You might want to read about these hearings they have been having… It is pretty clear who knew what when at this point. [/quote]
Source? I will gladly read it.[/quote]
Oh my… [/quote]
You told me to read about it, surely you have a source where you read it. Is it really so much trouble to ask for it? All I have read is a bunch of speculation, which depending how you lean may lead to certain conclusions.
[/quote]
I just assumed someone taking me to task over “talking points” on the issue was following along with the story:
Literally, I’m not digging up any more for you. I know that the attack in Libya is new to most liberals now that it came up in the debate, but I have to go watch big bird.
How anyone can stomach these omnipotent MSNBC cowards such as Rachel Maddow, Al Sharpton, Larry O’Donnel, Ed Schultz and Rachel Maddow’s mom Chris Hayes is a lesson in brain washing.
And don’t forget former liberal strong-man Keith Olberman that was fired from ESPN and MSNBC then fired from Al Gore’s channel Current TV which has a smaller audience than a Kenny Chesney concert (seriously look up the numbers when he was on air it was like 27,000 viewers… smaller than a concert crowd)
How ironic that the left worships the anti-war Jane Fondas / Cindy Sheehans of the world but want to crucify Romney for serving a two year mission in France instead of fighting communists in Vietnam. Communists that they the left always hold up as examples of better managed countries. Remember Obama conversation to Russian President caught on a “hot mic” that he thought was turned off.
As a Mormon missionary Romney would have donated two years of his youth to charitable work and serve the local foreign community,although not all missions served are outside the United States.
However many Mormon missions are and is the reason the F.B.I and C.I.A. recruit heavily from the Mormon community because of their time spent in other countries, knowing the customs and language, especially in Latin America.
Neither Bill Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama served in the military, unless you count allowing the Chinese to obtain our military missile and space technology.
China, Russia, Iran and California would love for Obama to continue as president of the United States of America.
I think this point is in credibly important but doesn’t get talked about enough, but it caused many to turn against Obama. The American electorate wanted post-partisan leadership - Obama delivered neither.[/quote]
I will say for my part this is largely true of myself. I don’t like his policies. I don’t like the ACA. I didn’t like most of his policies. But I could have really lived with a president who got that shit done—even while i didn’t like it—if he had represented a true post-partisan leader. Hell, he didn’t even need to be post partisan, he could have been Clinton style. But I got the ramrod and I really dislike being fucked. At least without true-to-the-spirit bipartisan legislative process.
@Counting Beans in response to your “Republican President - murderer that wants to send my son’s to war” I recall George H. Bush had broad support on the first Gulf War. I recall Clinton got hammered on Somalia and “Black Hawk Down”. JFK got lit up on Bay of Pigs. Truman has not be reflected well on Korea. LBJ not so loved on Vietnam. Reagen not so loved on Grenada.
That rhetoric on Republican’s being warmongers and Democrats being in just wars is not entirely fair on either side of the fence. Do liberalis generally believe in liberal internationalist policies? Yes. Do Republicans believe in just wars? Yes. But neither party is without its “war wounds” or able to avoid being called warmongers.
On a side note I believe this election will be no different then any other in terms of voting as it will be incredibly close.
I’m throwing my hat in the ring and I am going to say it is not going to be as close as people think.
I think it goes Romney at least 52% -48%. The only caveat to this I think is if Romney botches the 3rd debate. If he blows it for some reason, any reason, then Obama squeaks in.
I was going to write a long list about pros and cons of Obama. But lets face it right now the only thing anyone cares about is who can un-fuck the economy and keep us employed.
Both sides poke bullshit holes in each others recovery plans and I am not sure either one has the leadership or a solid plan to fix it. Romney and Ryan wont give real details, but Obama’s current recovery is not impressing anyone enough to sway new voters.
Romney is not a strong leader, he has said some stupid blatantly offensive shit and I fear he may actually believe some of it.
Obama sounded better publicly but in the past 4 years he has shown that he isn’t a very strong leader either. He has made some bad missteps in foreign policy and he is spending way too much money. And we really can’t afford someone in office with a no compromise attitude on any issue with regards to money and spending right now.
I fear Romney and Ryan will lead us back into an economic frame work we had under Bush which pushed us into recession. Yet at the same time Obama needs to back off the spending and cut deals with the Republicans. Like maybe its time to shelve Obama care… if he did that the other side may open up to some of his less intrusive ideas.
Both of these guys are foreign policy disasters. Romney has said nothing smart about foreign policy and runs his mouth too much. Obama is weak even for a Democrat, willingness to compromise and cooperate with our allies and other nations is not an excuse for projecting weakness.
We need a new party, its coming I am sure but not fast enough. Or both sides need to drop some of their philosophical dogma with regard to economic policy and start repairing the economy at all costs.
Sadly with our two polarized parties I have to keep voting Democrat. The only way I would swing to a Republican vote would be if they offered up an economic recovery plan so clearly better that it trumped other issues I have with their ticket. I’m not convinced that is the case.
[quote]StolyElit wrote:
Sadly with our two polarized parties I have to keep voting Democrat. The only way I would swing to a Republican vote would be if they offered up an economic recovery plan so clearly better that it trumped other issues I have with their ticket. I’m not convinced that is the case.[/quote]
The fact you blame the financial crisis on Bush…
You know what, forget it. I don’t have the energy to bother.
I never, ever, ever thought I would read a New York paper endorsing a Republican for president. That was an excellent op-ed and very good read. I think it was an excellently phrased exposition of what needs to happen…and what moderates are thinking right now (even if they don’t say it). Considering the fact that a “republican” new york ciitizen is pretty much a “moderate” in most other states I think this is an excellent sign for Romney
I would be willing to admit that is a simplified, probably errant statement with regards to Bush and the economic collapse. Still just pissed that somehow we got dragged into Iraq when the only place we ever needed to be was Afghanistan and it cost a lot of money and lives to do both.
We can lay the economic meltdown with the housing bubble, and people fucking us over on wall street and in the banking system which in fairness would have happened under any administration.
There are still a large number of people who believe that Romney and Ryan’s eco plan can’t add up. Is everyone here just complacent to say that its all spin on the Democratic side to discredit them, because I here these guys getting attacked for a lack of detail and specificity with regards to their recovery plan by people on the right and left.
[quote]StolyElit wrote:
I would be willing to admit that is a simplified, probably errant statement with regards to Bush and the economic collapse. Still just pissed that somehow we got dragged into Iraq when the only place we ever needed to be was Afghanistan and it cost a lot of money and lives to do both.
We can lay the economic meltdown with the housing bubble, and people fucking us over on wall street and in the banking system which in fairness would have happened under any administration.
There are still a large number of people who believe that Romney and Ryan’s eco plan can’t add up. Is everyone here just complacent to say that its all spin on the Democratic side to discredit them, because I here these guys getting attacked for a lack of detail and specificity with regards to their recovery plan by people on the right and left. [/quote]
Being pissed about Iraq I can understand. And I think you’re exactly right about the housing bubble being inevitable no matter what admin was in charge at the time but…
Well sure. They haven’t been specific…but what detail has Obama given? I mean really, if we’re going to criticize we have to do it both ways and Obama has been just as bad, or even worse because his record has been miserable, about giving specifics of his plan. He has a great grand style of speaking…but no details. And certainly not more than Mitt, who has been light on them anyway.
Given the choice between 2 equally vague plans, I pick the plan that has a successful business man endorsing it rather than the one a community organizer, long time politician and chronic campaigner, and failed 4 year experiment endorses. If for no other reason than that the business man likely has the ability to understand how to compromise for the greater good (economically speaking only). It’s pragmatically safe to hedge your bets that way if nothing else. And in any case Obama had 4 years to start unfucking the economy—and he didn’t. It’s not that the economy isn’t fixed ALL the way, it’s that it hasn’t shown any real sign of serious life at all. Nobody who is intelligent and serious could say “yeah, in 4 years we’ll all be back to pre-crash levels”, but the problem is that there’s not even any serious progress TOWARDS being fixed.
[quote]StolyElit wrote:
I would be willing to admit that is a simplified, probably errant statement with regards to Bush and the economic collapse. Still just pissed that somehow we got dragged into Iraq when the only place we ever needed to be was Afghanistan and it cost a lot of money and lives to do both.
We can lay the economic meltdown with the housing bubble, and people fucking us over on wall street and in the banking system which in fairness would have happened under any administration.
There are still a large number of people who believe that Romney and Ryan’s eco plan can’t add up. Is everyone here just complacent to say that its all spin on the Democratic side to discredit them, because I here these guys getting attacked for a lack of detail and specificity with regards to their recovery plan by people on the right and left. [/quote]
How you missed the Democratic mantra of “poor people deserve houses even if they can’t afford them” is beyond me, especially since you’re from Cali, the welfare state of the nation.
Keep in mind that Clinton de-regulated banks, but let’s not let that get in the way of the hate-GOP train.
How is that “voting Dem” thing workin’ for you in Cali ? $16 Billion in debt, and we are already have the highest taxes in the nation. This is where I would tell you to vote NO on Prop 30 and YES on Prop 32, but I get the feeling you’re one of those “tax the rich” folk, as if that hasn’t pushed business and money out of our beloved state which is swirling the bowl.
[quote]StolyElit wrote:
I was going to write a long list about pros and cons of Obama. But lets face it right now the only thing anyone cares about is who can un-fuck the economy and keep us employed.
Both sides poke bullshit holes in each others recovery plans and I am not sure either one has the leadership or a solid plan to fix it. Romney and Ryan wont give real details, but Obama’s current recovery is not impressing anyone enough to sway new voters.
Romney is not a strong leader, he has said some stupid blatantly offensive shit and I fear he may actually believe some of it.
Obama sounded better publicly but in the past 4 years he has shown that he isn’t a very strong leader either. He has made some bad missteps in foreign policy and he is spending way too much money. And we really can’t afford someone in office with a no compromise attitude on any issue with regards to money and spending right now.
I fear Romney and Ryan will lead us back into an economic frame work we had under Bush which pushed us into recession. Yet at the same time Obama needs to back off the spending and cut deals with the Republicans. Like maybe its time to shelve Obama care… if he did that the other side may open up to some of his less intrusive ideas.
Both of these guys are foreign policy disasters. Romney has said nothing smart about foreign policy and runs his mouth too much. Obama is weak even for a Democrat, willingness to compromise and cooperate with our allies and other nations is not an excuse for projecting weakness.
We need a new party, its coming I am sure but not fast enough. Or both sides need to drop some of their philosophical dogma with regard to economic policy and start repairing the economy at all costs.
Sadly with our two polarized parties I have to keep voting Democrat. The only way I would swing to a Republican vote would be if they offered up an economic recovery plan so clearly better that it trumped other issues I have with their ticket. I’m not convinced that is the case.[/quote]
Well, at least you know what you’re getting by keeping Obama in the White House. Four more years of economic pain.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
For what it’s worth, I hope I’m wrong as well.
To continue with your analogy, though, how many voters are honest enough with themselves to admit that the 10 in the bar last night is really a 4? That’s a blow to the ego and I’m not sure many (most?) voters are willing to admit to themselves that they were wrong the first time, that all the Hope and Change slogans they posted all over their friends’ FB pages amounted to a pile of garbage?[/quote]
I thought Hillary was a 7 or 8, Obama a 5-6, and Mccain a 4.
I can only understand it to the extent that I understand that many people who yap on and on about the Iraq War being unnecessary are the ones who weren’t even a gleam in Daddy’s eye, or at least still in diapers, when the first war, the Persian Gulf War, was fought. And if one doesn’t understand the FACT that the two wars are inextricably tied together and in essence one war then he is going to fall for the inaccurate talking points that the Iraq War was a complete travesty of reason and an “unjust war.”
I don’t buy it.
There was a list of good reasons a mile long for thumping Saddam. One may look back now with 20/20 hindvision and surmise we shouldn’t have gone in at the time but at the time it was a pretty damn unified school of thought, Demos and Repubs alike, that it was the right thing to do.
[/quote]
What items populate this list other than phantom WMD?
Saddam was an evil man…evil men abound. We traded one untethered murderer for one hundred thousand.
I was living in Europe during much of the Iraq war. European newspapers will regularly show pictures that would never see the light of day in an American publication. I’m sure we’ve all seen the ugly side of Operation Iraqi Freedom, but this was nearly every day: American kids–and I do mean kids–charred like pork left an hour too long on the grill. Faces twisted in a combination of shock and pain and maybe some deep deep sadness. Innards spread along the floor. For the ones who were unlucky enough to live a while after the detonation or the gunshot, you could almost smell the shit in their pants.
There is nothing glorious about war. I know it’s sometimes necessary and I have nothing but respect for the men and women who wage it on our behalf, but for their sake it damn sure better be the only option.
