|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,292
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,292 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I am still amused at the fact that Romney was fact checked on the spot, he thought he had Obama cold, and knocked himself out.
Yeah, I don't get that.. I find it impossible to believe that that didn't come up in debate prep. How in the hell can he make a statement he knows isn't fact without a way out if he's caught.. Or,, if he thought it was fact, then who on his staff should have the tar beat out of them for not getting the info right?
So you believe that O called the attack an act of terror from the start?
How do you explain the next 14 days of claiming the attack was a result of outrage from the video?
The effectiveness of the liberal spin is incredible.
Slow your damn horses down man.. I think I've made my intentions clear already so back the hell off that garbage already,
Tell me, wouldn't you consider it stupid for a candidate, any candidate to make a statement like that without a way out if it's untrue? I sure as hell would.
All you want to do is attack.. I made an observation that it was dumb to say it and not be correct and then get caught.
Where is the attack? Just because you don't like it, that does not constitute an attack.
The problem is that Romney WAS correct...his handlers DID fact check...the only guy who got caught was Obama.
Biden just recently tried to say that they did not have enough info to determine whether it was an act of terror until some days later.
Obama himself said the same thing.
Now he claims he called in an act of terror in the Rose Garden the day after the attack?
The spin-meisters are the ones who need to do the fact-checking.
It is a joke - and an insult - for the Obama administration to even remotely hint that O called this an act of terror from the start. His own words and actions for the following 14 days stands on it's own.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Battle the moderator... yes, because he was obviously wrong and she knew it, and now you complain about the moderator.
Regarding what?
He claimed Obama didn't call it a terrorist attack for over two weeks, when he in fact did so right away.
Romney thought he had a 'gotcha' moment, and it backfired.
The only problem with that statement is that it's not true.
Obama never called the attack in Benghazi a terrorist attack in that Rose Garden speech. He called it an "outrageous and shocking attack". He called it "brutal acts".
He then spoke of 9-11, and said that "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for." ... when speaking about 9-11 in general.
He then went on to speak of this "terrible act".
He never once used the word "terrorist", and absolutely not in reference to the Benghazi attack. In fact, the following weekend, his administration sent Susan Rice out on to every network Sunday news show to speak about the "video". Hillary Clinto then spoke the next day about the video. The Rice again, then the President again .......
Then they finally started calling it a terrorist attack ..... then Obama and his wife went on the morning show with the biddies ..... and said that they were still investigating whether or not it was terrorism .......
The entire administration denied that it was a terrorist attack until they could no longer do so wothout looking like total idiots. Then we saw things like Jay Carney trying to bury the story answering a reporter's question by saying that it was "self evident that it was a terrorist attack". This was more than a week later, and after dozens of speeches about a video .......
Romney was accurate. He never said that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack. He used the word terror in a very generic manner referring to 9-11 in general.
Furthermore, let's assume, for sake of argument, that what Obama said was true. Why did he go in front of the United Nations and a global stage and blame the attack on a video? He knew that what he was saying was a lie - on a global stage no less!
Why did his administration continue to blame a video for the act for days afterward? Why did the administration, days after the act, put together a commercial with Hillary Clinton apologizing for a video and proclaiming that the U.S. government had nothing to do with it and run that commercial on Pakistani television with taxpayer funds paying for it?
This entire administration is full of incompetence (and incompetents!) and needs to be replaced.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 683
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 683 |
NRTU:
The more I read and listen to comments on these debates, the more I thin the movie "Idiocracy" should be a mandatory watch. Although at this point, I think some people might think it's a good thing.
As far as third parties go, however, as long as they continue to be a dump site for failed members of the big 2 parties, they will not be appealing to me. For any of these parties to gain any traction, they will need a solid foundation with some recognizable proponents that remain consistent. Election funding will also need to change quite a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,405
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,405 |
Quote:
Quote:
He claimed Obama didn't call it a terrorist attack for over two weeks, when he in fact did so right away.
Romney thought he had a 'gotcha' moment, and it backfired.
The only problem with that statement is that it's not true.
Obama never called the attack in Benghazi a terrorist attack in that Rose Garden speech. He called it an "outrageous and shocking attack". He called it "brutal acts".
He then spoke of 9-11, and said that "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for." ... when speaking about 9-11 in general.
He then went on to speak of this "terrible act".
He never once used the word "terrorist", and absolutely not in reference to the Benghazi attack. In fact, the following weekend, his administration sent Susan Rice out on to every network Sunday news show to speak about the "video". Hillary Clinto then spoke the next day about the video. The Rice again, then the President again .......
Then they finally started calling it a terrorist attack ..... then Obama and his wife went on the morning show with the biddies ..... and said that they were still investigating whether or not it was terrorism .......
The entire administration denied that it was a terrorist attack until they could no longer do so wothout looking like total idiots. Then we saw things like Jay Carney trying to bury the story answering a reporter's question by saying that it was "self evident that it was a terrorist attack". This was more than a week later, and after dozens of speeches about a video .......
Romney was accurate. He never said that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack. He used the word terror in a very generic manner referring to 9-11 in general.
Come on Y. Don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument. Sheesh.
Last edited by I_Rogue; 10/18/12 01:14 PM.
"My signature line goes here."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456 |
The only thing that really bugged me was Obama never answered the question which was the Embasy asked for increased securety and why was that not given?
Or something to that effect.
My wifes a D Im more R leaning and we both felt they came out about even. We both wished they would stop interrupting each other and actually answer the questions.
If you need 3 years to be a winner you got here 2 years to early. Get it done Browns.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
We both wished they would stop interrupting each other and actually answer the questions.
You should use the purple font when you are being sarcastic... like that's going to happen.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,104
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,104 |
Mitt Romney leads Obama by 6 points in latest Gallup poll Mitt Romney has a six-point lead on President Barack Obama, according to a Gallup poll of likely voters released Wednesday. He leads 51-45 among likely voters, and 48-46 among registered voters, according to a seven-day average. Gallup's margin is large among recent polls; seven other national polls released in the last two days show margins varying from +3 Obama to +4 Romney. The Gallup poll showed Romney at 50-46 on Tuesday and 49-47 on Monday. The numbers do not reflect Tuesday night's debate, in which many observers concluded that Obama had a stronger performance than Romney, if only slightly. In the first week of October, Romney was tied with Obama at 48 percent each, according to Gallup, which recently announced changes to its survey methodology. web page Obama still has the lead in several swing states but considering less than 3 weeks ago when it seemed Obama had all but assured victory, one has to wonder if his lackadaisical approach to the first debate may come back to haunt him as it vaulted Romney back into the race. Based on appearences I believe Romney won the first debate; not so much on what he actually said but the way he said it with conviction and determination and a bit of agression whereas Obama looked like he just wanted to give press conference answers and didn't seemed too engaged. The 2nd debate I give a slight edge to Obama. He seemed to learn from the errors of his first debate and was agressive in his pitch but he also was in his element. Obama is more personably likeable than Romney and he was engaging 1 on 1 with an audience while Romeny is more comfortable in the take a question from the moderator and have at it. I still have no idea who to vote for in this election. I was always a big John McCain admirer and was thrilled when he won the nomination. But he had all the cards stacked against him (following Bush, age, an energized Obama base who crushed him in fundraising, the unfortunate choice of Sarah Palin). I didn't like Romney last election and its hard for me to like him this time around either. On the other hand Obama is exactly what I said he was four years ago. He was a good public speaker but was as liberal as they came. HE stonewalled Republicans his first two years in office when they had the super-majority instead of trying to pass any bipartisan legislature so when Republicans won back the House 2 years later he didn't budge (and to fault House Republicans neither did they) and we've essentially had a stalemate the past two years. Same with Ohio senate this year. Brown is another far left candidate (I prefer moderates who actually work across the aisle) but the GOP counters with Josh Mandel? I haven't been impressed with him whatsoever either. I prefer my candidates to be Blue dog Democrats or Massachusettes Republicans (which I really hope Scott Brown wins because he actually works with both sides as opposed to Elizabeth Warren who will vote left on every issue) Screw it, I'm just voting for McCain again.
The only reason people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,147 |
Quote:
NRTU:
The more I read and listen to comments on these debates, the more I thin the movie "Idiocracy" should be a mandatory watch. Although at this point, I think some people might think it's a good thing.
Vote for Romney, he drinks more electrolytes.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Mitt Romney leads Obama by 6 points in latest Gallup poll
Mitt Romney has a six-point lead on President Barack Obama, according to a Gallup poll of likely voters released Wednesday. He leads 51-45 among likely voters, and 48-46 among registered voters, according to a seven-day average.
Gallup's margin is large among recent polls; seven other national polls released in the last two days show margins varying from +3 Obama to +4 Romney.
The Gallup poll showed Romney at 50-46 on Tuesday and 49-47 on Monday.
The numbers do not reflect Tuesday night's debate, in which many observers concluded that Obama had a stronger performance than Romney, if only slightly.
In the first week of October, Romney was tied with Obama at 48 percent each, according to Gallup, which recently announced changes to its survey methodology.
web page
Obama still has the lead in several swing states but considering less than 3 weeks ago when it seemed Obama had all but assured victory, one has to wonder if his lackadaisical approach to the first debate may come back to haunt him as it vaulted Romney back into the race.
Based on appearences I believe Romney won the first debate; not so much on what he actually said but the way he said it with conviction and determination and a bit of agression whereas Obama looked like he just wanted to give press conference answers and didn't seemed too engaged.
The 2nd debate I give a slight edge to Obama. He seemed to learn from the errors of his first debate and was agressive in his pitch but he also was in his element. Obama is more personably likeable than Romney and he was engaging 1 on 1 with an audience while Romeny is more comfortable in the take a question from the moderator and have at it.
I still have no idea who to vote for in this election. I was always a big John McCain admirer and was thrilled when he won the nomination. But he had all the cards stacked against him (following Bush, age, an energized Obama base who crushed him in fundraising, the unfortunate choice of Sarah Palin). I didn't like Romney last election and its hard for me to like him this time around either.
On the other hand Obama is exactly what I said he was four years ago. He was a good public speaker but was as liberal as they came. HE stonewalled Republicans his first two years in office when they had the super-majority instead of trying to pass any bipartisan legislature so when Republicans won back the House 2 years later he didn't budge (and to fault House Republicans neither did they) and we've essentially had a stalemate the past two years.
Same with Ohio senate this year. Brown is another far left candidate (I prefer moderates who actually work across the aisle) but the GOP counters with Josh Mandel? I haven't been impressed with him whatsoever either.
I prefer my candidates to be Blue dog Democrats or Massachusettes Republicans (which I really hope Scott Brown wins because he actually works with both sides as opposed to Elizabeth Warren who will vote left on every issue)
Screw it, I'm just voting for McCain again.
Update: Romney leads Obama by 7 in latest Gallup tracking poll. Gallup tracking poll.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456 |
they are doing this because they know R's are lazy and wont take the time to vote if they see their guy has a lead. I will say it now I see no way NONE that Obama doesnt get re-elected. Not a chance.
Buzzards are circling over Rom and I have no doubt what so ever they are not crows.
The Media is just making sure to the right people to get out and vote.
Your 4 more years are coming. Expect many pay raises in congress no matter who wins. I want that job darn it.
If you need 3 years to be a winner you got here 2 years to early. Get it done Browns.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
they are doing this because they know R's are lazy and wont take the time to vote if they see their guy has a lead. I will say it now I see no way NONE that Obama doesnt get re-elected. Not a chance.
Buzzards are circling over Rom and I have no doubt what so ever they are not crows.
The Media is just making sure to the right people to get out and vote.
Your 4 more years are coming. Expect many pay raises in congress no matter who wins. I want that job darn it.
Well, since I'm not a Republican, I'm sure that'll apply to me. I'm intent on getting out to vote. I haven't decided whether I'll cast a vote on the presidential line at all or not. I definitely will get out to vote on the down ballot races though.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331 |
Quote:
they are doing this because they know R's are lazy and wont take the time to vote if they see their guy has a lead. I will say it now I see no way NONE that Obama doesnt get re-elected. Not a chance.
Is this a joke?
UCONN HUSKIES 2014 Champions of Basketball
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 683
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 683 |
Quote:
Quote:
NRTU:
The more I read and listen to comments on these debates, the more I thin the movie "Idiocracy" should be a mandatory watch. Although at this point, I think some people might think it's a good thing.
Vote for Romney, he drinks more electrolytes.
I think it's actually Ryan that drinks the electrolytes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,524
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,524 |
Quote:
I also think most of the undecideds are deciding if they should even vote - see if they can be sold on Romney's plan.
What puzzles me.... What is Romneys plan?
He has very little specifics. I mean he claims he will cut taxes for everyone while at the same time increase military spending by two trillion over the next ten years.
But when pressed on the issue, he seems very unwilling to be specific on which deductions will be cut. His answer seems to be some vague answer that deductions will be put under some umbrella and that you will be able to choose the deductions you do and don't use in your specific case.
That would seem to add even more confusion and work trying to decipher each tax return and avoids actually putting some firm policy in place. I feel it would bolster his case a lot if the average voter knew the specifics of his economic plan rather than some vague outline that gives out more questions than answers.
To me, right now, Romney needs to spell out his tax program with adding a firm, strucrual plan for it rather than just throw out a bunch of non specific answers that makes this entire idea quite vague with no subtance.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,532
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,532 |
Romney is not increasing spending on the military. He is not cutting spending on the military as the Obama administration has proposed.
There is a difference.
Romney has laid out some specifics about his plan, but no politician lays out a comprehensive plan, because it becomes fodder for attacks. Look at the Ryan budget, that didn't even cut spending, but rather cut the rate of increase in spending. You would think that he was gutting programs, when instead of spending increasing at 5%, it's increasing at 2% instead. (or a similar rate .... I didn't check the exact rates in the last Ryan budget)
Romney has said that he wants the US to become energy independent by exploiting all of our opportunities, like drilling, expanding clean coal, nuclear, solar, wind, and so on. He wants to simplify the tax code. Having a stable tax code, that allows for long term business projections would go a long way to helping business project their employment and spending into the future. He wants to get rid of Obamacare, which is a job killer among entry level type jobs, and lower level retail and restaurant jobs that many people rely on to support their families. These employers are going away from full time employees so they don't have to pay the Obamacare tax. Eliminating Obamacare and putting in place very specific, limited reforms instead would be a huge improvement. He also wants to cut corporate taxes to help level the playing field for US companies. I do believe that this should be tiered to support business and employment in the US.
I don't agree with his stance on job training and such.I do not see it as the federal government's responsibility to pay for job training for businesses. I would be OK with limited tax credits for businesses to support job training and apprenticeships. I don't see how a new and expensive program will fit into the budget.
What is the Obama plan? Raising taxes on the "rich", which raises about $90 billion per year ....... and then double spending imaginary savings from ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Money that spent as part of a deficit can never be "saved and spent elsewhere". It is still deficit spending.
Anyway ..... neither guy has put forth many specifics. Obama has fallen into simply attacking Rmney at this point, because he really has nothing to run on. As Obama said in 2008 .....
"And that's to be expected, because if you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters.
If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things."
This election, according to the Obama campaign, is about birth control, and binders, and other highly important issues.
I do realize that the Romney campaign also jumps on small slip ups and mistakes, but I don't see them concentrating on campaigning on such tiny things as Obama has.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,524
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,524 |
I do like the way Obama plans to cut taxes for businesses a little better though.
His proposal is to give tax breaks and incentives to american businesses that invest by creating jobs in america, while giving tax penalties to companies that outsouce jods overseas.
I do think it's a shame when big business use tax cuts from the tax base only to invest those dollars off shore.
Like I said previously, I'm not a big fan of either cadidate but somehow or another we must give companies incentives to produce more jobs here at home rather than overseas IMO
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,532
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,532 |
The only problem is this: What is outsourcing these days?
If a company has a solid chance of expanding its sales into China, but shipping costs to China make it prohibitive for them to expand into the US, so they have to expand into China instead, is that a case of outsourcing? What if they have to cut a few US jobs in order to save the rest?
I would rather have a carrot approach. Cut corporate taxes for US corporations. Work out an "employment tax credit" for US jobs to further lower corporate taxes.
"Punishing" US corporations rarely seems to work. What is to stop a US corporation from then changing their incorporation to China, or any other country? Now they are no longer a US corporation, and they now only pay the same US taxes that foreign companies pay when they do business, or manufacture, in the US. We need carrots, not necessarily sticks. Specific tax credits aimed at US employment to go along with reduced US corporate tax rates would help US corporations, and would also help add US employment where possible.
I think that we also need to look at regulations. We want to protect the environment, but when we do things that have questionable environmental assistance, but that cost of those regulations bring only very minimal environmental impact, then we are hurting US companies, and jobs, for very questionable benefit.
I would like to see corporate regulatory changes limited to once per year unless there is an immediate danger present. Let business be able to run their business without having to worry about a shoe dropping on them in the middle of a fiscal year when they haven't had any time to plan for it in their budget. Further, I don;t know what the appeal process is for corporate regulations, if there is one at all, but I would like to see one put in place so that both sides have an opportunity to make their cases. If a regulation is vital, then it should be easy for the government to prove. If not, then why are we making it more difficult to do business in the US in the midst of an economic downturn?
It just seems to me that this administration has thrown up so many roadblocks to growing the economy, and adding jobs, by adding costs to businesses through the Obamacare mandate, and through excessive regulations and a bizarre tax policy. If we cannot get these under control, we'll continue to struggle to add jobs.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
Is anyone even watching the debate tonight?
On Fox you'll have the deciding game 7 of the Giants vs. Cards
On ESPN you'll have MNF with the Bears vs. Lions
On History you'll have American Pickers
On A&E you'll have Hoarders
On Bravo you'll have Real Housewives of NYC
Now I think barry and mitt have a shot at beating Bravo's offering but I'm not sure what else they may beat.
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
On Fox you'll have the deciding game 7 of the Giants vs. Cards
well, last time I didn't even realize there was a debate from watching MLB, so now, even knowing there is a debate...yeah, I'll still watch the NLCS.
I just hate the the teams are burning their best starters and won't have them to start the WS vs. Tigers.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
Most US companies "outsource" for a very simple reason. We, all of us, told them clearly and plainly that they HAVE TO.
We, all of us, refuse to pay a higher price for a product made in the USA. We want the absolute lowest price we can find. That means cheaper foreign labor.
Force them to use US labor and you force them to go bankrupt. The market will get what the market wants.
It's all nice to babble about what is better and what should be done, but if you're not willing to pay for it, it's just meaningless noise and wasted effort.
You cannot just wave a magic wand and expect to make US manufacturing more competitive. You have to look at real-world numbers and take steps to bring them more into line. Decrease wages and/or benefits, plus increase productivity. Better Quality Control might become a factor, but most of the buying public just doesn't care. They buy according to price and that's it. Beat the other guy's price or you don't make the sale.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349 |
I cant believe, as much criticism as Biden was given, nobody has a thing to say about Romneys facial expressions while Obama is talking.
King
You may be in the drivers seat but God is holding the map. #GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349 |
Syria is Irans gateway to the sea?
Maybe you should take a look at a globe Willard.
You may be in the drivers seat but God is holding the map. #GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,532
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,532 |
Did Obama really just say that Russia and China were cooperating with us on sanction on Iran?
Russia, China, and even our NATO Turkey are all buying Iranian oil. None are going to stop.
Iranian exports have slowed, largely because the EU put severe restrictions in place. However, to say that Russia and China have somehow stopped doing business with Iran, or have somehow agreed to put further sanctions in place is just wrong.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,532
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,532 |
I also do not like that Obama seems to get every last word on every topic. Romney has to put a stop to that.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,819
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,819 |
Quote:
Syria is Irans gateway to the sea?
Maybe you should take a look at a globe Willard.
Yeah, the Mediterranean is a sea last time I checked.
From the part I watched there is no comparison in facial expressions
From what I watched Obama was killing Romney.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,556
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,556 |
I have watched all 3 debates and I really dont like either guy but this is the worst I have seen from Romney imho. He looks like he is passing a kidney stone. Part of it is the really crappy makeup job his people did on him.
Orange forehead, light color around the mouth and black eyes just doesnt come off to well. Danni used to watch faceoff, hollywood makeup reality show and i learned stuff lol one of those shows u like but hate to admit it lol
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,532
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,532 |
Has anyone told Obama that Romney wanted a managed bankruptcy ........ with the only difference being that Romney didn't want to dump $50 billion into GM, much of which will never be paid back, and did not want to pay off the union.
As far as our currency being worth more than at ant time ..... sorry, but I disagree, With the way we are dumping money into the system, I doubt that our currency is worth more than it was 10 years ago ..... or 20 years ago, or since 1993.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,532
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,532 |
I was curious about what Romney's Op-Ed on the auto industry actually said, so I looked it up. The title, by the way, was written by a Time's editor. Romney's title submitted with the piece was something like "The way forward for the US auto Industry". Anyway, here is the Op-Ed. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=0IF 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.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,819
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,819 |
Well my friends in Australia would disagree. We are upside down with them, as well as Canada. It's a good time for foreigners to come for a visit.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,532
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,532 |
Yep. With our currency worth less and less, foreign currency buys quite a bit more than it used to.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349 |
Since when does Syria and Iran share a border?
You may be in the drivers seat but God is holding the map. #GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,556
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,556 |
Romney may still end up winning but he took a beat down tonight. He started slow and it was all down hill from there. Wow, I wanted to see Romney go after him tonight and all he did was agree with Obama for the entire debate while Obama took shot after shot.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,532
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,532 |
I have a question for those who served ......
Aircraft Carriers are what branch of the military? I ask because Obama said something about cutting the navy, and not needing as many ships because we use these things called aircraft carriers, and subs.
Here is the quote:
But I think Governor Romney maybe hasn't spent enough time looking at how our military works. You -- you mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets -- (laughter) -- because the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.
Are aircraft carriers ships, and are they part of the Navy? It would seem to me that they are ... but I wonder about the official classification.
Also, don't the Marines still use bayonets?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284 |
Marines board air craft carriers too. Is that what you want to know?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,532
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,532 |
Quote:
Romney may still end up winning but he took a beat down tonight. He started slow and it was all down hill from there. Wow, I wanted to see Romney go after him tonight and all he did was agree with Obama for the entire debate while Obama took shot after shot.
I think that was strategy. I think that Romney frustrated Obama to no end, passing up clear avenues of attack to almost force Obama into attacking instead. I am reminded of the one exchange where Obama kept trying to interrupt Romney towards the end of the debate .... and was almost rude. Romney just calmly said that he didn't interrupt Obama.
I think that Romney actually wound up winning the debate. He made Obama look small in many ways. The Apology tour for example.Wow .......holy psychic friends network Batman, this is on TV right now. Anyway, as they just said on TV .... Obama said "Ask any reporter" ..... which is a really small comment in such a large debate.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,532
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,532 |
Quote:
Marines board air craft carriers too. Is that what you want to know?
No, are aircraft carriers considered Navy, Air Force? Marines? I thought that they were Navy ... which would be a counter argument to what Obama himself argued in the same comment.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284 |
Also from what I've been told in the past, they use bayonettes for training but it's not really used in combat.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284 |
Quote:
Quote:
Marines board air craft carriers too. Is that what you want to know?
No, are aircraft carriers considered Navy, Air Force? Marines? I thought that they were Navy ... which would be a counter argument to what Obama himself argued in the same comment.
You're technically not wrong, but they are also associated with marines. Air Force is land based.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Presidental Debate Part 2.
|
|
