Tonights cage match, Romney vs Obama 3

[IDBillzFan]

You would think he would have Bernanke send some their way.

 

This wouldn't be an issue if the city of Springfield could make electric car batteries or solar panels. Barry has plenty of extra cash for that kind of thing.

[TakeYouToTasker]

TheNewBills:

 

I have begun constructing a lengthy and detailed response to your most recent reply, but after thinking on it briefly I have decided to ask you if you will both read it in it's totality and respond in kind before I commit the time to it's construction.

[dayman]

TheNewBills:

 

I have begun constructing a lengthy and detailed response to your most recent reply, but after thinking on it briefly I have decided to ask you if you will both read it in it's totality and respond in kind before I commit the time to it's construction.

 

I will read it with an open mind.

[/dev/null]

This wouldn't be an issue if the city of Springfield could make electric car batteries or solar panels. Barry has plenty of extra cash for that kind of thing.

 

Don't worry, Springfield will more than make up for that lost cash when they finish their Monorail

[Cinga]

I'm not going to read all through this thread but have a comment or two to add... I was out of town for a few days....

 

Bayonets, obsolete??? Less of them needed??? Tell that to a Marine. Well known throughout the world for their rifle marksmanship, the bayonet, is the weapon of choice for close quarter combat... Ya see, yeah, I'm one of "those" and I loved my bayonet, because I could shove it up you a$$, and cut out your tongue...

 

The ship/boat distinction was one we played on our fellow warriors, the squids... Call a surface vessel a "boat", and you knew a fun fight was going to ensue... Y'all are aware of the supposed "animosity" between sailors and Marines, but believe me, it was mere "brotherly love" IMO... But it was fun to call a ship a boat, and a boat (submarine or cutter) a ship, and play with each other for a while... :-) Ironically, I was last on a "boat", the USS Tarawa, in 1978 and the ship was full of dart boards, with Jimmy Carter's picture on them.. Would love to float with them one more time to see what's on those dart boards now....

 

The defense budget.... and.... crony capitalism.....

 

Had to put that in there... Folks, remember those 700 dollar hammers?? It still happens!! We pass a military budget, full of ifs/ands/buts, that require the defense dept spend the money as our congress critters want, too often, with strings to local districts, or a pet project that spends beyond what something normally costs. It happens throughout government... Space Shuttle??? Aren't all of us sad, but amazed that it is retired after so many years? Did you know, at least one part of each shuttle, was built in every single state? Required by law??? Is it any wonder why we just shot up a private rocket to the space station at a fraction of the cost?

Google is your friend... Check out the "spare" engine budget for the F-22 Raptor... Why??? Crony capitalism...

 

Can we cut the defense budget??

 

We need it to be stronger than it is. We need our hero's to be safe, well supplied for the mission, and taken care of if traumatized in the line of duty, but we don't need a pet project that requires we spend 700 dollars for a hammer...

 

Yes, we "could" cut defense, but first, the cronyism needs to go..... Both parties are guilty of it, but PBOs comments about bayonets and horses, ships and boats, should be, and I expect are, offensive to anyone that has ever served....

 

Wondering aloud, if I can have one more "boat" ride on the Tarawa... Would love a dart tournament about now... Best picture target wins....

[B-Man]

[fjl2nd]

Doesn't it bother any conservatives here that Romney completely changed his positions on foreign policy since the primaries? Just wondering.

 

He should of went to the debate with a sign that read: "I agree the President".

[3rdnlng]

Doesn't it bother any conservatives here that Romney completely changed his positions on foreign policy since the primaries? Just wondering.

 

He should of went to the debate with a sign that read: "I agree the President".

 

Your ability to succinctly frame an issue and come up with a bumper sticker slogan that will fit on your smart car is far ahead of most of you libs. You go girl, "I agree the President" is sure to catch on.

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

Doesn't it bother any conservatives here that Romney completely changed his positions on foreign policy since the primaries? Just wondering.

 

He should of went to the debate with a sign that read: "I agree the President".

 

He effectively took away all of the lefts prepared talking points and counter attacks. He did that also while protecting himself from having his character portrayal being created by the left and framed to fit how they want it presented. He beat them at their own game.

 

 

[Doc]

Doesn't it bother any conservatives here that Romney completely changed his positions on foreign policy since the primaries? Just wondering.

 

He should of went to the debate with a sign that read: "I agree the President".

What bothers me (and should bother everyone) more, is that an ambasssador was begging for more security, and instead of getting it, had it removed, and was killed because his fears were correct. Then the President and his crack team told everyone to claim the attack was over a movie when they knew from the beginning that it was a planned al Qaeda attack. What's even worse is that the "it's the movie, it's the move" stuff only incited further/worse rioting afterwards, when it probably would have led to nothing.

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

 

What bothers me (and should bother everyone) more, is that an ambasssador was begging for more security, and instead of getting it, had it removed, and was killed because his fears were correct. Then the President and his crack team told everyone to claim the attack was over a movie when they knew from the beginning that it was a planned al Qaeda attack. What's even worse is that the "it's the movie, it's the move" stuff only incited further/worse rioting afterwards, when it probably would have led to nothing.

That's a not optimal statement.15 people who saw that video in June knew what it was.

[B-Man]

WELL, OBAMA SUPPORTERS — IS THIS WHAT YOU VOTED FOR IN 2008?

Obama moves to make the War on Terror permanent: Complete with a newly coined, creepy Orwellian euphemism – ‘disposition matrix’ – the administration institutionalizes the most extremist powers a government can claim.

But he’s not a Texan or a bald white guy like Cheney so it’s okay. Expect more anti-Mormon bigotry to cover the cognitive dissonance.

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/155329/

[/dev/null]

Doesn't it bother any conservatives here that Romney completely changed his positions on foreign policy since the primaries? Just wondering.

 

He should of went to the debate with a sign that read: "I agree the President".

 

Doesn't it bother you that Obama changed his positions on foreign policies since he became President. He ran against the policies of George W Bush before adopting the policies of George W Bush

[OCinBuffalo]

Doesn't it bother any conservatives here that Romney completely changed his positions on foreign policy since the primaries? Just wondering.

 

He should of went to the debate with a sign that read: "I agree the President".

Ask yourself: Why didn't you have a problem with Bill Clinton, doing the same thing as Romney in 1992? Do we need to go back in history?

 

 

Look, if most posters on the right here are anything, they are pragmatists/problem-solvers first. Most of us see the same thing in Romney. Many of us are leaders, and as such, we know that sometimes we have to break with what "we said", and do something else, out of necessity.

 

In fact, I just got done doing that 5 mins ago: I had to tell a client something that isn't accurate, not because I want to deceive him, but, he just can't process it now. He will when he can see it. It's just too much abstraction for him to handle today.

 

I know that what I am saying today, and what I will be saying 3 months from now, are not the same. I don't give a F, and 3 months from now, nobody else will either. (Even bet if anybody cares today )

 

But, I don't have half the country hanging on my every word, trying to F me over. (All I have is this corporate IT nitwit underling who is hanging on my every word, because he wants free training, and is making me explain how each piece of our architecture works..."to be convinced that it will". I could probably "convince" him that magic is involved at this point.)

 

Couple that with the fact that Romney had Rick Santorum, and all his nonsense to overcome, and it's not hard to see why we wouldn't have a problem with it.

 

 

Now, ask yourself again: Why didn't you have a problem with Bill Clinton, doing the same thing as Romney in 1992?

[CosmicBills]

WELL, OBAMA SUPPORTERS — IS THIS WHAT YOU VOTED FOR IN 2008?

 

Obama moves to make the War on Terror permanent: Complete with a newly coined, creepy Orwellian euphemism – ‘disposition matrix’ – the administration institutionalizes the most extremist powers a government can claim.

 

But he’s not a Texan or a bald white guy like Cheney so it’s okay. Expect more anti-Mormon bigotry to cover the cognitive dissonance.

 

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/155329/

B-Man, you know as well as I do this has nothing to do with which party is in the oval office. The changes started under Bush's watch and strengthened under Obama are just the beginning. The fact that we as a people (on both sides) have been so apathetic about these drastic, freedom altering transformations undertaken under the guise of protecting us from "terrorists" has only accelerated the process.

 

We've done ourselves in because we're too busy playing politics and fighting with one another about petty s*&t to notice that the fundamental nature of this country is at risk.

[OCinBuffalo]

B-Man, you know as well as I do this has nothing to do with which party is in the oval office. The changes started under Bush's watch and strengthened under Obama are just the beginning. The fact that we as a people (on both sides) have been so apathetic about these drastic, freedom altering transformations undertaken under the guise of protecting us from "terrorists" has only accelerated the process.

 

We've done ourselves in because we're too busy playing politics and fighting with one another about petty s*&t to notice that the fundamental nature of this country is at risk.

Absolutely. We are already on the slippery slope. It's tough...because it pits my/your right to life against my/your right to liberty.

 

It's a lose/lose bargain. That's why I support taking these turds out where they live, before they get chance to come to this country and force us into that trap.

 

Whether we like it or not, that may include invading states, because that's where they live. We can't just let them train, communicate, resupply and keep coming at us. That's folly. That's Viet Nam. We have to take the battle to the enemy.

 

That's how we win. We can F about, and try to pretend that isn't the case. Whenever we get done talking, it will still be the case.

[3rdnlng]

B-Man, you know as well as I do this has nothing to do with which party is in the oval office. The changes started under Bush's watch and strengthened under Obama are just the beginning. The fact that we as a people (on both sides) have been so apathetic about these drastic, freedom altering transformations undertaken under the guise of protecting us from "terrorists" has only accelerated the process.

 

We've done ourselves in because we're too busy playing politics and fighting with one another about petty s*&t to notice that the fundamental nature of this country is at risk.

 

 

From the article:

 

 

 

"The Post's Miller recognizes the watershed moment this represents: "The creation of the matrix and the institutionalization of kill/capture lists reflect a shift that is as psychological as it is strategic." As he explains, extra-judicial assassination was once deemed so extremist that very extensive deliberations were required before Bill Clinton could target even Osama bin Laden for death by lobbing cruise missiles in East Africa. But:

Targeted killing is now so routine that the Obama administration has spent much of the past year codifying and streamlining the processes that sustain it.

To understand the Obama legacy, please re-read that sentence. As Murtaza Hussain put it when reacting to the Post story: "The US agonized over the targeted killing Bin Laden at Tarnak Farms in 1998; now it kills people it barely suspects of anything on a regular basis."

[CosmicBills]

From the article:

 

 

 

"The Post's Miller recognizes the watershed moment this represents: "The creation of the matrix and the institutionalization of kill/capture lists reflect a shift that is as psychological as it is strategic." As he explains, extra-judicial assassination was once deemed so extremist that very extensive deliberations were required before Bill Clinton could target even Osama bin Laden for death by lobbing cruise missiles in East Africa. But:

Targeted killing is now so routine that the Obama administration has spent much of the past year codifying and streamlining the processes that sustain it.

To understand the Obama legacy, please re-read that sentence. As Murtaza Hussain put it when reacting to the Post story: "The US agonized over the targeted killing Bin Laden at Tarnak Farms in 1998; now it kills people it barely suspects of anything on a regular basis."

No doubt about it -- but you're ignoring the progression that led us to this juncture. It didn't become this way simply because Obama snapped his fingers. We've been marching towards this for a decade and change now. It's an important topic to talk about but it's silly to pin this only on Obama and it's even sillier to expect that Mitt will do anything but further this terrifying march towards a military state.

 

We're two decades away now. But no one seems to care.

[OCinBuffalo]

No doubt about it -- but you're ignoring the progression that led us to this juncture. It didn't become this way simply because Obama snapped his fingers. We've been marching towards this for a decade and change now. It's an important topic to talk about but it's silly to pin this only on Obama and it's even sillier to expect that Mitt will do anything but further this terrifying march towards a military state.

 

We're two decades away now. But no one seems to care.

I care. I'm right here, sitting next to you.

 

The very last thing I want is for the military to be treated like a cure-all. We are talking about killing here. Killing is permanent, just ask anyone who has. It shouldn't ever become easy, and these drones make it awfully easy.

 

There's some validity to the "killing terror begets more terror" point. Some. But, there's more validity to not letting this drag on for decades, because we want to pretend like the enemy will just go away if we are nice to them. Bill Clinton was arguably second to none in terms of good will with the rest of the world, and that had 0 effect on Bin Laden, Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc.

 

The only moral choice is to win a war as fast as possible. The real evil, is to let a war drag on because we are too weak to do the things that will win it. The Civil War is a great example of this. Grant finally did the things that won the war. And, while we hear about Sherman's evils, what we don't hear about: the ~500k men on both sides that wouldn't have died had Grant been in charge in 1861.

 

If we think that peace = the absence of war...then we have bigger problems than military ecess, or militarism in general. IF that's what we think, then getting rid of that stupidity is job #1. Throughout history, all history, the only time war occurs...is when one or both sides think they can get away with it, that it won't cost them that much, and the benefit surpasses that cost. Weakness breeds militarism.

 

A general, or today, a commander-in-chief, who actually has to fight a war, has failed in his primary task.

[CosmicBills]

I care. I'm right here, sitting next to you.

 

The very last thing I want is for the military to be treated like a cure-all. We are talking about killing here. Killing is permanent, just ask anyone who has. It shouldn't ever become easy, and these drones make it awfully easy.

 

There's some validity to the "killing terror begets more terror" point. Some. But, there's more validity to not letting this drag on for decades, because we want to pretend like the enemy will just go away if we are nice to them. Bill Clinton was arguably second to none in terms of good will with the rest of the world, and that had 0 effect on Bin Laden, Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc.

 

The only moral choice is to win a war as fast as possible. The real evil, is to let a war drag on because we are too weak to do the things that will win it. The Civil War is a great example of this. Grant finally did the things that won the war. And, while we hear about Sherman's evils, what we don't hear about: the ~500k men on both sides that wouldn't have died had Grant been in charge in 1861.

 

If we think that peace = the absence of war...then we have bigger problems than military ecess, or militarism in general. IF that's what we think, then getting rid of that stupidity is job #1. Throughout history, all history, the only time war occurs...is when one or both sides think they can get away with it, that it won't cost them that much, and the benefit surpasses that cost. Weakness breeds militarism.

 

A general, or today, a commander-in-chief, who actually has to fight a war, has failed in his primary task.

I commend you for finally posting one post without the use of emoticons.

 

But you're talking about something completely different. This isn't about winning a war. This is about the fundamental disregard for due process -- not abroad but here. The "war" on terrorism is the justification the powers that be used to sell the American public that they'd be better off surrendering their civil liberties in the name of a "safer" world.

 

"When governments fear the people there is liberty. When people fear the government there is tyranny."