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.

then why in the world are you backing romney? he wants to grow an already costly bloated mess.

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?

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?

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:

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

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:

: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.

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.

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.

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?"

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.

Nobody cares that a teenaged U.S. citizen was targeted by the double-super-secret panel.

One picture Pointman, the other Sockpuppet

If you believe that Mitt Romney won't attack Iran if he's President then well...

no fu.ck that. You're being naive for the sake of trolling Riot.

That moron bows down to Netanyahu whenever possible.

Don't you people read foreign newspapers on the web? FFS. Netanyahu is not that popular in Israel.

http://www.jewishjournal.com/rosners..._zone_20120724

It isn't the Republican party any longer, guys. Sorry.

:tro::tro:

What does a conventional war have to do with the drone attacks? I don't believe anyone is calling for an invasion of Pakistan.

We have had stimulus before but not that big and not that corrupt. That was an $800+ billion dollar payout to the Democrats big money donors. It did NOTHING to help the economy.

Do you really think companies want to add workers now with the uncertainty of Obamacare costs?

Obama is a liar, he wants to raise taxes on any individual making $200,000 or more, which is not rich if you are living in New York.

Danzig, after Federal, state, city, local, and other taxes almost half of my paycheck goes to a corrupt government who helps themselves and their big money donor and they do not help the poor. Sorry I disagree with you, I don't want to send more money to these incompetent, corrupt morons. Do you really think they will pay down the debt with more revenue? I don't, they will just give more money to their corrupt pals who will stuff their campaign coffers in return.

You stated that you were against drone attacks because they kill innocent people and I countered with a statement that any style of warfare innocent people are killed. Not too complicated a point to grasp there Point. So I guess you don't care about putting our soldiers lives in danger rather then simply use drones. Both cases innocents are going to be killed. However in your world of discrediting EVERYTHING about Obama I can see how you made the point. He should be lauded for using drone attacks as it saves American lives which you seem to have no interest in doing since you are against drone attacks. Why would you take this position just to discredit Obama?

yeah, i don't really want to send them more either. so, why would you want romney, who wants to raise your taxes?
and yes, obama wants to return the richest folks to their tax rate from before bushes 'temporary' tax cut-you know, the one that was going to induce the rich to create more jobs...but it didn't. that one.
yeah, i pay a lot of taxes too. but i'd rather we all return to the pre-bush cut then have it continuously extended for everyone.
and new york is a red herring. most of the country-200k for an individual is a lot of money. of course to romney, 200k is 'middle class'.

So American lives are more important than innocent foreigners lives???

You really are comfortable sending more money to a bunch of corrupt scumbags (and yes I am talking about both parties) who enrich themselves and their big money donors??? I want to pay more taxes to support people like my uncle who retired as a teacher at 55-years of age with full medical benefits and a comfortable pension? I have no prayer of retiring at that age and he never had to worry about job security. Why did he get that deal?? Because his union stuffed the coffers of corrupt politicians who were supposed to be representing us hardworking taxpayers at the table.

Yeah people who don't care about the poor donate $4 million to charity a year all the time. Again it just shows how stupid the liberal media and Democrats spin were on Romney simple statement that those who want freebies from the government without contributing would vote for Obama so doesn't worry about going for their vote.

By the way Romney not only donated much more than Obama but he also donated a much higher % of his income than Obama.

If that's the best you can do maybe it was better to not answer at all. Dr Pacheco would be calling for a stoppage at this point.

"Conservatives who hate Obama constantly threaten to leave the country if Obama is re-elected. Unfortunately, they cannot find another rich first-world country that doesn't have both a higher income tax rate and mandatory government-sponsored health care for everyone"

By the way you never stated where the base would have for your special elite unit going into a country that was the strictest theocracy in the world.

Little hint for you, other people should declare a winner in a debate, you crowning yourself just shows you ran out of intelligent things to say.

Gallup has them tied at 47% (very appropriate number), so it obvious that the video has had zero effect on the election.

From Gallup Polls today:

Voters' Reaction to Romney's "47%" Comments Tilts Negative Independent voters, by 29% to 15%, also more negative than positive
September 19, 2012

ELECTION 2012 TRACKING
Sep 16-22, 2012 – Updates daily at 1 p.m. ET; reflects one-day change

Obama 48% +1
Romney 46% -1

Polls change, of course: next big "event" will be first debate

WTF :zz: asinine question...

romney gets the last gaffe...
 

i stole the title from a new yorker story but it was too good to pass up.

it turns out that mitt didn't misspeak when he talked about the 47%. he really does believe it.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,1719033.story

and from the new yorker article in response:

Conservatives have constructed a myth that says certain groups—blacks, Hispanics, women, young people—vote Democratic because they’re stupid, because they’re lazy, and because they can be purchased with trinkets and baubles. It’d be one thing if they kept that myth a secret, but instead they shout it from the rooftops. Then, when it’s over, they wonder why those people voted Democratic again.

Romney was never the worst offender on this score; he never delighted in it, as people like Matt Drudge and Rush Limbaugh do. But he certainly participated. Indeed, part of his problem throughout this campaign, and the one before it, is that he’s never been good at disguising his lack of respect for the American electorate. His changing positions, his evasions about them, his misrepresentations—they all, ultimately, came off as a challenge: I think you’re too stupid not to fall for this. And there are very few people who appreciate being told they’re dumb, or the person who said it.

There are, of course, other, larger problems for the Republican Party to grapple with over the next few years. But they’ll have trouble solving many of them if they can’t get past this and realize that Democrats don’t have to bribe voters—not when their opponents are so interested in insulting them.


Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/11/romney-blames-obama-gifts-for-loss.html#ixzz2CJyqeRmE

How true..

Saw this on the welfare crowd..Huh!

% us population on welfare....4.1. 4.3 million people


Recipients who are white...38.8%
". Who are black.....39.8%

I don't know if I'd call it a myth. It's not a controversial statement to say that some people will vote with their pocketbooks. If one candidate is promising things that will benefit one group and the other candidate is promising things that will benefit another group, who do you think most people will vote for? I think most people will vote for the candidate that they think will help them, not the candidate that is going to help other people.

I think there was certainly some truth to Romney's statement, but I don't think it was a smart thing for him to say publicly.

rupert-

i don't doubt that people will often (not always) vote their pocketbook. however, the example of 8 of the 10 wealthies counties in the nation voting for a candidate that made increasing their taxes a part of his platform would be a counter example to your point.

i think anyone that focuses on a single issue (whether it's republicans on "free stuff" or democrats on "racism") as the motivating factor for their opponents voters has just used the filter of their own pre-existing beliefs to color reality. and they aren't going to learn anything from the loss.

the difference is i don't see any serious discussions in democratic circles about how romney was only close because of all the racist white votes he got. while the equally ridiculous "we only lost because the nation is now all freeloaders" proposition is getting serious traction.

i'm perfectly okay if republican's want to believe that is what just happened. the same way i'm happy to let a poker opponent think he's just unlucky when he keeps losing money missing draws to an inside straight. it's their money. it's your electorate.

democrats ran candidates that were out of touch with the electorate and appealed primarily to their leftist base and lost 5 of 6 presidential elections from 1968-1988. they kept telling themselves that they were smarter than the voters who voted against them and so kept running the same campaigns. the voters would figure it out.

bill clinton changed the dynamics by running and governing as a moderate. it's now the republicans that have lost 5 of 6 popular votes (including bush's 2000 electoral college victory) while appealing to their most right wing base.

if republican's want to continue this as a serious discussion, i guess i won't complain. but if they actually want to win the presidency again they better figure out how they're going to get their message out in a way that doesn't write off the fastest growing part of the electorate as too stupid to vote for them.