B-Man
-
Posts
69,026 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by B-Man
-
-
A president and the nation he leads require a mission and a vision for the future.Central to that, I would argue, should be American leadership — not because we want to be No. 1, not because it’s good to be king, but because there is no acceptable alternative to American leadership.
Iran’s rulers are eager for the job. Vladimir Putin would grab the reins in a New York minute. Maybe China, too. Do I need to explain where those roads would lead?
And it is beyond naive to believe that we can rely on the U.N. to function as some kind of global government. In the U.N. Security Council, both Russia and China have vetoes. The biggest block in the General Assembly is the Non-Aligned Movement, which has just elected Iran as its president. The Non-Aligned Movement is largely controlled by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, most members of which are unfree, undemocratic, and Islamist — if you don’t know the difference between Islamic and Islamist, I’ll explain in a minute.
It should be acknowledged that what is being waged is a war Against the West. And it’s being waged by Islamists, those who believe in Islamic supremacy; those who believe, as the late Father Richard John Neuhaus put it, that “it is the moral obligation of all Muslims to employ whatever means necessary in order to compel the world’s submission to Islam.”
There are Islamist movements, Islamist regimes and Islamist ideologies. If we’re to prevail, we’ll have to battle them all. That means not just fighting kinetic wars but also covert wars, and wars of ideas.
Third, if America is not strong economically, we can’t be strong in any other way. Conservatives and liberals have different views on how America regains its economic strength but surely we should at least be wary about emulating Europe’s economic approach. There no is longer a single European nation that is militarily strong. In other words, the European-style welfare state correlates with military weakness. And there is reason to suspect a causal link between the two, as well.
From:
Seven Issues That Should Be Covered In Tonight’s Debate
.
-
Anybody else find this laughable?
I used to.......................not so much anymore.
I live in a country where reminding people the consequences of breaking the law is considered "oppressive"
God help us.
.
-
Well speaking of the moderator.
Will Schieffer Ask Obama About That ‘Cancer’ Called Guantanamo?
During the last administration, CBS anchor Bob Schieffer was a red-hot advocate of closing the terrorist holding pen at Guantanamo. "This is just a boil. It's a cancer. This thing is not doing anybody any good,” he ranted on MSNBC’s Imus In The Morning show on June 9, 2005.
Schieffer’s ardor cooled considerably once Obama was elected. Will Schieffer bring up the “cancer” of Gitmo in tonight’s debate? Back in the Bush years, he repeatedly suggested it made us just like the terrorists we were fighting.
and;
The bias of Bob Schieffer: Top 7 moments
Tonight, Schieffer takes the stage. Here is the format and topic order he selected:
America’s role in the world
Our longest war – Afghanistan and Pakistan
Red Lines – Israel and Iran
The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism – I
The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism – II
The Rise of China and Tomorrow’s World
.
-
Tonight’s Foreign Policy Debate: A Preview
The President’s Narrative. Sunday morning on Fox News Sunday, Senator Dick Durbin (D., Ill.) said
“We[the Obama administration]have responsibly ended the war in Iraq, we are going to end the war in Afghanistan. . . . Al-Qaeda as a shadow of its former self . . . and we’ve now put enough pressure on Iran with the sanctions regime so they won’t develop a nuclear weapon that they want to sit down and talk.”Call them President Obama’s Big 4 Foreign Policy talking points — I suspect President Obama will go back to them repeatedly tonight: Ended Iraq, ending Afghanistan, killed bin Laden, and Iran now wants to talk.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
Governor Romney should dissect each point individually, just as he categorically dismantled many of the president’s talking points in the first debate. The Iraq War may be over, but why didn’t we follow through and complete a Status of Forces Agreement? With no influence on the ground, Iraq is cozying up to Iran.
The Afghanistan War may be ending, but the political withdrawal deadline the president set has undercut the mission, and the opportunity for a stable outcome. Afghanistan is teetering toward chaos in 2014, and the president’s policies share the blame.
Killing bin Laden was spot on, but the leaks that followed—for political gain—are shameful and detrimental.
As for Iran, rumors of “talks” are (a) not substantiated (even by the White House); and (b) dangerously naïve. While we talk, Iran continues to build toward a nuclear weapon. The president will attempt to paint Romney as a war-monger, but it’s important the American people understand why deterring Iran matters and ultimately prevents future wars.
The Impact of the Economy and Debt. President Obama is perceived to have an advantage on foreign policy, while Romney has the edge on jobs and the economy. While I don’t agree that the president really does have an advantage, Romney will try to both chip away at the narrative above and play to his own strength. He should go to this theme, early and often: Our military strength is ultimately determined by our economic strength. And with anemic economic growth, lagging job creation, and mountains of debt—a diminished U.S. economy will eventually mean a diminished U.S. military.
{snip}
President Obama’s foreign policy has been rudderless and dangerously ideological (meaning he’s wedded to the ideology that if we give enough speeches, and pretend the enemy doesn’t exist, then we’re safer). He’s been willing to rhetorically, and in reality, undermine allies (think Israel and Egypt) while soft-peddling enemies (think Iran and Syria), and he’s been unwilling to name the threat (“they’re extremists, not radical Islamists”). This dichotomy could be exposed, and emphasized tonight.
Again, Romney will be painted by Obama as a war-monger, which he should push back hard against. The president’s proposals make America look weaker, which invites future challenge. Strength, on the other hand, can deter conflict. In making this point, Romney should present an optimistic view of America’s role in the world and call for the U.S. to take the lead again. Our allies will be supported, our threats named, and our enemies defeated . . . end of story.
.
-
I guess its time to pull Curly Bill out again.............................
-
Am I the only one concerned that Valerie Jarrett is representing the U.S. in talks with Iran.
At least this explains why she has a bigger "protection" detail than a middle east ambassador.
.
-
...and? I don't see the story here.
Because Doc, to the Left, talking someone out of an abortion is bad. In the real world, we (ironically) call that "Choice"
Is This Gloria Allred's October Surprise?
Jim Hoft is only speculating, but he's going by percolating interest from left wing blogs for a particular story
If he's right, it's neither surprise nor October, given that it has been reported on before, to yawns.
The big scandal (assuming his guess is right)? Romney, a pro-life representative of a pro-life church, urged a congregant to carry a baby to term, despite the doctor advising her to abort it (based on possible complications from clotting).
“He regaled me with stories of his sister and her retarded child and what a blessing the child had been to the family,” Sheldon wrote of the incident. “He told me that ‘as your bishop, my concern is with the child.’”As Bob Ueker said in Major League, about a flyball that was caught in short centerfield: "Reggie, I don't think this one quite has the distance."
Or as Colonel Jessup said: "Please tell me you haven't pinned the fates of two men" on crap like this.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/334102.php
If Allred’s intention is, in fact, to use these past stories--which date from thirty years ago, and were first used against Romney nearly twenty years ago--there is not much she could add.
With her characteristic theatrics, however--which included exposing a client to the risk of deportation in 2010--she might hope to provoke an outraged reaction from the media.
It is a good thing the general public has long since stopped paying attention.
.
-
Gloria AllDread: Mitt Romney once walked into the ladies room by mistake - at least that's what he said at the time according to his Seventh Grade teacher.
Supposedly, he advised someone not to get an abortion once.
Is that what we've come to in this country ?
Even if you are Pro-choice, does the fact that someone counseled another person against ending their pregnancy, some type of dis-qualifier from office ? ?
Is that what the once great democrat party has sunk to ?
.
-
The other rumor floating out there is a "scandal" announcement by the the left's favorite scandal promoter/lawyer, Gloria Allred
Many are worried about rumors of a lightning strike from, of all people, Gloria Allred, and a deeply compromised MSM carrying as much water as is needed to drown Team Romney in the equivalent of George W. Bush's DUI.
Anything can happen, but it is increasingly unlikely for two reasons.
First, the country is in very bad shape. The difficulties are enormous, and no one who fills up a tank of gas or watches even a bit of news doubts it. This situation compels the independents and even many Democrats, perhaps privately in the latter case, to pull the lever for Romney.
Second, Mitt Romney is a very good man, and the past two weeks have put that reality on display for everyone who cares to notice to see.
A very good man, and the country wants that right now. They want to trust that someone with great skills also has the great character necessary to ask the country to do hard and complicated things, and the intelligence to choose among many competing proposals on how best to chart a course back to prosperity and security.
We do not double down on failure, and President Obama has failed.
{snip}
Bottom line 1: Mitt Romney doesn't choke, and there is no scandal in his background. Not even a chance of one.
Bottom line 2: Barack Obama has failed miserably and in every category of governance. There is no defending his record, and no reason to believe he will change either his ideas or their outcomes.
Most voters now know these things even if they don't articulate them in this fashion. That's the reality two weeks before the voting, and it isn't going to change in a fortnight.
Sure, the Allreds of the world could show up with some poor person who has been dragooned into saying something the media reports as a torpedo aimed at midships, but it won't be real and it will not hit its target.
When the country finally got to see Romney on the stage with Obama, it glimpsed what the country saw in 1980 when Ronald Reagan took Jimmy Carter apart: The prospect of a turn-around led by a very skilled, very confident and --to repeat-- a very, very good man.
This explains the panic in Chicago and the president's clumsy maneuvers last week and suggest more stunts are on the way Monday night.
No matter. 70 million people saw he first debate live, and nearly as many saw the second. People talk. They text and Tweet.
They are already voting for change and there isn't any real likelihood of that trend changing. The Romney/Ryan rally in Daytona Beaach Friday night ended in a huge fireworks display and an enormous crowd pumped up as only winning can do.
People sense the change coming, and they are very, very eager for it to arrive, and the prosperity it will herald
http://www.hughhewitt.com/blog/g/c2191a08-28f7-439b-8e2b-b10ba63e90ae
-
October 20, 2012 - by Michael Ledeen
The New York Times reports (and the White House denies) that “The United States and Iran have agreed for the first time to one-on-one negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, according to Obama administration officials, setting the stage for what could be a last-ditch diplomatic effort to avert a military strike on Iran.”
Two of the three assertions in that lead paragraph are demonstrably false. One-on-one negotiations have been going on for years (most recently, according to my friend “Reza Kahlili,” in Doha, where, he was told, Valerie Jarrett and other American officials recently traveled for the latest talks). The only news here is that the talks would no longer be secret. And the notion that only diplomacy can avert “a military strike on Iran” is fanciful. There are at least two other ways: sanctions may compel the regime to stop its nuclear weapons program, or the Iranian people may find a way to overthrow the regime, thereby (perhaps, at least) rendering military action unnecessary.
I rather suspect that you don’t have to do anything to avoid an American military strike on Iran. I can’t imagine an Obama administration authorizing a military attack. An administration that can barely bring itself to fly air cover in Libya, and can’t bring itself to take any serious action in Syria, strikes me as very unlikely to unleash our armed forces against the mullahs.
As for the claim that Iran has agreed to talks, even that seems problematic, as the Times admits further down in its story: “American officials said they were uncertain whether Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had signed off on the effort.” If there is no approval from the supreme leader, there is no agreement at all.
The Times’ journalists — Helene Cooper and Mark Lander — then treat us to an attempt to calculate the political significance of their story, but that is as foggy as the report itself. Maybe it would help Obama claim some sort of breakthrough. On the other hand, maybe it would leave him open to the charge that Iran is using him to stall for time. Who knows?
This can't be the the Obama campaign's last ditch surprise. ..............A phony 'deal' with an untrustworthy regime.
Even they must know that this wouldn't impress anyone who hasn't already drank their kool-aid............lol
.
-
Obama admin recalibrating Benghazi narrative — again — before FP debate?
Since it now appears that the first two presidential debates did very much indeed have a resounding effect on the state of the race, Team O can’t afford to take any chances with Monday’s foreign-policy debate. Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s narrative on the president’s foreign-policy record has long been that all of those drone strikes and the death of Osama bin Laden have vastly deteriorated the strength and coordination of terrorism in the Middle East, and the attacks on the consulate in Benghazi and the death of four Americans on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11 put something of a damper on that narrative.
Now it looks like the White House might be trying to rejigger that narrative yet again align more favorably with President Obama’s self-stated successes, do some damage control on his administration’s incompetent and bungled response to repeated security threats in the region, and may be most particularly looking get any “al Qaeda”-related language out of the Libya story.
{snip}
as Stephen Hayes summarized at the Weekly Standard this morning,
The administration’s new line takes shape in two articles out Saturday, one in theLos Angeles Timesand the other byWashington Postcolumnist David Ignatius. TheTimespiece reports that there is no evidence of an al Qaeda role in the attack. The Ignatius column makes a directly political argument, claiming that “the Romney campaign may have misfired with its suggestion that statements by President Obama and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice about the Benghazi attacks weren’t supported by intelligence, according to documents provided by a senior intelligence official.”If this is the best the Obama administration can offer in its defense, they’re in trouble.TheTimesstory is almost certainly wrong and the central part of the Ignatius “scoop” isn’t a scoop at all.As Hayes goes on to point out, this new intelligence claiming that there is no evidence that al Qaeda was involved in the attacks, directly contradicts earlier reports and evidence claiming that al Qaeda and/or affiliates may very well have been involved in the attacks — and either way, none of this gets around the undeniable fact that the Obama administration failed to deal with longstanding security concerns.
It’s really quite jarring that Team Obama can accuse Mitt Romney & friends of trying to distort the Benghazi situation for political purposes, when it is abundantly clear that that is what’s going on with the White House here. This is raising some serious questions in the intelligence community and from Congress about the White House’s manipulative handling of the situation, and certain Republicans (rightly) aren’t going to let this go
-
Biden tells the truth: Ledbetter about lawsuits, not equal pay
At a campaign event in Florida today, Vice President Joe Biden did something that neither he nor Democrats have done throughout the campaign – told the truth. Democrats, Obama, faux-feminists, women, Liberals, students and unions have been bashing Republicans who are against the Lilly Ledbetter Act. The Ledbetter Act that was passed by mostly Democrats and signed into law by Obama when he first got into office. It was never about equal pay but about lawsuits. Ledbetter was a huge win for lawyers, not women. It will most likely hurt women in the workplace because employers will think twice before hiring women who could file potentially frivolous lawsuits.
Over the past few months we’ve heard continually about the fake ‘war on women’ that is somehow being waged by Republicans and how they don’t want ‘equal pay’ for women. It’s not true, of course, but foolish people desperate to keep their party in power will say anything. Biden actually told the truth today and is probably the first Democrat to do so. From the Washington Free Beacon:
BIDEN:All the Lilly Ledbetter said was if a woman finds out she’s been treated and treated wrongly, cheated in terms of her salary and benefits at work. That she’s able to sue from the moment she finds out. That’s all it said. Because they were locked out they said that if you didn’t learn within two years you were being cheated then you’re out of luck. But we changed the law. It’s not a –it’s a big deal for women, but it’s not a big deal in terms of equal pay. But it’s an important– and they couldn’t even support thatHopefully he’ll tell the truth about the Paycheck Fairness Act as well. This is another bill that Democrats pushed as ‘equal pay’ but this one is about controlling business practices. The Act will hurt women even worse than the Ledbetter has the potential to but Democrats never let facts get in their way when dumbing down women. Conservatives and Republicans have been stating what Biden finally said today all along. The truth about the Ledbetter Act is that it has absolutely nothing to do with equal pay and everything to do with lawsuits. This is one ‘gaffe’ where Biden actually embarrassed his party by telling the truth.
http://www.examiner....s-not-equal-pay
Biden: Lilly Ledbetter Act Not Such a Big F***ing Deal After All
The Romney campaign is going to get some mileage out of this. The Lilly Ledbetter Act is supposed to be the biggest advance for women since suffrage. But Joe Biden
, in an attempt to paint its opponents as even more hostile to women.
-
Saw this slant on the news this morning saying the polls are reflecting that this scenario could play out. The story hinted Romney would get binders of lawyers to fight the decision. Not sure what that is all about. But how many republicans would still feel really good about the electoral college vote if this scenario did in fact play out?
Gibberish thread..........the only true sentence is the third one.
I certainly would not presume to speak for the other conservatives on the board, but (while I would dislike the results of another 4 years of the incompetent Obama) it would not change my support for the Electoral College in the slightest.
Our values are not that shallow.
.
-
-
Your rules have never been your rules. They've always been our rules that we've allowed your species to follow. However in the effort of goodwill I will oblige your request:
udder nonsense..................
.
-
-
-
A "grass-roots" example................
Pot Prizes May Have Lured More Eagle Rock Residents To Vote
EAGLE ROCK (CBSLA.com) — Fliers offering $40 worth of free medical-grade marijuana were reportedly passed out in Eagle Rock to try and draw residents to vote in the local election.
Was the free pot an incentive to get a larger turnout? Politics ranked “high” on resident’s list of priorities. Nearly 10 times as many voters – 792 residents – turned out to the polls during the recent Neighborhood Council elections than last year.
“It’s a little weird that people can’t come out and vote on their own. I see that as a problem, as a social symptom,” Eagle Rock resident Joerael Elliott said.
Many residents told CBS2′s Juan Fernandez they didn’t think enticing voters with perks was right.
“You can’t pay your way like that, that’s not cool,” resident Danielle Sargent said.
No one is claiming responsibility for the flier.
.
-
- Having a president who perpetuates a falsehood to the American people about the cause of a terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that resulted in the deaths of four Americans.
- Having a president who uses $70,000 of taxpayers’ money to promote that falsehood on Pakistani television.
- Having a president who broadcasts that falsehood to the world using the megaphone of a speech before the U.N. General Assembly.
- Having a president who repeats the falsehood in front of the caskets of the four Americans killed in Benghazi.
- Having a president who will casually wreak havoc on the life of an obscure video producer to protect that falsehood.
- Having a president who, before a television audience of 65 million Americans, evades answering the question of “who denied enhanced security” to the consulate in Benghazi.
- Having a president who feigns offense at the suggestion his machinations regarding the Benghazi debacle may have a political component.
- Having a president who believes killing bin Laden constitutes a foreign policy.
- Having a president who projects confusion, weakness, and diffidence to our enemies.
.
- Having a president who perpetuates a falsehood to the American people about the cause of a terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that resulted in the deaths of four Americans.
-
The Real Mitt Romney — on CBS!
This video, on Mitt Romney’s innumerable good deeds, should receive the widest possible attention. On CBS no less.
An interesting question for which I have only an imperfect answer at best: Why did the Obama campaign believe that their months of demonization would work when inevitably the real Romney would emerge at the debates or sooner? Especially because, unlike Senator McCain in 2008, Romney always was going to have the resources to run a formidable campaign.
Anyone who watched the Republican primary debates could see that Romney above all is a man of supreme decency, integrity, and modesty. My sense is that the Obama campaign, in a way quite similar to his White House, reflects the man: It is populated with attack dogs highly skilled at tactical maneuvering and disingenuousness, but with little strategic foresight.
In other words "..... none of the people in the Obama campaign
believed that the real Romney was a
genuinely nice guy, since none of them were."
.
-
The visual always just flashes back to a story out of Iraq several years ago of the prime minister Nouri al-Maliki handing out $50 bills (US Dollars) wherever he went to people who begged at his entourage. There was no recording system taking down names or whatever, no system of 'Muhammed Muhammed makes [$2] a day and has five children.' It was just essentially being like Jack Nickleson's Joker in the 1990 Batman movie, standing on a parade float and tossing out from black garbage bags full of cash.
Good post.
Except now I can't get rid of the picture of Mr. Obama saying "Hubba hubba hubba, who do you trust"................lol
.
-
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: THE GREAT GAFFE.
The rub for Obama comes, ironically enough, out of Romney’s biggest flub in the debate, the Libya question. That flub kept Romney from winning the evening outright. But Obama’s answer has left him a hostage to fortune. Missed by Romney, missed by the audience, missed by most of the commentariat, it was the biggest gaffe of the entire debate cycle: Substituting unctuousness for argument,Obama declared himself offended by the suggestion that anyone in his administration, including the U.N. ambassador, would “mislead” the country on Libya.This bluster — unchallenged by Romney — helped Obama slither out of the Libya question unscathed. Unfortunately for Obama,there is one more debate — next week, entirely on foreign policy. The burning issue will be Libya and the scandalous parade of fictions told by this administration to explain away the debacle.No one misled? ...............................His U.N. ambassador went on not one but five morning shows to spin a confection that the sacking of the consulate and the murder of four Americans came from a video-motivated demonstration turned ugly: “People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent and those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons.”But there was no gathering. There were no people. There was no fray. It was totally quiet outside the facility until terrorists stormed the compound and killed our ambassador and three others.The video? A complete irrelevance. It was a coordinated, sophisticated terror attack, encouraged, if anything, by Osama bin Laden’s successor, giving orders from Pakistan to avenge the death of a Libyan jihadist.And has anybody heard from Mr. Nakoula lately?
-
But look, I know a real fighter who didn't go and fight. Taggy wants to hit the president:
You really make it too easy Ducky...............you HAVE to read more sources.
Obama supporters take desperate swing at Tagg Romney
I really sense that Obama supporters are losing it, completely. I sense fear in their stupidity.
After Big Bird and the contrived “binder” fauxtroversy, they have a new cause: Tagg Romney threatened to take a swing at Obama when Obama called Tagg’s father a liar.
Of course, the entire quote makes clear this was not a threat, just an observation on how it feels to have one’s father attacked in a political campaign
What is it like for you to hear the President of the United States call your dad a liar?”“You want to jump out of your seat, and you wanna rush down to the debate stage and take a swing at him, but you know you can’t do that, because, well, first because there’s a lot of Secret Service between you and him, but alsobecause this is just the nature of the process.”Tagg then said:
“They’re gonna try to do everything they can do to try to make my dad into someone he’s not. We signed up for it, we’ve gotta try to kind of sit there and take our punches, and then send them right back the other way….”A complete non-story, an observation from a family member as to the difficulty of having to see a father called names and attacked.
-
In all fairness, I heard that Jon Stewart asked him a question that included Stewart bringing up the question about it being optimal. That's when Obama said it wasn't optimal. I'd wait until I heard the conversation and put it in context before judging.
Stewart did use the word "optimal" in his question.
Why that is supposed to excuse how the (slow talking) President of the United States framed his answer is beyond me.
Did someone use the phrase "bumps in the road" referring to the deaths in Libya before him too ?
Let the man take some responsibility for his own actions.......please
Lets keep parsing everyone's words
Tonights cage match, Romney vs Obama 3
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Obama - exuding lack of confidence much?
"attacking me is not an agenda"--nicely done
"after election he'll get more backbone"--nicely done again.