Derby Trail Forums
Page 11 of 13 « First < 910 11 1213 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Steve Dellinger Discourse Den (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Mitt Romney calls half of America freeloaders (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48404)

Danzig 09-20-2012 12:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jms62 (Post 891246)
This discussion is about the financial aspect not military strategy.
they go hand in hand. it takes that much longer to 'win' if you have no strategy and spend your time running around putting out fires.

to win a war you need money, more money and yet more money.
and before you get into it, you better know it's winnable. afganistan has never been winnable. the war on terror isn't winnable. you can't fight it conventionally. it's not a country.

Danzig 09-20-2012 12:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser (Post 891261)
I agree Danzig cuts needs to come from everywhere including the military.
then why in the world are you backing romney? he wants to grow an already costly bloated mess.

Thepaindispenser 09-20-2012 12:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 891258)
what war did we win?

and actually, modern warfare is comparable, especially in afganistan.
for comparison, the welsh successfully fought the much larger, richer england for centuries by using guerilla tactics. it was only when Edward 1 decided to install permanent garrisons (and built 8 state of the art castles in strategic areas) that wales was finally conquered.
lincolns (and others) huge fear towards the end of the civil war here was to have to face guerrilla warfare. luckily it didn't happen.

another great example? vietnam.
the 'war on terror' can't be fought conventionally. war in afganistan can't necessarily be either. unless we garrison troops all over that country, for years, we will never get a good grip on that country. is that what you want to see happen?
we've already spent billions on a country worth millions. to what end? and terrorism is still a threat, and will remain so.
yes, invading afganistan absolutely was a mistake. invading that country will prove a complete waste. we can't get that country to become peaceful, and we will fight there as long as we remain without a real end in sight. why? what will be gained?
Even Vietnam is not applicable to today, we have bombs that we can guide to specific spots, night vision glasses, by far the best equipment in the world. We, with the aide of the Norther Alliance, got to Kabul very quickly, then we should have left. The Taliban was complicit in the 9/11 attacks as they not only gave Bin Laden safe haven, they also let him train terrorists there. Once we knocked the Taliban out of power, the message was delivered and we should have left, that would have been back in 2002.

Danzig 09-20-2012 12:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser (Post 891266)
Even Vietnam is not applicable to today, we have bombs that we can guide to specific spots, night vision glasses, by far the best equipment in the world. We, with the aide of the Norther Alliance, got to Kabul very quickly, then we should have left. The Taliban was complicit in the 9/11 attacks as they not only gave Bin Laden safe haven, they also let him train terrorists there. Once we knocked the Taliban out of power, the message was delivered and we should have left, that would have been back in 2002.
fat lot of good modern technology is when you can't keep up with someone's location from day to day. they don't recognize borders either. you can't knock them out conventionally. it takes intelligence and strikes. and those could take place anywhere- which causes huge problems. witness drone strikes in pakistan. those aren't exactly great for keeping good relations with people.
of course it's applicable to compare to vietnam. very similar set ups with a populace you can't trust, and an ability to know who is the bad guy?

Thepaindispenser 09-20-2012 12:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 891265)
then why in the world are you backing romney? he wants to grow an already costly bloated mess.
I dont agree with Romney on a lot of things, but I think Obama is the most dangerous President we have ever seen as far as threats to our liberty. I also think a corrupt stimulus, health care that majority of America didn't want that is killing job growth, enforcing business killing edicts through the EPA that he couldn't get passed in Congress, money thrown at big money donors with doomed business plans, funding corrupt public sector unions, etc. is a good way to grow an economy.

Trust me, Romney is lesser of two evils at this point. Big government has failed everywhere it has been tried, why would this country be any different?

Thepaindispenser 09-20-2012 12:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 891270)
fat lot of good modern technology is when you can't keep up with someone's location from day to day. they don't recognize borders either. you can't knock them out conventionally. it takes intelligence and strikes. and those could take place anywhere- which causes huge problems. witness drone strikes in pakistan. those aren't exactly great for keeping good relations with people.
I agree I think the drones attacks are horrible, they are killing innocent people and nobody seems to care.

jms62 09-20-2012 12:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser (Post 891272)
I agree I think the drones attacks are horrible, they are killing innocent people and nobody seems to care.
As opposed to conventianl war which DOESN'T kill innocent people?:rolleyes:

Riot 09-20-2012 12:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser (Post 891271)
I dont agree with Romney on a lot of things, but I think Obama is the most dangerous President we have ever seen as far as threats to our liberty. I also think a corrupt stimulus, health care that majority of America didn't want that is killing job growth, enforcing business killing edicts through the EPA that he couldn't get passed in Congress, money thrown at big money donors with doomed business plans, funding corrupt public sector unions, etc. is a good way to grow an economy.

Trust me, Romney is lesser of two evils at this point. Big government has failed everywhere it has been tried, why would this country be any different?

On Aug. 31, the night after the Clint Eastwood empty-chair colloquy at the Republican Convention, Jon Stewart identified the radioactive ingredient that would provide the fuel for Mitt Romney's September meltdown.

The Republicans, he noted on The Daily Show, were suffering from "cognitive dissonance."

Like Eastwood, they were campaigning against a Barack Obama who was a figment of their imagination.

"There is a President Obama that only Republicans can see," he said. That Obama--the Muslim socialist foreigner--was "bent on our wholesale destruction."

The mad fact is, Stewart was only scratching the surface. We now know that Romney has been running not only against an imaginary President but against an imaginary electorate as well.

This is an electorate in which 47% are looking for handouts, don't pay income taxes and won't "take responsibility...for their lives."



Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...#ixzz2729flB89

Danzig 09-20-2012 12:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser (Post 891271)
I dont agree with Romney on a lot of things, but I think Obama is the most dangerous President we have ever seen as far as threats to our liberty. I also think a corrupt stimulus, health care that majority of America didn't want that is killing job growth, enforcing business killing edicts through the EPA that he couldn't get passed in Congress, money thrown at big money donors with doomed business plans, funding corrupt public sector unions, etc. is a good way to grow an economy.

Trust me, Romney is lesser of two evils at this point. Big government has failed everywhere it has been tried, why would this country be any different?
the first highlight-absolutely ridiculous hyperbole. the patriot act was put in before he took office. and most of the last four years are frighteningly similar to the previous eight.
and which corrupt stimulus? we've had several stimuli, not just obama's.
the healthcare-when you ask people about individual parts of that law, they like it. then when you ask them about obamacare, they don't like it. that is hilarious when you read it. and it's not what's killing job growth.
anyway, as for most of what you said, if not all, i don't know why you think things will change with romney.

he wants to spend more on defense, his tax cuts he talks about-more than one time i've seen experts say 'it will raise taxes on everyone but the rich' (what a surprise! :rolleyes:). and that's on the stuff they can get details on. most of his 'plans', no one has seen. and what i saw on the ryan budget-wow.

so i don't know what makes you think romney will 'be better'. he'll be different, but not better.

jms62 09-20-2012 01:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 891276)
the first highlight-absolutely ridiculous hyperbole. the patriot act was put in before he took office. and most of the last four years are frighteningly similar to the previous eight.
and which corrupt stimulus? we've had several stimuli, not just obama's.
the healthcare-when you ask people about individual parts of that law, they like it. then when you ask them about obamacare, they don't like it. that is hilarious when you read it. and it's not what's killing job growth.
anyway, as for most of what you said, if not all, i don't know why you think things will change with romney.

he wants to spend more on defense, his tax cuts he talks about-more than one time i've seen experts say 'it will raise taxes on everyone but the rich' (what a surprise! :rolleyes:). and that's on the stuff they can get details on. most of his 'plans', no one has seen. and what i saw on the ryan budget-wow.

so i don't know what makes you think romney will 'be better'. he'll be different, but not better.
How about a 1 time tax amnesty for individuals to move money from their overseas accounts to the US... Tax free of course. :rolleyes:

Danzig 09-20-2012 01:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jms62 (Post 891277)
How about a 1 time tax amnesty for individuals to move money from their overseas accounts to the US... Tax free of course. :rolleyes:
:D


'i don't have to show tax returns, i have nothing to hide. trust me.'-mitt romney

Riot 09-20-2012 01:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 891280)
:D


'i don't have to show tax returns, i have nothing to hide. trust me.'-mitt romney
You mean, Mitt, we should trust you like when you lied and told Massachusetts voters that you filed as a resident so you could run for Governor, but you didn't really, you had filed as a Utah resident?

Romney has been caught in so many proven outright lies in his past campaigns and this one, he's disqualified from political office just for that reason alone - never mind the rest of his incompetency. That's one of the main reasons why I can't believe he got through the GOP's primary process as the winner.

Danzig 09-20-2012 03:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser (Post 891271)
I dont agree with Romney on a lot of things, but I think Obama is the most dangerous President we have ever seen as far as threats to our liberty. I also think a corrupt stimulus, health care that majority of America didn't want that is killing job growth, enforcing business killing edicts through the EPA that he couldn't get passed in Congress, money thrown at big money donors with doomed business plans, funding corrupt public sector unions, etc. is a good way to grow an economy.

Trust me, Romney is lesser of two evils at this point. Big government has failed everywhere it has been tried, why would this country be any different?
based on what? i keep seeing this repeated, or i keep hearing it...but no one has details as to how romney would be better.

so, how would he be better? what of his plans do you agree with? how will he take care of these threats to our liberty? i already know he won't do a damned thing about big money. i know he thinks bankers should have free rein. he plans to raise taxes on most of us (the wealthy, like him, get a tax cut. again.).

what does romney plan to do that you like?

jms62 09-20-2012 04:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 891304)
based on what? i keep seeing this repeated, or i keep hearing it...but no one has details as to how romney would be better.

so, how would he be better? what of his plans do you agree with? how will he take care of these threats to our liberty? i already know he won't do a damned thing about big money. i know he thinks bankers should have free rein. he plans to raise taxes on most of us (the wealthy, like him, get a tax cut. again.).

what does romney plan to do that you like?
1. Put People back to work.
2. Bomb Iran into the 4th century
3. Increase our defense spending.
4. Cut taxes...

And Above all
5. Cut the debt

I need 3/4 of a bottle of Woodford in me before the above sounds logical. How can Romney supporter not see that these items affect each other. Also you can cut corporate taxes to ZERO but it will have NO MEANINGFUL AFFECT ON JOBS. This isn't 1950 where that money will be used to hire new employees. A token number will be hired but the rest of the money will go directly to the bottom line and into the pockets of the dictators that run these companies. The government needs to legislate against outsourcing. It has to eliminate the H1B program that was put in place when unemployment was 3 pct. But they won't becuase the dictators that run our corporations are the ones that fund the cmpaigns of those that make the rules. There is no way out here.. None. You all may have a job NOW or a BUISNESS NOW but your customers are getting FIRED on a daily basis and it WILL have an impact.

Clip-Clop 09-20-2012 04:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jms62 (Post 891246)
This discussion is about the financial aspect not military strategy.
I get that but the two need to be intertwined. If there is no victory objective you will continue to fight and spend or you will have wasted billions (trillions) on an objectiveless war.

Riot 09-20-2012 05:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clip-Clop (Post 891322)
I get that but the two need to be intertwined. If there is no victory objective you will continue to fight and spend or you will have wasted billions (trillions) on an objectiveless war.
Romney wants to not only start a war with Iran asap as outlined here, he wants to increase the defense budget spending, in spite of the Pentagon saying they don't need it.

Why? All those government contracts to the friends of the Bush Year Neocons who are on Romney's foreign policy/defense team. Haliburton and the other defense contractors are losing money quickly under Obama and his budget tightening ways.

pointman 09-20-2012 05:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 891337)
Romney wants to not only start a war with Iran asap as outlined here, he wants to increase the defense budget spending, in spite of the Pentagon saying they don't need it.

Why? All those government contracts to the friends of the Bush Year Neocons who are on Romney's foreign policy/defense team. Haliburton and the other defense contractors are losing money quickly under Obama and his budget tightening ways.
What evidence do you have that Romney wants to start a war with Iran?

The second assertion is even more laughable, but I'll bite, what evidence do you have that Romney want to give government contracts to the "friends of the Bush Year Neocons?"

Riot 09-20-2012 05:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pointman (Post 891341)
What evidence do you have that Romney wants to start a war with Iran?
Romney's words on the subject of Israel and Iran over the past year.

Quote:
The second assertion is even more laughable, but I'll bite, what evidence do you have that Romney want to give government contracts to the "friends of the Bush Year Neocons?"
The names of Romney's campaign advisors (many of whom are Bush-era neocons) and their previous history with government contracts while working with or advising the Bush-Cheney White House.

Paying attention to politics is worth it.

pointman 09-20-2012 07:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 891343)
Romney's words on the subject of Israel and Iran over the past year.



The names of Romney's campaign advisors (many of whom are Bush-era neocons) and their previous history with government contracts while working with or advising the Bush-Cheney White House.

Paying attention to politics is worth it.
Where has he said that he wants to start a war with Iran? Let's face it, both of these statements are you talking out of your azz which is nothing new.

So surprising that you would try to worm out of your nonsense with an insult, you are so pathetic.

DaTruth 09-20-2012 07:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser (Post 891272)
I agree I think the drones attacks are horrible, they are killing innocent people and nobody seems to care.
Nobody cares that a teenaged U.S. citizen was targeted by the double-super-secret panel.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:25 AM.
Page 11 of 13 « First < 910 11 1213 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.