 in arguments.
3. Romney exposed himself several times and got hit bad.
4. If the basis for a win is an image of who is the better "commander in Chief"- then Obama just convinced a lot of folks.
5. I don't get the strategy of just showing there and looking presidential?- It's a debate and Romney lacked offense and lost.
ApatheticNoMore
10-23-12, 7:12pm
must admit that I am secretly looking forward to my 20% tax cut, since I think we will all be getting them, right?
He'll probably change his mind by then.
Meh, who can care too much one way or other.
It's pretty much spelled out in the Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution), passed with a 69% majority in the House and a 76% majority in the Senate. As well as The Iraq Liberaton Act of 1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act_of_1998)which was passed during the Clinton Administration by a 90% majority in the House and by Unanimous Consent in the Senate.
You might remember the former as the resolution that John Kerry famously voted for before he was against it.
And, it was an International Coalition rather than just the US.
Congress was lied to by the Bush administration! Congress was given false information. Bush and Chenny should have been tried for treason.
I'll try to be as objective, and base my observation as a former highschool and college debater.
1. Obama beat the heck out of Romney point for point.
2. In style and substance, Obama was ahead 5 to 2 in arguments.
3. Romney exposed himself several times and got hit bad.
4. If the basis for a win is an image of who is the better "commander in Chief"- then Obama just convinced a lot of folks.
5. I don't get the strategy of just showing there and looking presidential?- It's a debate and Romney lacked offense and lost.
Interesting. That is almost my identical take, in reverse, from the first debate. Most sources had the 2nd debate nearly a draw. I guess the debates didn't do much as far as pushing a clear choice (to undecided voters, that is). I'm still glad they were held. And welcome to the sand box Birchwood!
mtnlaurel
10-23-12, 7:52pm
And welcome to the sand box Birchwood!
+1
It was the bi-partisan, Congressionally approved mission to bring down the Iraq government and defeat their military, which was a success.
I'm not sure I'd call it Amnesia Kool-Aid, it seems to me to be more in line with Orwell's 'memory holes'. When historical events don't match the current propaganda, they must be purged.
Bush's 'kill' list.
But being the chicken-hawk that he is, he lied to congress, he lied to the American people and he lied to the world, to do it. He lied, then joked about it at a dinner with a video of him 'looking' for WMD's under his desk. Yeah, go ahead and defend him. Defend him and his lying cowardly act.
Yes, people do try to re-write history, and already you are trying to rewrite Iraq as some glorious victory.
Bush managed to kill over 4 thousand of our people and how many hundreds of thousands of Iraqi. Obama has managed to reach his objectives with remarkably few American lives lost. The objectives of finishing what Bush could not. Bush just wanted to be a glorious 'war' President, without all that messy detail, or clean up, or consequence. Obama simply wanted to cripple Al Qaeda, which he has.
Perhaps you prefer the old fashioned, storm the hill and die for your country method.
Maybe Romney will convince one of his 5 sons to step up and take one for their country. You know, in the name of glorious war!
The Storyteller
10-23-12, 9:02pm
I didn't notice Romney sweating.
Maybe it was the cameras they used. It was pretty clear on the PBS feed. The guy was wilting. It got worse as the evening wore on.
He single handedly committed weapons and other resources to the insurgents in Libya without even bothering with Congress. Have we ever had a President do anything like that before?
Here's a list of all of the invasions our country has committed - not sure how many of these had Congressional approval or not, but the CIA attacks surely had presidential knowledge before they were committed:
http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html
Bush's 'kill' list.
But being the chicken-hawk that he is, he lied to congress, he lied to the American people and he lied to the world, to do it. He lied, then joked about it at a dinner with a video of him 'looking' for WMD's under his desk. Yeah, go ahead and defend him. Defend him and his lying cowardly act.
Yes, people do try to re-write history, and already you are trying to rewrite Iraq as some glorious victory.
Bush managed to kill over 4 thousand of our people and how many hundreds of thousands of Iraqi. Obama has managed to reach his objectives with remarkably few American lives lost. The objectives of finishing what Bush could not. Bush just wanted to be a glorious 'war' President, without all that messy detail, or clean up, or consequence. Obama simply wanted to cripple Al Qaeda, which he has.
Perhaps you prefer the old fashioned, storm the hill and die for your country method.
Maybe Romney will convince one of his 5 sons to step up and take one for their country. You know, in the name of glorious war!LOL Peggy >8), I admire the way you never let simple facts get in the way of your passion. One day I'd love to sit around a fire with a pitcher of margaritas and discuss the issues of the day with you.
Well, at least that's pretty much all you heard. For the record, he repeatedly said 8 - 10 years for most of the plan, not 4. Your guy made the rookie mistake of saying he should be accountable after 4 years and is now probably wishing he would have said 8 - 10 as well.
So what you're saying, Gregg, is a candidate should be held accountable for every word they say, right? We should examine every position, and re-position, with a magnifying glass cause, a candidates word is what it's all about, for you, right? Actions, or consequence, or changing realities don't mean anything in the face of THEIR WORDS.
Hummm, let me think on that one a bit and get back to ya with some of the WORDS that perhaps you missed in this run-up to the election.
But, as a starter, here are a few WORDS you should hear since a candidates words are so important.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2x2W4GhSLlQ&feature=related
LOL Peggy >8), I admire the way you never let simple facts get in the way of your passion. One day I'd love to sit around a fire with a pitcher of margaritas and discuss the issues of the day with you.
And I just love how you keep thinking you are talking to people with short term memory loss!
You supply the margaritas and I'll supply a brief history lesson on the Iraq war.:D
So what you're saying, Gregg, is a candidate should be held accountable for every word they say, right?
I actually think candidates ARE accountable for their words and for their actions if they get elected. Its old fashioned, I admit. I also don't think any of them deserve a free pass just for belonging to a particular party...no matter which party that is. Does it mean anything that you are expending so much effort cutting down your candidates opponent rather than expounding his virtues? No need to answer, its a rhetorical question and another old fashioned idea anyway. Guess I'm just stuck in the past today.
And I just love how you keep thinking you are talking to people with short term memory loss!
You supply the margaritas and I'll supply a brief history lesson on the Iraq war.:D
That would be fun! I'd bet that "The World According To Peggy" would be a lot like "$#*! My Dad Says" (http://****mydadsays.tumblr.com/) on steroids, and all for the cost of a few margaritas. Count me in!! :cool:
ApatheticNoMore
10-24-12, 10:30am
I actually think candidates ARE accountable for their words and for their actions if they get elected. Its old fashioned, I admit.
It's actually never been true in our lifetimes (that's pretty old fashioned I guess!), not at the Presidential level, if there was a time it was true, it's not in the last century. Woodrow Wilson ran on keeping the U.S. out of World War I. How did that work out? Actions I hold them accountable for. Words well, I think they can signal very dangerous things with their words, Romney originally tried to run as more pro-war than Obama and is now flip flopping (real surprise for that, Romney, flip flopping, no you don't say). What they signal on the environment is horrible. But on some issues I suspect they might not be as aren't always as bad as their signals (R's always run pro-war and don't always govern that way). Probabilities are they *ARE* as bad as their signals, but likely does not equal certain. Actions on the other hand, when you have 4 years of record, is hard to argue with. Oh and I don't know what it means when they run on no plan that anyone can pin down at all and nothing at all (Romney's tax plan).
And lets not forget about the kill list.
Update: The "kill list" has been updated. It is now the "disposition matrix". http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/plan-for-hunting-terrorists-signals-us-intends-to-keep-adding-names-to-kill-lists/2012/10/23/4789b2ae-18b3-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_print.html
"Kill List" sounds so...violent!
ApatheticNoMore
10-24-12, 11:09am
Update: The "kill list" has been updated. It is now the "disposition matrix".
take the red pill
It's actually never been true in our lifetimes (that's pretty old fashioned I guess!), not at the Presidential level, if there was a time it was true, it's not in the last century.
Obviously not everyone here will agree with this, but I think accountability, like responsibility, starts at the individual level and works up. It doesn't come trickling down from some kind of magically formed national consensus. I do try to hold elected officials accountable in that way. You can, too. If enough of us do that then it will have some impact. Until then politicians running for office can, and will, say pretty much anything they think their base wants to hear without any real fear that their words will come back to haunt them if their actions don't live up to the promises. As far as the Presidential level vs. any other level, its as simple as the bigger the office is the bigger the promises have to be.
take the red pill
but...but...I love fabricated reality!
Obviously not everyone here will agree with this, but I think accountability, like responsibility, starts at the individual level and works up. It doesn't come trickling down from some kind of magically formed national consensus. I do try to hold elected officials accountable in that way. You can, too. If enough of us do that then it will have some impact. Until then politicians running for office can, and will, say pretty much anything they think their base wants to hear without any real fear that their words will come back to haunt them if their actions don't live up to the promises. As far as the Presidential level vs. any other level, its as simple as the bigger the office is the bigger the promises have to be.
But Gregg, there isn't a single issue that Romney hasn't changed his position on, several times even and within the span of a few days/weeks, depending on who he is talking to. Not a single one! Really. Try it. Think of a serious issue facing this country and you will find several positions from this guy.
He has also lied about his taxes before and is probably lying now as he is so paranoid that someone will see his returns.
These aren't speculations. They are truths. You know it and I know it, yet, you are not holding HIM responsible.
Maybe Obama wasn't able to completely fix everything wrong with the country/world in under 4 years as he hoped, but he has achieved, or really tried to achieve the goals he said he would. The fact that he got an obstructionist republican congress whose only stated goal was to see him fail was a miscalculation on his part. He actually believed congress would come together whoever won and work for the good of the country. Yeah, right, like the petulant republicans would let that happen! Frankly, I'm surprised he was able to achieve what he did considering the republicans very best efforts to see the country fail.
Even now, as the economy is slowly limping back, the republicans can't poor mouth it enough.
And yes, I do believe we have discussed President Obama's achievements many times here. I have personally championed his record many times. Considering what he has had to work with, I think he is a great President!
But Gregg, there isn't a single issue that Romney hasn't changed his position on...
And there are very few issues that I feel the same way about today that I did in the past. War (against unless attacked), abortion (not for me, you decide for you), and domestic partnerships (none of the government's business) are about the only issues I can think of where I've always had the same stand I do now. I don't hold changing their mind against anyone just for the sake of doing it. Times change.
And yes, I do believe we have discussed President Obama's achievements many times here. I have personally championed his record many times. Considering what he has had to work with, I think he is a great President!
Yes you have peggy. Considering the passion you feel in mounting his defense I think you should vote for him.
And there are very few issues that I feel the same way about today that I did in the past. War (against unless attacked), abortion (not for me, you decide for you), and domestic partnerships (none of the government's business) are about the only issues I can think of where I've always had the same stand I do now. I don't hold changing their mind against anyone just for the sake of doing it. Times change.
Yes you have peggy. Considering the passion you feel in mounting his defense I think you should vote for him.
Times don't change THAT quickly!:laff::laff:
How could anyone possibly know what he stands for if he changes his 'positions' week to week? I think we need just a tad more stability in a President, don't you? Your conviction that he is 'the man' is only exceeded by his lack of conviction!
The only conviction this guy holds is that he wants to be President. Desperately!
As I said peggy, if you don't appreciate Mr. Romney you might want to consider voting for his opposition. For myself, I think I now have a fairly clear understanding of your position. I get it. Thanks.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.