Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2    3    4  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: President Obama vs. Mitt Romney. Third and Final round.

Universal Peach





Posts: 6014
(6013 all sites)
Registered: 7/3/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/22/2012 at 07:49 PM
Thank goodness...........

[Edited on 10/23/2012 by er1016]

 
Replies:

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8388
(8389 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/22/2012 at 07:56 PM
I expect results closely like #2; a near tie, with each jumping on every point to make sure their perspective is clearly expressed.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6014
(6013 all sites)
Registered: 7/3/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/22/2012 at 08:01 PM
I agree. I did catch Robert Gibbs earlier and kind have a feel for what I will hear from Obama. Didn't catch Romney's people.
 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6014
(6013 all sites)
Registered: 7/3/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/22/2012 at 08:34 PM
9:34 est we have reverted to the first debate talking points.
 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8388
(8389 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/22/2012 at 09:02 PM
10:00 PM, and I think Romney is looking out of ideas tonight. I'm not sure I need one hand to count the differences between him and the President on the issues discussed. He's repetative and reflexively reaching for all-too-common talking points. So far, the Prez is looking more in control tonight.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6014
(6013 all sites)
Registered: 7/3/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/22/2012 at 09:07 PM
They've both become redundant to me.....I'm flipping between it and MNF.
 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6014
(6013 all sites)
Registered: 7/3/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/22/2012 at 09:13 PM
Appears to me that they basically agree on everything tonight.
 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5741
(5748 all sites)
Registered: 2/2/2008
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/22/2012 at 09:14 PM
quote:
They've both become redundant to me.....I'm flipping between it and MNF.


Agreed. The last 30 minutes is deja vu.

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6014
(6013 all sites)
Registered: 7/3/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/22/2012 at 09:46 PM
Sorry but O was wrong on this one......

quote:
Let Detroit Go Bankrupt is an Op-Ed by Mitt Romney that appeared in The New York Times on 11/18/2008.

IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.

I love cars, American cars. I was born in Detroit, the son of an auto chief executive. In 1954, my dad, George Romney, was tapped to run American Motors when its president suddenly died. The company itself was on life support — banks were threatening to deal it a death blow. The stock collapsed. I watched Dad work to turn the company around — and years later at business school, they were still talking about it. From the lessons of that turnaround, and from my own experiences, I have several prescriptions for Detroit’s automakers.

First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.

That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.

Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.

The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.”

You don’t have to look far for industries with unions that went down that road. Companies in the 21st century cannot perpetuate the destructive labor relations of the 20th. This will mean a new direction for the U.A.W., profit sharing or stock grants to all employees and a change in Big Three management culture.

The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks. At American Motors, my dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he bought stock in the company, and he went out to factories to talk to workers directly. Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms — all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.

Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies — especially fuel-saving designs — that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn.

Just as important to the future of American carmakers is the sales force. When sales are down, you don’t want to lose the only people who can get them to grow. So don’t fire the best dealers, and don’t crush them with new financial or performance demands they can’t meet.

It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.

But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost.

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.


Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, was a candidate for this year’s Republican presidential nomination.

http://mittromneycentral.com/op-eds/2008-op-eds/let-detroit-go-bankrupt/






[Edited on 10/23/2012 by er1016]

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 14590
(14590 all sites)
Registered: 3/28/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/22/2012 at 09:52 PM
I don't care what anybody try to claim! Romney was schooled in this one!!!! Whatever wasn't succesfully refuted by the President was flipped to by Romney! Romney all of a sudden agreed with Obama on a myriad of foreign topics that he had previously disagreed. He was totally schooled on other issues and taught by the President how things work in real life, especially when consulting with the military. Romney came off as a complete amatuer on these matters IMO. Lots of flipping and flopping and lots of denying of checkable things that he has said in the past and flipped on. Hopefully people are flooding youtube to see just how friggin' phony Romney is. Had Romney said half of the things he said tonight and had he agreed with the President on almost all of his foreign policies like he did tonight he would never ever had gotten the Republican nomination!!!!!!! Flip flop, flip flop, flip flop, flip flop, flip flop, flip flop!!!!!!! That's your Mitt!!!!

 

____________________
Pete

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6014
(6013 all sites)
Registered: 7/3/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/22/2012 at 10:10 PM
I think Mitt did what he needed to do and doubt that the polls will move back from the trend towards Romney.
 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1382
(1382 all sites)
Registered: 3/27/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/23/2012 at 12:24 AM
I too feel like Romney spent the night mostly saying "what he just said, Bob." And that is because the President and his administration have been level-headed, comprehensive and assertive when acting in American interest abroad. They have solidified support with allied nations on most of our positions as well. This is true with respect to:

The withdrawal of troops from Iraq
The refocus of the military on Afghanistan
The pursuit of terrorist leaders...even into Pakistan
The collaboration with allies in Libya..and pursuing their former despot.
The multinational approach to weakening Assad and supporting the opposition in Syria.
The development of a cooperative effective sanctioning of Iran which has significantly weakened that nation and forced it toward diplomatic demands.
The firm positions on China, both with respect to trade and human rights (which didn't come up tonight.)
And, yes, the support of Israel.

This administration has the respect of world leaders. Our allies believe we will keep their interests in mind while leading a coalition, they believe we have a comprehensive thinker making the calls, someone that won't hesitate when needed, and that won't shoot his mouth off and make things worse. He is astute, and he is confident because he does his homework and he understands variables. He is correct that Romney has been inconsistent with regard to his remarks on foreign policy. In the end, he (Romney) too would have to acknowledge the expertise of the joint chiefs of staff, and will have to make tough calls. All of this bluster about turmoil in the middle east is ridiculous. It is not from some display of weakness; it is because the region is in political transition. This is a good thing...something all fledgling democracies must endure. I don't think even conservatives, at least the smart ones are buying any of this. Like the president said; the notion that he'll do all of the same things (b/c it is the best course), but some how say it louder and it will work more to our advantage is just bluster.

[Edited on 10/23/2012 by Vanistheman]

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6014
(6013 all sites)
Registered: 7/3/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/23/2012 at 02:31 AM
quote:
I too feel like Romney spent the night mostly saying "what he just said, Bob." And that is because the President and his administration have been level-headed, comprehensive and assertive when acting in American interest abroad. They have solidified support with allied nations on most of our positions as well. This is true with respect to:

The withdrawal of troops from Iraq
The refocus of the military on Afghanistan
The pursuit of terrorist leaders...even into Pakistan
The collaboration with allies in Libya..and pursuing their former despot.
The multinational approach to weakening Assad and supporting the opposition in Syria.
The development of a cooperative effective sanctioning of Iran which has significantly weakened that nation and forced it toward diplomatic demands.
The firm positions on China, both with respect to trade and human rights (which didn't come up tonight.)
And, yes, the support of Israel.

This administration has the respect of world leaders. Our allies believe we will keep their interests in mind while leading a coalition, they believe we have a comprehensive thinker making the calls, someone that won't hesitate when needed, and that won't shoot his mouth off and make things worse. He is astute, and he is confident because he does his homework and he understands variables. He is correct that Romney has been inconsistent with regard to his remarks on foreign policy. In the end, he (Romney) too would have to acknowledge the expertise of the joint chiefs of staff, and will have to make tough calls. All of this bluster about turmoil in the middle east is ridiculous. It is not from some display of weakness; it is because the region is in political transition. This is a good thing...something all fledgling democracies must endure. I don't think even conservatives, at least the smart ones are buying any of this. Like the president said; the notion that he'll do all of the same things (b/c it is the best course), but some how say it louder and it will work more to our advantage is just bluster.

[Edited on 10/23/2012 by Vanistheman]


Of course this is your opinion.....

 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1958
(1961 all sites)
Registered: 5/12/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/23/2012 at 05:35 AM
quote:
quote:
Sorry but O was wrong on this one......


No Obama was right. Romney was opposed to a government bailout. It's in the op-ed.

quote:
Let Detroit Go Bankrupt is an Op-Ed by Mitt Romney that appeared in The New York Times on 11/18/2008.

IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.

I love cars, American cars. I was born in Detroit, the son of an auto chief executive. In 1954, my dad, George Romney, was tapped to run American Motors when its president suddenly died. The company itself was on life support — banks were threatening to deal it a death blow. The stock collapsed. I watched Dad work to turn the company around — and years later at business school, they were still talking about it. From the lessons of that turnaround, and from my own experiences, I have several prescriptions for Detroit’s automakers.

First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.

That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.

Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.

The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.”

You don’t have to look far for industries with unions that went down that road. Companies in the 21st century cannot perpetuate the destructive labor relations of the 20th. This will mean a new direction for the U.A.W., profit sharing or stock grants to all employees and a change in Big Three management culture.

The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks. At American Motors, my dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he bought stock in the company, and he went out to factories to talk to workers directly. Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms — all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.

Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies — especially fuel-saving designs — that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn.

Just as important to the future of American carmakers is the sales force. When sales are down, you don’t want to lose the only people who can get them to grow. So don’t fire the best dealers, and don’t crush them with new financial or performance demands they can’t meet.

It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.

But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost.

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.


Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, was a candidate for this year’s Republican presidential nomination.

http://mittromneycentral.com/op-eds/2008-op-eds/let-detroit-go-bankrupt/






[Edited on 10/23/2012 by er1016]

 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1958
(1961 all sites)
Registered: 5/12/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/23/2012 at 05:39 AM
quote:
quote:
I too feel like Romney spent the night mostly saying "what he just said, Bob." And that is because the President and his administration have been level-headed, comprehensive and assertive when acting in American interest abroad. They have solidified support with allied nations on most of our positions as well. This is true with respect to:

The withdrawal of troops from Iraq
The refocus of the military on Afghanistan
The pursuit of terrorist leaders...even into Pakistan
The collaboration with allies in Libya..and pursuing their former despot.
The multinational approach to weakening Assad and supporting the opposition in Syria.
The development of a cooperative effective sanctioning of Iran which has significantly weakened that nation and forced it toward diplomatic demands.
The firm positions on China, both with respect to trade and human rights (which didn't come up tonight.)
And, yes, the support of Israel.

This administration has the respect of world leaders. Our allies believe we will keep their interests in mind while leading a coalition, they believe we have a comprehensive thinker making the calls, someone that won't hesitate when needed, and that won't shoot his mouth off and make things worse. He is astute, and he is confident because he does his homework and he understands variables. He is correct that Romney has been inconsistent with regard to his remarks on foreign policy. In the end, he (Romney) too would have to acknowledge the expertise of the joint chiefs of staff, and will have to make tough calls. All of this bluster about turmoil in the middle east is ridiculous. It is not from some display of weakness; it is because the region is in political transition. This is a good thing...something all fledgling democracies must endure. I don't think even conservatives, at least the smart ones are buying any of this. Like the president said; the notion that he'll do all of the same things (b/c it is the best course), but some how say it louder and it will work more to our advantage is just bluster.

[Edited on 10/23/2012 by Vanistheman]


Of course this is your opinion.....


No, these are factual statements that can be proven. Since you provided only an opinion and no facts your post is all opinion. You need some facts.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16605
(16605 all sites)
Registered: 6/4/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/23/2012 at 06:04 AM
Well its all blah blah blah to me

But the President did seem to be more aggressive like someone who is behind in the polls should be.

 

____________________


R.I.P. Hugh Duty


 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 12503
(12493 all sites)
Registered: 4/4/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/23/2012 at 07:07 AM
quote:
Well its all blah blah blah to me

But the President did seem to be more aggressive like someone who is behind in the polls should be.


Blah, blah, blah...kinda like your posts when you say stuff like that.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/elections/

There are 16 polls listed...Obama is ahead in 9 of them by an ave of 4.6 points, Romney is ahead in 5 by an ave of 3.2 points, 2 polls show a tie.

 

____________________
I pledge and support the elimination of the derogatory use of the r-word from everyday speech and promote the acceptance and inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities. http://www.r-word.org/

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16605
(16605 all sites)
Registered: 6/4/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/23/2012 at 08:26 AM
quote:
quote:
Well its all blah blah blah to me

But the President did seem to be more aggressive like someone who is behind in the polls should be.


Blah, blah, blah...kinda like your posts when you say stuff like that.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/elections/

There are 16 polls listed...Obama is ahead in 9 of them by an ave of 4.6 points, Romney is ahead in 5 by an ave of 3.2 points, 2 polls show a tie.


Well blah blah may have been an over statement at this point it's noise .
Nothing new .. Some zingers more posturing for specific votes .
To me Obama is being more aggressive because I think in his mind Romney should be in the rear view mirror and he's not. Obama is trending around 47% which can't feel good to his team right now .

 

____________________


R.I.P. Hugh Duty


 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6495
(6494 all sites)
Registered: 8/11/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/23/2012 at 08:29 AM
I just loved the way Obama lectured Mitt on the nuances of our military. In particular the zinger about our air craft carriers and nuclear submarines. If Mitt insists on attempting to appeal to the idiots among the electorate by using shear numbers as a yard stick, he should expect to be taken to task. Given he's already got the vote of his base and is trying to appeal to the independents and undecided voters, he opened himself up to looking like a complete fool on this one in my opinion.
 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3911
(3918 all sites)
Registered: 11/19/2008
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/23/2012 at 09:10 AM
OBAMA WINS FINAL DEBATE
In a poll of 521 uncommitted voters conducted immediately after the final presidential debate, 53% of these said President Obama was the winner, 23% think Romney won.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50133681n&tag=breakingnews

 

____________________


 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11437
(11442 all sites)
Registered: 8/21/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/23/2012 at 10:11 AM
I still can't get over Romney's saying that Syria is Iran's route to the sea. Gov, Iran has a coastline. And the only overland route to Syria goes through Turkey or Iraq, and that's not happening.

This is worse than Palin's "we can see Russia from Alaska" line, except at least that was true.

I give Romney credit for agreeing w/ Obama some (even if those were flip-flops). Makes him look more thoughtful than to insist Obama is wrong every single time. That's nearly statistically impossible.

 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1382
(1382 all sites)
Registered: 3/27/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/23/2012 at 10:16 AM
quote:
quote:
I too feel like Romney spent the night mostly saying "what he just said, Bob." And that is because the President and his administration have been level-headed, comprehensive and assertive when acting in American interest abroad. They have solidified support with allied nations on most of our positions as well. This is true with respect to:

The withdrawal of troops from Iraq
The refocus of the military on Afghanistan
The pursuit of terrorist leaders...even into Pakistan
The collaboration with allies in Libya..and pursuing their former despot.
The multinational approach to weakening Assad and supporting the opposition in Syria.
The development of a cooperative effective sanctioning of Iran which has significantly weakened that nation and forced it toward diplomatic demands.
The firm positions on China, both with respect to trade and human rights (which didn't come up tonight.)
And, yes, the support of Israel.

This administration has the respect of world leaders. Our allies believe we will keep their interests in mind while leading a coalition, they believe we have a comprehensive thinker making the calls, someone that won't hesitate when needed, and that won't shoot his mouth off and make things worse. He is astute, and he is confident because he does his homework and he understands variables. He is correct that Romney has been inconsistent with regard to his remarks on foreign policy. In the end, he (Romney) too would have to acknowledge the expertise of the joint chiefs of staff, and will have to make tough calls. All of this bluster about turmoil in the middle east is ridiculous. It is not from some display of weakness; it is because the region is in political transition. This is a good thing...something all fledgling democracies must endure. I don't think even conservatives, at least the smart ones are buying any of this. Like the president said; the notion that he'll do all of the same things (b/c it is the best course), but some how say it louder and it will work more to our advantage is just bluster.

[Edited on 10/23/2012 by Vanistheman]



Of course this is your opinion.....



At the risk of alienating Swifty, for whom I have a great deal in common with politically, as you said, "Of course" this is my opinion. I opened the post with "I too feel like..." and it should go without saying.
When human beings speak, they offer their opinion. Facts are independent entities, but most statements, even informed by facts are opinions, unless I say that the "rock is hard.", but even that may be a relative statement. The point is that all media and political discussion is inherently an "opinion" given that is a synthesis of perceived facts, an interpretation of those facts and an extrapolation related to how they shape reality. Even with testimony by world leaders confirming my assertions, you could choose to believe they are lying. Anyway, the idea that we need to preface or qualify every remark with IMO or something to that effect, is ridiculous.

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11684
(12127 all sites)
Registered: 1/8/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/23/2012 at 10:44 AM
quote:
Makes him look more thoughtful than to insist Obama is wrong every single time. That's nearly statistically impossible.

According to my wife it's possible, though I don't think she was talking about Obama or Romney.

 

____________________
We'd all like to vote for the best man, but he's never a candidate.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9082
(9082 all sites)
Registered: 2/25/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/23/2012 at 11:06 AM
quote:
I just loved the way Obama lectured Mitt on the nuances of our military. In particular the zinger about our air craft carriers and nuclear submarines. If Mitt insists on attempting to appeal to the idiots among the electorate by using shear numbers as a yard stick, he should expect to be taken to task. Given he's already got the vote of his base and is trying to appeal to the independents and undecided voters, he opened himself up to looking like a complete fool on this one in my opinion.



I agree, although I was slightly put off by the President's answer, a little too nuanced for me. ;-) And all of that snide and nuanse coming from a guy who thinks the people who treat wounded and dying Marines on the battlefield are "corpse-men".

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 10/23/2012 at 11:36 AM
quote:
quote:
quote:
I too feel like Romney spent the night mostly saying "what he just said, Bob." And that is because the President and his administration have been level-headed, comprehensive and assertive when acting in American interest abroad. They have solidified support with allied nations on most of our positions as well. This is true with respect to:

The withdrawal of troops from Iraq
The refocus of the military on Afghanistan
The pursuit of terrorist leaders...even into Pakistan
The collaboration with allies in Libya..and pursuing their former despot.
The multinational approach to weakening Assad and supporting the opposition in Syria.
The development of a cooperative effective sanctioning of Iran which has significantly weakened that nation and forced it toward diplomatic demands.
The firm positions on China, both with respect to trade and human rights (which didn't come up tonight.)
And, yes, the support of Israel.

This administration has the respect of world leaders. Our allies believe we will keep their interests in mind while leading a coalition, they believe we have a comprehensive thinker making the calls, someone that won't hesitate when needed, and that won't shoot his mouth off and make things worse. He is astute, and he is confident because he does his homework and he understands variables. He is correct that Romney has been inconsistent with regard to his remarks on foreign policy. In the end, he (Romney) too would have to acknowledge the expertise of the joint chiefs of staff, and will have to make tough calls. All of this bluster about turmoil in the middle east is ridiculous. It is not from some display of weakness; it is because the region is in political transition. This is a good thing...something all fledgling democracies must endure. I don't think even conservatives, at least the smart ones are buying any of this. Like the president said; the notion that he'll do all of the same things (b/c it is the best course), but some how say it louder and it will work more to our advantage is just bluster.

[Edited on 10/23/2012 by Vanistheman]



Of course this is your opinion.....



At the risk of alienating Swifty, for whom I have a great deal in common with politically, as you said, "Of course" this is my opinion. I opened the post with "I too feel like..." and it should go without saying.
When human beings speak, they offer their opinion. Facts are independent entities, but most statements, even informed by facts are opinions, unless I say that the "rock is hard.", but even that may be a relative statement. The point is that all media and political discussion is inherently an "opinion" given that is a synthesis of perceived facts, an interpretation of those facts and an extrapolation related to how they shape reality. Even with testimony by world leaders confirming my assertions, you could choose to believe they are lying. Anyway, the idea that we need to preface or qualify every remark with IMO or something to that effect, is ridiculous.


I've been saying that for years on this forum. Obviously everything we write is our opinion and there is no need to say so explicitly.

 

____________________

 
<<  1    2    3    4  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software

Privacy | Terms of Service | Report Infringement | Personal Data Management | Contact Us
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com