U.S. Presidential Debates & Election [Archive] - Page 2

CaptainHaplo

10-23-12, 06:12 PM

These three debates were an object lesson in strategy.

If Romney wins the election - and I suspect he will by a suprising margin, this will be an example of how one resounding victory followed by what is technically 2 draw's - can still end up as lasting win.

No question that Romney cleaned Obama's clock the first go round.

While many on the right wanted to see him do it again in the second debate, both men looked more like kids on a playground trying to one-up the other. 1/3 saw it as a Romney win, 1/3 saw it as a Obama win, and 1/3 saw it as a tie. That makes it a wash. Neither side really did much to the other in the larger scheme of things.

The third round was probably the most dangerous for both candidates. Obama needed to halt the momentum Romney has had, and Romney had to tie foreign policy into his "strength" - which is primarily economic. The problem is that while Obama looked a little more "in the know" on some foreign policy issues, Romney was close enough to him to be seen as a serious contender for Commander in Chief without seeming hawkish.

Ultimately - the economy still figured largely, so while Obama took swipes at Romney, the line "Attacking me isn't a foreign policy for the future" kept Obama from making many inroads. Given that foreign policy is truly a secondary issue this election, on balance the third debate was pretty much an even outcome.

So - in just a little less than 2 weeks - we will find out if sometimes simply "not losing" is a victory.

CaptainHaplo

10-23-12, 06:21 PM

These three debates were an object lesson in strategy.

If Romney wins the election - and I suspect he will by a suprising margin, this will be an example of how one resounding victory followed by what is technically 2 draw's - can still end up as lasting win.

No question that Romney cleaned Obama's clock the first go round. In addition, Romney defined himself - letting the voters see someone different than the image that the Obama camp had portrayed. Between that and Obama looking like someone had told him that his teleprompter had just died and couldn't be resuctated - it simply was a rout.

While many on the right wanted to see Romney do it again in the second debate, both men looked more like kids on a playground trying to one-up the other. Both interrupted and talked over each other to the rejection of most watchers. 1/3 saw it as a Romney win, 1/3 saw it as a Obama win, and 1/3 saw it as a tie. That makes it a wash. Neither side really did much to the other in the larger scheme of things.

The third round was probably the most dangerous for both candidates. Obama needed to halt the momentum Romney has had, and Romney had to tie foreign policy into his "strength" - which is primarily economic. The problem is that while Obama looked a little more "in the know" on some foreign policy issues, Romney was close enough to him to be seen as a serious contender for Commander in Chief without seeming hawkish.

Ultimately - the economy still figured largely, so while Obama took swipes at Romney, the line "Attacking me isn't a foreign policy for the future" kept Obama from making many inroads. Given that foreign policy is truly a secondary issue this election, on balance the third debate was pretty much an even outcome.

So - in just a little less than 2 weeks - we will find out if sometimes simply "not losing" is a victory.

Onkel Neal

10-23-12, 07:56 PM

I would have just ignored it as a typo if you hadn't capitalized it as well.
:rotfl2:

I've never claimed to know everything. Or anything. I just thought it was funny.

I'm not an idiom! You're an idiom!

This is great, I live for these type of highjacks.

These three debates were an object lesson in strategy.

If Romney wins the election - and I suspect he will by a suprising margin, this will be an example of how one resounding victory followed by what is technically 2 draw's - can still end up as lasting win.

Don't overlook, many people probably have not been paying any attention to the GOP primary race, and these three debates are the first impression they've had of Romney.

Tagg Romney, Mitt Romney's oldest son, apologized to President Barack Obama Monday for saying he wanted to "take a swing" at him during contentious presidential debates. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/23/romneys-son-apologizes-to-obama-for-swing-remark/?hpt=hp_t1)

Man, what an embarrassing thing to say about the President, then have to go on stage with him. He's lucky he's not in Gitmo...oh wait, Obama shut that down... ;)

-----------------

Of Bayonets and Submarines (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/331392/bayonets-and-submarines-charles-c-w-cooke#comments)

Partisan blinders if ever I saw them. :ping:

.

vienna

10-24-12, 12:25 PM

http://assets.amuniversal.com/10d3a0f0f514012ff352001dd8b71c47 (http://www.gocomics.com/9chickweedlane#mutable_846306)

<o>

Oberon

10-24-12, 12:57 PM

pic

<o>

:har::har::har::har: :yep:

Onkel Neal

10-28-12, 09:29 PM

It's over, Obama will win. Just saw a political ad for him narrated by God, er, Morgan Freeman.

Oberon

10-28-12, 09:31 PM

It's over, Obama will win. Just saw a political ad for him narrated by God, er, Morgan Freeman.

Haven't seen that one yet, have you seen Samuel L Jacksons one?

Gerald

10-28-12, 09:35 PM

It's over, Obama will win. Just saw a political ad for him narrated by God, er, Morgan Freeman. Like this,

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/28/us-usa-campaign-poll-idUSBRE89K0A920121028

Onkel Neal

10-28-12, 10:58 PM

This takes all the guesswork out of deciding which candidate to vote for :shucks:
http://www.isidewith.com/

http://imgs.isidewith.com/results-image/189824366.jpg

Sailor Steve

10-28-12, 11:28 PM

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/1898596371.jpg

I don't even know Gary Johnson. More investigation required.

[edit] Okay, he's the Libertarian candidate and former Governor of New Mexico.

[edit 2] Nice site, by the way. Thanks, Neal!

Takeda Shingen

10-28-12, 11:40 PM

http://imgs.isidewith.com/results-image/189876611.jpg

Huh. Green Party. I didn't even know the name Jill Stein before getting my results.

Cool link, Neal!

Onkel Neal

10-29-12, 01:38 AM

Yes, and if you don't like the three standard choices, you can select "choose another stance" and fine tune it. For Global Warming I entered "How the hell would I know, do I look like a scientist?" :arrgh!:

Rilder

10-29-12, 04:17 AM

Well I wasn't expecting that result! I didn't even know he was running!
http://tnypic.net/w4hnb.jpg

Tribesman

10-29-12, 04:33 AM

82 Johnson
79 Stein
77 Obama
65 Anderson
46 Goode
41 Romney

Oberon

10-29-12, 07:00 AM

Well I wasn't expecting that result! I didn't even know he was running!

My result doesn't come as that much of a surprise, I think the thing has a built in Redcoat detector:

http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/8708/elec.jpg

j/k, in reality I got:
69% Barry
68% Jill
62% Johnson
57% Romney

soopaman2

10-29-12, 07:05 AM

Whatever algorithim that generates the results for that page assumes the candidates are being truthful.:hmmm:

Unless it validates your previous beliefs, then it is gospel.

Not critisizing anyone, just offering 2 of my hard earned cents.:salute:

mookiemookie

10-29-12, 08:02 AM

I already knew I was voting for him anyways.

http://i.imgur.com/rinze.png

Platapus

10-29-12, 08:14 AM

I did not know who Jill Stern was. :oops:

Too bad the Green Party has less of a chance than the Libertarian Party and the Libertarian's have about a 0.00% chance this election. :D

August

10-29-12, 10:52 AM

http://imgs.isidewith.com/results-image/190429348.jpg

soopaman2

10-29-12, 11:06 AM

Gary Johnson seems to be the most centrist, though he has not a chance in hell.

Thanks our campaign contribution system, and citizens United, allowing foreign entities to influence our elections.

Thanks Scalia, you guido scumbag, a betrayal to people like me and my family who fought for rights in this country, as people whos names ended in vowels.

Turncoat wop.

You disgust the real Italian Americans who struggled to help build this country, as my family did, and as I continue to do.

(yes I can call him a guido, same way blacks can use the n word on each other with zero reprecussions.)

Neal has my CC name, ask him if ya think I'm bullcrapping about my heritage.

August

10-29-12, 11:51 AM

It's still racist when you are using racist terms to describe your own race.

In any case the right decision was made in the Citizens United case. It is not the purview of the US Supreme Court to re-write the law. If you don't like it then get Congress off their butts and pass legislation ending the practice.

Here's a good example of what happens when the courts "legislate from the bench".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_busing_crisis

Penguin

10-29-12, 01:43 PM

Another Libertarian/Green here, too bad that due to silly winner-takes-it-all laws we won't see many votes for them :down::

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/2936/uselection.png

The questions are not weighted, as I noticed Neal's comment about a 3rd choice after I took the test. In Opera this option was not shown, just as the importance-sliders on the left. So use another bowser for this test, Opera-folks!

Rocky Anderson sounds like a refreshing sane guy, never heard of this guy before.

soopaman2

10-29-12, 01:52 PM

IMHO the peoples will shoud rule over all.

I know you like CU August, but I see it as an entrance for multinationals to impede in our political process, and being that money rules all, what protection does the normal citizen have?

I am not as wealthy as most, and cannot afford, nor do I think I should have to bribe my representatives.

But when some Dutch or German based comapany gets the same if not more representation than me I get peeved.

I cannot buy Obama or Romney a commercial. But thanks to citizens united, some Swiss or German company can.

See the point I am making, why I hate it?

It is not because I wear a tinfoil hat.

CaptainHaplo

10-29-12, 01:58 PM

I side with Gary Johnson on most issues in the 2012 Presidential Election.
Candidates you side with...

91%
http://d3f9541h31a4it.cloudfront.net/_imgs/candidates/sm/962406.pngGary Johnson Libertarian

on foreign policy, healthcare, economic, domestic policy, and environmental issues
85%
http://d3f9541h31a4it.cloudfront.net/_imgs/candidates/sm/962427.pngMitt Romney Republican

on immigration, economic, science, environmental, and domestic policy issues
77%
http://d3f9541h31a4it.cloudfront.net/_imgs/candidates/sm/7750797.pngVirgil Goode Constitution

on foreign policy, immigration, environmental, and economic issues
33%
http://d3f9541h31a4it.cloudfront.net/_imgs/candidates/sm/52574784.pngRocky Anderson Justice

on foreign policy and domestic policy issues 21%
http://d3f9541h31a4it.cloudfront.net/_imgs/candidates/sm/6600944.pngJill Stein Green

on foreign policy and domestic policy issues7%
http://d3f9541h31a4it.cloudfront.net/_imgs/candidates/sm/962388.pngBarack Obama Democrat

no major issues

Parties you side with...

85% Libertarian

78% Republican

18% Green

4% Democrat

nikimcbee

10-29-12, 03:09 PM

I think Gary Johnson wrote the software.:haha:

I'm going to take the quiz again and only answer yes or no. See what happens.:hmmm:

soopaman2

10-29-12, 03:17 PM

Gary Johnson is a good man. Just saying.

He makes more sense than most, but lacks the $$$$ to get it done.

Sad, but I reckon other countries have the same such issues, my quiz came up with GJ too.

I consider myself an Obama supporter too. But found some of his views crap.

Honestly I feel I am choosing the lesser of 2 evils, rather than anything considered a viable candidate.

August

10-30-12, 07:22 AM

I know you like CU August, but I see it as an entrance for multinationals to impede in our political process, and being that money rules all, what protection does the normal citizen have?

I didn't say I liked CU, I said that the court shouldn't legislate from the bench. Passing, enacting and repealing legislation is the job of Congress. They're the ones who should be doing it.

Platapus

10-30-12, 10:29 AM

Thanks our campaign contribution system, and citizens United, allowing foreign entities to influence our elections.

Not wanting to let facts interfere with a good rant, but could you point out where in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission the federal law prohibiting foreign contributions to federal elections was over turned?

mookiemookie

10-30-12, 11:05 AM

August

10-30-12, 11:18 AM

mookiemookie

10-30-12, 11:51 AM

Credit Suisse has also donated to the Obama campaign too as did Barclays and UBS. Funny you should only mention their contributions to Romney...

I didn't see them on the list, so excuuuuuuuuse me.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00009638

Didn't click with me at first glance, but looking again I see that Deloitte is foreign too. So there's your fair and balanced bit. Completely irrelevant to the point I was making, but there it is anyways.

Platapus

10-30-12, 12:15 PM

501c4's don't have to disclose the sources of their donors. What's to stop a foreign corporation from funding one in order to influence an election? What's to stop a foreign company from opening an American subsidiary and donating money to a candidate? Apparently nothing since Credit Suisse has given Romney over $600,000. Barclays over $400,000. UBS $400,000.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286

What's to stop them? The law.

What's to stop me from committing any crime? No law can prevent anyone from deliberately committing a crime. It can only provide a venue of punishment and redress.

If you read the fine print, this website tells how entities get on the list.

1. They gave through a political action committee sponsored by the organization (This is not illegal. There is a difference between donating to a PAC and to the candidate directly.)

or

2. individuals connected with the organization contributed directly to the candidate.

Again, nothing illegal as long as the individuals are US citizens. There is a difference between tallying up individual donations and sorting them by employer and the amount the employer donates. This is one of the tricks these "monitoring" organizations do.

Consider this: If somehow it could be determined that members of the military donated megabucks to a candidate, does that mean that the DoD donated megabucks to the candidate? Of course not.

Donations from a corporation to a PAC need to be counted separately than donations from individual employees of that corporation. Like counting coconuts and cinder blocks. :)

To lump them together, gives an inaccurate picture.

mookiemookie

10-30-12, 12:23 PM

What's to stop them? The law.

What's to stop me from committing any crime? No law can prevent anyone from deliberately committing a crime. It can only provide a venue of punishment and redress.

If you read the fine print, this website tells how entities get on the list.

1. They gave through a political action committee sponsored by the organization (This is not illegal. There is a difference between donating to a PAC and to the candidate directly.)

or

2. individuals connected with the organization contributed directly to the candidate.

Again, nothing illegal as long as the individuals are US citizens. There is a difference between tallying up individual donations and sorting them by employer and the amount the employer donates. This is one of the tricks these "monitoring" organizations do.

Consider this: If somehow it could be determined that members of the military donated megabucks to a candidate, does that mean that the DoD donated megabucks to the candidate? Of course not.

Donations from a corporation to a PAC need to be counted separately than donations from individual employees of that corporation. Like counting coconuts and cinder blocks. :)

To lump them together, gives an inaccurate picture.

Brings up one of my pet ideas - no more corporate/PAC campaign financing. Make it so only individuals can contribute to a political campaign. Of course there's a snowball's chance of it ever happening, but I think it would ease my mind, at least, that only U.S. citizens are the ones influencing elections.

CaptainHaplo

10-30-12, 04:11 PM

Brings up one of my pet ideas - no more corporate/PAC campaign financing. Make it so only individuals can contribute to a political campaign. Of course there's a snowball's chance of it ever happening, but I think it would ease my mind, at least, that only U.S. citizens are the ones influencing elections.

I got your back on this one Mookie - if you can't go in and pull a lever (does anyone actually DO that anymore?) - then you should not be able to give to a campaign.

With that said - that would mean corporations - and unions - would both be out in the cold. Just think - so many lobbyists out of work because they couldn't bring money to the table....

Of course - there should also be a $1000 personal contribution limit in my view as well - so one side or the other doesn't "buy" the election. But that would "infringe free speech" according to the courts...

mookiemookie

10-30-12, 06:15 PM

I got your back on this one Mookie - if you can't go in and pull a lever (does anyone actually DO that anymore?) - then you should not be able to give to a campaign.

With that said - that would mean corporations - and unions - would both be out in the cold. Just think - so many lobbyists out of work because they couldn't bring money to the table....

Of course - there should also be a $1000 personal contribution limit in my view as well - so one side or the other doesn't "buy" the election. But that would "infringe free speech" according to the courts...

My company had hired a lobbyist to get an esoteric part of some financial regulation changed. I actually agreed with what we wanted to see changed, as it would have benefited small business as well as the financial markets.

We were told by upper management, in their plea for donations to the PAC we set up, that to get a Congressperson's ear you have to either take them out to an expensive (talking $1000's of dollars expensive) dinner or donate to their campaign directly. Otherwise you get a staffer who may or may not relay your request to the Congressperson.

Absolutely ridiculous.

Platapus

10-30-12, 07:04 PM

First amendment of the United States Constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

People have the right to form associations

Corporations are associations formed by people

If people have the right to freedom of speech and to petition the government for redress, why would not an association of people not have that the same right?

Well it happens to be the law and it has nothing to do with Citizens United.

Title 1 United States Code (1947,1948,1951)

n determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise—

words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things;

....

the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals

So the cogent question is not why would corporations (associations of people) not be allowed equal freedoms, but under what auspice can the government infringe on this?

People often banter about the phrase "corporations are not people" Of course corporations are people. They are formed as associations of people. I have never seen a corporation do something by itself. :D

Buddahaid

10-30-12, 07:17 PM

That still boils down to money equals free speech so put your money where your mouth is rules.

vienna

10-30-12, 07:18 PM

People often banter about the phrase "corporations are not people" Of course corporations are people. They are formed as associations of people. I have never seen a corporation do something by itself. :D

At least not until the corporation is caught doing something illegal or unethical. Suddenly, all of the people in the leadership of the "association" disavow any culpability for the their actions and want any blame and punishment or liability laid on the mythical entity known as the "corpoartion". It sort of like "I've imagined there is a dragon and I control it, but, if it trashes your kingdon, take it up with the dragon, It's not our fault". And, so, they happliy skip out the door and fly away on their golden parachutes...

<O>

mookiemookie

10-30-12, 08:59 PM

I have never seen a corporation do something by itself. :D

I'll believe corporations are people when one goes to jail and Texas executes it.

To argue a corporation is a person is ridiculous on its face. A corporation is not flesh and blood. It has no citizenship. Why would you grant a corporation say over the political process of a country when it owes absolutely no loyalty to one? A corporation can move it's home office to any country it desires and that decision is based on pure profit and economic motives, not any sense of patriotism or duty to a country.

A corporation is an association of people enacted to reduce liability and facilitate economic activity. It is not a person. It has the economic rights of an individual - can own land, enter into contracts, conduct trade, etc - but where I take issue is that just because we've assigned corporations the economic rights of an individual, that doesn't mean that we need to assign it political rights as well. You ask why an association of people shouldn't have a say in the political process but that's a red herring - it ignores the fact that a corporation is an association of people acting to an economic end, not a political one. No one starts a company in order to engage in the democratic process, they start one in order to make money. You're conflating the two aspects when they should remain separate. There are already avenues for people to associate together in order to influence the democratic process - PACs, for one. Why do we need to grant corporations more rights that don't pertain to their core purpose?

To say that a corporation is an association of people and it should be granted rights is to ignore what a corporation actually is. Does the mail clerk at Goldman Sachs have a say in corporate policy? So why should we grant Goldman political rights when in actuality the actions of a corporation are decided by a very small group of people at the top of the organization? That's granting those people a lot of power, and it's not granting that same power to those lower on the totem pole.

CaptainHaplo

10-30-12, 10:04 PM

I'll believe corporations are people when one goes to jail and Texas executes it.

To argue a corporation is a person is ridiculous on its face. A corporation is not flesh and blood. It has no citizenship. Why would you grant a corporation say over the political process of a country when it owes absolutely no loyalty to one? A corporation can move it's home office to any country it desires and that decision is based on pure profit and economic motives, not any sense of patriotism or duty to a country.

A corporation is an association of people enacted to reduce liability and facilitate economic activity. It is not a person. It has the economic rights of an individual - can own land, enter into contracts, conduct trade, etc - but where I take issue is that just because we've assigned corporations the economic rights of an individual, that doesn't mean that we need to assign it political rights as well. You ask why an association of people shouldn't have a say in the political process but that's a red herring - it ignores the fact that a corporation is an association of people acting to an economic end, not a political one. No one starts a company in order to engage in the democratic process, they start one in order to make money. You're conflating the two aspects when they should remain separate. There are already avenues for people to associate together in order to influence the democratic process - PACs, for one. Why do we need to grant corporations more rights that don't pertain to their core purpose?

To say that a corporation is an association of people and it should be granted rights is to ignore what a corporation actually is. Does the mail clerk at Goldman Sachs have a say in corporate policy? So why should we grant Goldman political rights when in actuality the actions of a corporation are decided by a very small group of people at the top of the organization? That's granting those people a lot of power, and it's not granting that same power to those lower on the totem pole.

The same could be said of unions - they are not created to engage in politics - they are created to protect their workers. They are not run by the workers - but by a select few "union bosses" who steer the direction fo the union as they see fit.

August

10-31-12, 11:37 AM

At least not until the corporation is caught doing something illegal or unethical. Suddenly, all of the people in the leadership of the "association" disavow any culpability for the their actions and want any blame and punishment or liability laid on the mythical entity known as the "corpoartion". It sort of like "I've imagined there is a dragon and I control it, but, if it trashes your kingdon, take it up with the dragon, It's not our fault". And, so, the happliy skip out the door and fly away on their golden parachutes...

<O>

You mean like the Obama administrations response to the Libya attack and Operation Fast and Furious? They seem as adept at dodging responsibility as any corporation exec.

vienna

10-31-12, 12:34 PM

You mean like the Obama administrations response to the Libya attack and Operation Fast and Furious? They seem as adept at dodging responsibility as any corporation exec.

How laughably absurd! Besides grasping at straws, you seem to be back to flagellating equine decedents...

<O>

mookiemookie

10-31-12, 01:23 PM

How laughably absurd! Besides grasping at straws, you seem to be back to flagellating equine decedents...

<O>

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

vienna

10-31-12, 01:27 PM

It would seem then, August is a veritable kipper factory... :)

<O>

August

10-31-12, 02:15 PM

How laughably absurd! Besides grasping at straws, you seem to be back to flagellating equine decedents...

<O>

Only a Democrat would consider an unresolved terrorist attack upon our embassy and the murder of four of our people as beating a dead horse.

Only a Democrat would consider a Justice department operation that gave weapons to drug cartels a closed issue

Apparently incompetence and malfeasance is ok when it's your people that do it right?

vienna

10-31-12, 02:28 PM

Here you go, August, add it to your collection:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_dWIMGuOIG-I/TTHqc47_v2I/AAAAAAAALJU/mOHR0HCJ-oU/s1600/redherring.gif

EDIT:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_g05rcQEz--I/R3u4_4x-J3I/AAAAAAAAALs/FcJYphe79S8/s400/flogging%2Ba%2Bdead%2Bhorse.jpg

<O>

August

10-31-12, 02:39 PM

Stupid pictures ain't gonna change the facts.

Your heroes incompetence got four of our people murdered in Libya and another in Texas, and you're fine with dismissing that for political reasons. As far as i'm concerned that makes you complicit in their deaths.

vienna

10-31-12, 02:45 PM

Is that the perspiration of desperation I see on your brow?...

You are really most amusing when your flailing...

<O>

August

10-31-12, 02:53 PM

Is that the perspiration of desperation I see on your brow?...

You are relly most amusing when your flailing...

<O>

We'll see who is acting desperate come November 6th.

How's it feel to excuse incompetence and murder?

vienna

10-31-12, 03:03 PM

How's it feel to excuse incompetence and murder?

I wouldn't know...

I never vote for GWB...

<O>

Sailor Steve

10-31-12, 04:20 PM

@ August: Vienna and Mookiemookie were both arguing against Platapus's posting of the US Code Title 1 definition of "person", trying to show that corporations should not have the same rights as individuals. Right or wrong, that was their point.

You posted comparing the Obama administration to that, especially Apparently incompetence and malfeasance is ok when it's your people that do it right?

While you do have a point, it has nothing to do with what they were arguing about, meaning that your comments were indeed a red herring, introduced just to turn the argument in your favor, or that you missed their point entirely.

Capt. Haplo, on the other hand, gave a valid answer, making the equal comparison between corporations and unions. I agree that neither should be accorded the same rights as individuals.

August

10-31-12, 05:02 PM

While you do have a point, it has nothing to do with what they were arguing about

This thread is about the presidential debates and the election, not the definition of a corporation. It's fine with me if folks want to go off on a tangent but i'm not going to apologize for talking about the candidates record. Especially when I see the murder of our citizens dismissed with stupid cartoons like their lives were just an inconvenience.

vienna

10-31-12, 05:21 PM

Sailor Steve is right (as he usually is :))...

I will try to stick to the point and not feed the trolls...

Oh, August...

"...and thanks for all the fish..."

<O>

19Herr_Rapp86

10-31-12, 05:25 PM

Only a Democrat would consider an unresolved terrorist attack upon our embassy and the murder of four of our people as beating a dead horse.

Only a Democrat would consider a Justice department operation that gave weapons to drug cartels a closed issue

Apparently incompetence and malfeasance is ok when it's your people that do it right?

I'm a hardcore conservative. So hard core that if the visualization of an aircraft could be used, the liberals are on the left wingtip, the conservatives are on the right wingtip, I'm a mile away from the right side of the aircraft, but I disagree with you saying only a democrat would do those things. Ever heard of John F. Kennedy, FDR, Harry Truman, Zell Miller, Charlie Wilson, Tip O'Neal, Teddy Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, even Bill Clinton? You can't lump all democrats into that category. We've had some great ones. Just like we've had some crap republicans. All the names I mentioned above are all dems even I would have voted for.

August

10-31-12, 05:40 PM

I disagree with you saying only a democrat would do those things.

But I didn't say that. Not even close.

vienna

10-31-12, 05:56 PM

I'm a hardcore conservative. So hard core that if the visualization of an aircraft could be used, the liberals are on the left wingtip, the conservatives are on the right wingtip, I'm a mile away from the right side of the aircraft, but I disagree with you saying only a democrat would do those things. Ever heard of John F. Kennedy, FDR, Harry Truman, Zell Miller, Charlie Wilson, Tip O'Neal, Teddy Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, even Bill Clinton? You can't lump all democrats into that category. We've had some great ones. Just like we've had some crap republicans. All the names I mentioned above are all dems even I would have voted for.

Amen.

I try to stay within the fuselage of the aircraft, myself... :D

I think, if one is truly honest, there is no monopoly by either side on success or failure, common sense or sheer lunacy, thrift or spendthrift; that is why I always listen carefully to both sides and try to parse out the gist from the gibberish. I have voted for Republicans and I have voted for Democrats and I have voted for Independents. I do not allow myself to be swayed by whatever is the "flavor of the month" or ideas that are past their "sell by" date. Truthfully, I have not made up my mind who I will vote for on Tuesday; I'm still waiting for some answers for both sides to questions I still have. That said, Romney is really pushing it with his non-specific claims to have "plans" to resolve national problems. I really like specifics and I'm still waiting. Maybe it's because I'm old enough to remember and to have been affected by the claims of Nixon's campaign to have had a "secret plan" to end the war in Vietnam. He ran on that "secret plan" in 1968; in 1972, four years later, with the war still raging, he ran again on the same idea of a "secret plan". Turns out there was no real plan and Nixon would actually be gone from the White House before the last troops came home (although many MIAs are still to be accounted for). More than six years of political deceit in the White House led to more than six years of death and misery for the troops in the field. Some things in this country are too important to allow some sort of snakeoil salesman, of any stripe or party, to come along and siren song us into accepting their hokum. We again have troops in the field, as in 1972 when Nixon ran with his "secret plan"; we again have severe ecnomic uncertainty, as in 1972; we again heve deep partisan divisions, as in 1972. Let's just try to vote for whoever we feel is best for the job and not make 2012 another 1972...

<O>

19Herr_Rapp86

10-31-12, 06:05 PM

Ah, so you're one of the 5% I keep hearing about on the news! Lol. I like your point of view on the matter. In fact, Nixon is one of those crap republicans I was talking about. Lol. "I am not a crook..." By what definition? Anyways, on your topic, I'm decided. Romney. True, he hasn't given specifics. Well, details. He hasn't given details. In my opinion, key word, opinion, his 5 point plan has specifics in it for me, though it sounds vague. I like it, because I think it lays a good bipartisan foundation. POTUS is only as strong as congress and the Supreme Court, and vice versa. I think it lays a good foundation for both isles of congress to work on. Have you by chance heard of the concept of line vetoing? I think that is what Romney is attempting to achieve with that 5 point plan, by laying that foundation, he can look at ideas from both parties and pick and choose the lines he thinks will work and veto the ones that won't. Like a CEO saying this is what I want to happen, and then the board of directors coming up with a plan to accomplish that goal. I think it promotes working together. Again, just my opinion.

August

10-31-12, 06:08 PM

Nothing is going to happen as long as Congress remains split between the parties.

vienna

10-31-12, 06:08 PM

Originally Posted by 19Herr_Rapp86 http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/smartdark/viewpost.gif (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1955263#post1955263)

I disagree with you saying only a democrat would do those things.

August's Post #305:

But I didn't say that. Not even close.

August's Post #295:

Only a Democrat would consider an unresolved terrorist attack upon our embassy and the murder of four of our people as beating a dead horse.

Only a Democrat would consider a Justice department operation that gave weapons to drug cartels a closed issue

Apparently incompetence and malfeasance is ok when it's your people that do it right?

Equivocation is less than a dozen posts, my, my, my

Someone's nose is really growing and it is not mine...

<O>

vienna

10-31-12, 06:23 PM

Have you by chance heard of the concept of line vetoing? I think that is what Romney is attempting to achieve with that 5 point plan, by laying that foundation, he can look at ideas from both parties and pick and choose the lines he thinks will work and veto the ones that won't. Like a CEO saying this is what I want to happen, and then the board of directors coming up with a plan to accomplish that goal. I think it promotes working together. Again, just my opinion.

I am fully in favor of line vetoes. I have an accounting background, among other things, and am very keen on the idea of empowering the POTUS to have some say beyond being given a mishmash of a bill with irreleavant or undesireable amendments (I'm really very tired of the evangelicals in Congress trying to tack a "pro-life" amendment to such things as highway bills or defense bills). I believe you are correct in saying a line veto may ease the process. You probably recall the GOP has been floating this idea and the concept of a "balanced budget amendmant" to the constitution for years now, way back to the Reagan years. They made an infuriatingly half-hearted effort when Clinton was in office to give line veto power through legislation, but even a novice civics student could see the legislation was unconstitutional. The SCOTUS struck down the bill and rightly so, in my opinion. The intersting part of the whole process is the Far Right's (I don't think quite as far right as you, by your seelf-description :)) insistence budgets could not be balanced without a "balanced budget amendment". I guess no one told Clinton (balanced and with a surplus, to boot). I fear there is too much self-interest among the members of Congress for their pet projects or debt owed to lobbyists/contributors for them to really bite the bullet and do the right thing regarding a sensible financial stance...

<O>

19Herr_Rapp86

10-31-12, 06:32 PM

I have an I fear there is too much self-interest among the members of Congress for their pet projects or debt owed to lobbyists/contributors for them to really bite the bullet and do the right thing regarding a sensible financial stance...

<O>
You have a point there. I guess Congress never looked at the poll that showed that their approval with both GOP and Democrats is 10%. You'd think maybe they would get the message. I look for some more incumbents to get voted out this election too, just like the midterms. I think this country is fed up with congress.

August

10-31-12, 06:34 PM

Equivocation is less than a dozen posts, my, my, my

Someone's nose is really growing and it is not mine...

<O>

Are you being deliberately obtuse or is it just senility creeping in?

First you make light of the deaths of 5 people dismissing them like they were easily disposable trash and now you want to play word games?

Well I don't give a flying fart what has happened in the past. None of it justifies what is happening now. The fact remains that it's not republicans trying to cover up the administrations failures before and after the Libyan embassy attack and republicans aren't stonewalling the investigation into the administrations role in supplying arms to the drug cartels.

vienna

10-31-12, 06:39 PM

...now you want to play word games?

Now, I'm thinking pots and kettles now...

Well I don't give a flying fart what has happened in the past.

Apparently because you do not seem to have a grasp on anything in the past. This indicates the senility may be on your part. As they say "Those who do not learn from the past..."...

But why am I saying this at all; you probably won't remember it past the next dozen postings...

<O>

August

10-31-12, 06:48 PM

Apparently because you do not seem to have a grasp on anything in the past. This indicates the senility may be on your part. As they say "Those who do not learn from the past..."...

But why am I saying this at all; you probably won't remember it past the next dozen postings...

<O>

I'm not likely to forget how easily you dismiss the deaths of Americans.

Hopefully Obama will loose and then we can get to the bottom of those incidents and prosecute those responsible.

vienna

10-31-12, 06:54 PM

Kippers, anyone...

<O>

August

10-31-12, 06:59 PM

Kippers, anyone...

<O>

Is that code for how you think dismissing dead Americans is ok if it protects the administrations chance at reelection?

vienna

10-31-12, 07:10 PM

Maybe it could be code for dismissing repetitious, ridiculous drivel and those who continue to spew it...

You know, just maybe...

<O>

August

10-31-12, 07:17 PM

Maybe it could be code for dismissing repetitious, ridiculous drivel and those who continue to spew it...

You know, just maybe...

<O>

I prefer my definition. More accurate I think.

Sailor Steve

10-31-12, 07:20 PM

This thread is about the presidential debates and the election, not the definition of a corporation. It's fine with me if folks want to go off on a tangent but i'm not going to apologize for talking about the candidates record. Especially when I see the murder of our citizens dismissed with stupid cartoons like their lives were just an inconvenience.
Where exactly did Vienna dismiss the deaths? He was answering a specific post by Platapus, and it has nothing to do with that.

Are you being deliberately obtuse or is it just senility creeping in?

First you make light of the deaths of 5 people dismissing them like they were easily disposable trash and now you want to play word games?
Again you harp on something that had nothing to do with what he said. Where did he say that?

Well I don't give a flying fart what has happened in the past. None of it justifies what is happening now. The fact remains that it's not republicans trying to cover up the administrations failures before and after the Libyan embassy attack and republicans aren't stonewalling the investigation into the administrations role in supplying arms to the drug cartels.
You're absolutely right! The problem is that by not caring about the past you get to make it solely one-sided politics. Did you care about the past when it happened, or is it only Obama who gets to be chastised?

I'm not likely to forget how easily you dismiss the deaths of Americans.
Third times the charm. You need to show exactly where he did that, other than in your own accusation.

Is that code for how you think dismissing dead Americans is ok if it protects the administrations chance at reelection?
Fourth time. You seem to want Vienna and Mookie to be playing partisan politics when that's exactly what you keep doing.

mookiemookie

10-31-12, 07:35 PM

Fourth time. You seem to want Vienna and Mookie to be playing partisan politics when that's exactly what you keep doing.

I've just quit playing his little games. When someone's entire purpose seems to be to try and bait you into a cheap rhetorical trap and play word games, it's a sure sign that their argument has little of substance and it gets tiring.

August

10-31-12, 07:36 PM

You're absolutely right! The problem is that by not caring about the past you get to make it solely one-sided politics. Did you care about the past when it happened, or is it only Obama who gets to be chastised?

Sure I care Steve but what difference does it make? Am I not allowed to comment on contemporary issues without including a treatise on every similar incident that has occurred since man climbed out of the trees?

Last I checked Reagan was dead and GWB is retired to Crawford. Whatever they did doesn't have anything to do with whether the present administration is worth reelecting or not in next weeks election.

19Herr_Rapp86

10-31-12, 08:13 PM

Hopefully Obama will loose and then we can get to the bottom of those incidents and prosecute those responsible.

August, I'm an Iraq vet. A lot of people will argue that we shouldn't have been there and that 44 (whom I happen to like and voted for) was wrong for that invasion and lied about the WMD's so he could have an excuse for ousting Saddam Hussein. Did he lie? Well, the WMD's weren't found. Ever. Draw your own conclusions for that. Personally, I think we did the right thing. I saw lots of the locals that thanked us every day for sacrificing to make their lives better. Did the Administration lie about the Benghazi attacks? I don't know. There's a lot more behind the story that we don't know about because it's classified. I want to know what happened. But let the investigation takes it's course. The 9/11 investigation took until 2004 I think? Maybe. If wrong someone please correct me. Anyways, the point being, it's politics. And as for prosecuting those responsible, Al Qaeda affiliates killed our Ambassador and 3 other brave Americans. Not Barack Obama. George Bush didn't kill 3000 Americans on September 11, 2001. Al Qaeda did. George Bush didn't kill the 8,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Last time I checked, our Armed Forces are entirely volunteer. I knew what I was getting into when I signed up. I knew it was dangerous. Iraq was going on for 2 years before I joined. I did 4 years in the Marines despite. You want to prosecute the ones responsible? We're already doing that. It's called the war on terror. It's called the drone strikes.

Oberon

10-31-12, 08:14 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX_1B0w7Hzc

Buddahaid

10-31-12, 08:21 PM

Only a Democrat would consider an unresolved terrorist attack upon our embassy and the murder of four of our people as beating a dead horse.

Only a Democrat would consider a Justice department operation that gave weapons to drug cartels a closed issue

Apparently incompetence and malfeasance is ok when it's your people that do it right?

As a Democrat I take offence to that statement. I want more answers on Lybia too and I think the matter is not closed by the current administration. We had 9/11 and started a war in the wrong country people were so motivated to fight Arabs, and who cares if they aren't the right ones, their towelheads aren't they?

It appears incompetence and malfeasance are only really bad when it's the other side that's in power is perhaps a better description.

mookiemookie

10-31-12, 08:23 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX_1B0w7Hzc

Lincoln spit hot fire. He killed it.

August

10-31-12, 08:47 PM

August, I'm an Iraq vet. A lot of people will argue that we shouldn't have been there and that 44 (whom I happen to like and voted for) was wrong for that invasion and lied about the WMD's so he could have an excuse for ousting Saddam Hussein. Did he lie? Well, the WMD's weren't found. Ever. Draw your own conclusions for that. Personally, I think we did the right thing. I saw lots of the locals that thanked us every day for sacrificing to make their lives better.

Well thank you for your service to our country. Please don't read my lack of defense for GWB as meaning that I feel it's a valid comparison. y opinion is pretty much the same as yours on the subject of Iraq and Saddam but it wasn't germane to the point I was making and I didn't want to derail the subject by going down that road. Especially with the likes of them.

Did the Administration lie about the Benghazi attacks? I don't know. There's a lot more behind the story that we don't know about because it's classified. I want to know what happened. But let the investigation takes it's course.I think an investigation would be far more easily conducted if the present administration is removed so they can't stonewall it anymore like they have been doing. Harry Truman said "The buck stops here" whereas this administration looks to pass the buck at every opportunity and will apparently say anything to avoid it.

Now maybe Obama and Holder didn't know what was going on but if so then it points to a criminal lack of competence that should definitely not be rewarded with another 4 years in power.

August

10-31-12, 08:50 PM

As a Democrat I take offence to that statement. I want more answers on Lybia too and I think the matter is not closed by the current administration.

So then how do you feel about the concept that even mentioning it is beating a dead horse like Vienna and Mookie are claiming?

19Herr_Rapp86

10-31-12, 09:06 PM

Now maybe Obama and Holder didn't know what was going on but if so then it points to a criminal lack of competence that should definitely not be rewarded with another 4 years in power.

By that philosophy, George W. Bush and George Tenet are guilty of criminal lack of competence for the events of 9/11. They didn't know that an attack was coming. They suspected the possibility but it wasn't for sure. Franklin Roosevelt and pretty much the entire OSS are guilty of incompetence for Pearl Harbor. Same thing. They didn't know an attack was coming. Hell, we were in peace talks with Japan. They even gave us a peace medal. Jimmy Carter is guilty for the Iran Hostage Crisis. Kennedy is guilty for the Cuban Missile Crisis and the U2 pilot that got killed over that whole deal. Ronald Reagan is guilty for the 200+ Marines that got killed in Beirut. Bill Clinton is guilty for the Somalian Humanitarian disaster, the USS Cole, the Tanzania embassy bombing, etc.

August

10-31-12, 09:30 PM

By that philosophy, George W. Bush and George Tenet are guilty of criminal lack of competence for the events of 9/11. They didn't know that an attack was coming. They suspected the possibility but it wasn't for sure. Franklin Roosevelt and pretty much the entire OSS are guilty of incompetence for Pearl Harbor. Same thing. They didn't know an attack was coming. Hell, we were in peace talks with Japan. They even gave us a peace medal. Jimmy Carter is guilty for the Iran Hostage Crisis. Kennedy is guilty for the Cuban Missile Crisis and the U2 pilot that got killed over that whole deal. Ronald Reagan is guilty for the 200+ Marines that got killed in Beirut. Bill Clinton is guilty for the Somalian Humanitarian disaster, the USS Cole, the Tanzania embassy bombing, etc.

While I might argue over most of that list (for example the OSS wasn't even created until 1942 so one could hardly hold them responsible for Pearl Harbor) let's just say that I agree there is plenty of criminal incompetence to go around on both sides of the aisle.

But only one President is running for reelection though and when some forum clown tries to dismiss mention of their incompetence as just beating a dead horse I'm not going to just let it pass.

Libya was more than a no brainer gaffe. The administration deliberately put the ambassador and his party in danger by refusing their requests for additional security. I don't think that should be rewarded with another 4 years in office.

19Herr_Rapp86

10-31-12, 09:39 PM

I'm decided. Romney.

I don't think that should be rewarded with another 4 years in office.

I don't think he deserves to either. I made that point a couple of posts ago. But, I like to be educated as to why I'm voting someone in or out of office. And the Benghazi issue is beating a dead horse. It's all I've heard about since September 11th. Hurricane Sandy got 2 days of media coverage. Now it's back to Benghazi. Benghazi has had like 2 months now. I'm just as mad about it as anyone. I lose my temper when Americans die. It sucks. But screaming about it won't change the situation any. If it's upset you so bad, that's what November 6th is for. Go let your voice be heard at the ballot box. It is beating a dead horse because we don't know the whole story behind Benghazi. Troops in the area were told to stand down. Sounds retarded when an attack is taking place right?! It does! But neither you, nor me, nor anyone else in this forum was in the situation room when that was taking place. We react abruptly to something, next thing you know we're in a world war, or New York is a radioactive fireball. You don't know the whole story behind it. I wouldn't call it a gaffe just yet. Be sensible about things. No one is trampling on the graves of anyone by being sensible.

Buddahaid

10-31-12, 10:04 PM

So then how do you feel about the concept that even mentioning it is beating a dead horse like Vienna and Mookie are claiming?

I think people need to cool off mostly. What gets solved here anyway?

Sailor Steve

10-31-12, 10:10 PM

Sure I care Steve but what difference does it make? Am I not allowed to comment on contemporary issues without including a treatise on every similar incident that has occurred since man climbed out of the trees?
Of course you are. I don't even know that your'e wrong. My only criticizm was on the point that they addressed one thing and you took them to task on another.

Last I checked Reagan was dead and GWB is retired to Crawford. Whatever they did doesn't have anything to do with whether the present administration is worth reelecting or not in next weeks election.
That's true. As I said, I don't know if your point is true or not, but it is certainly valid, and not only can you say it, but you should.

August

10-31-12, 10:17 PM

But screaming about it won't change the situation any. If it's upset you so bad, that's what November 6th is for. Go let your voice be heard at the ballot box.

And so it will but in the meantime i'll continue to exercise my right as a free American to talk about the issue when and where ever I want (subject to the rules of this forum). The only way anything gets done in this county is by constant agitation and the election is only a week away. I can't imagine a better time to be talking about it.

If I do as you ask and remain silent the incident will only get swept under the rug, and it may anyways if people like Vienna and Mookie get their way, but i'm not going to help it along by letting the issue slide.

19Herr_Rapp86

10-31-12, 10:33 PM

August

10-31-12, 10:56 PM

Not saying sweep it under the rug. Lord knows that isn't going to happen. I'm saying instead of wallowing in the mud of the media by throwing accusations around, be sensible about the whole thing. Think outside the partisan politics box a little. Neither one of us has top secret clearance, which is what it is going to take to get the straight dope on Benghazi.

Sorry but I must disagree. There is no secret dope that justifies leaving our Ambassador and his party undefended in that part of the world, especially on the anniversary of 9/11, nor is there a valid reason to deny for days that it was anything but a riot over a movie, and nor is there a valid reason for supplying weapons to Mexican drug cartels and nor is there a valid reason for stonewalling the Congressional investigation into the operation.

You can call all that partisan but i'm not apologizing for it. The election is coming and time is of the essence. We need to get Obama and crew out of the oval office and Justice Department in order to have any chance at all of seeing what they're trying to hide.

19Herr_Rapp86

10-31-12, 11:10 PM

Again. As stated earlier I'm voting Romney. And we don't know the full story and apparently missed my post about another world war. We don't know the whole story of what was going on. Have you been watching Syria? Russia has influence in the middle east. Lot more than we do. Riots broke out all over the Middle East. We could have been on the brink of a world war. Or Isreal being wiped out. Or any other of a number of possibilities that we don't know about. There is a reason security was denied. That's a huge thing to do. The media has proved that because that is all that is being talked about. So huge that it wouldn't normally be done without some kind of probable cause. We as humans have a unique ability. Its called deduction. If we choose to we can take information and come to a logical conclusion from that information. This Benghazi thing warrants that same deductive reasoning.
The President isn't just going to commit political suicide without reason.

Buddahaid

10-31-12, 11:10 PM

No need to apologize for your views August, hell I'm not going to apologize for mine. I just don't like it when people need to use clever derogatory nicknames and rancorous language when airing their views. This place would be boring without the conflicting arguments but we can't expect to make converts.

19Herr_Rapp86

10-31-12, 11:32 PM

I'll believe corporations are people when one goes to jail and Texas executes it.

To argue a corporation is a person is ridiculous on its face. A corporation is not flesh and blood. It has no citizenship. Why would you grant a corporation say over the political process of a country when it owes absolutely no loyalty to one? A corporation can move it's home office to any country it desires and that decision is based on pure profit and economic motives, not any sense of patriotism or duty to a country.

A corporation is an association of people enacted to reduce liability and facilitate economic activity. It is not a person. It has the economic rights of an individual - can own land, enter into contracts, conduct trade, etc - but where I take issue is that just because we've assigned corporations the economic rights of an individual, that doesn't mean that we need to assign it political rights as well. You ask why an association of people shouldn't have a say in the political process but that's a red herring - it ignores the fact that a corporation is an association of people acting to an economic end, not a political one. No one starts a company in order to engage in the democratic process, they start one in order to make money. You're conflating the two aspects when they should remain separate. There are already avenues for people to associate together in order to influence the democratic process - PACs, for one. Why do we need to grant corporations more rights that don't pertain to their core purpose?

To say that a corporation is an association of people and it should be granted rights is to ignore what a corporation actually is. Does the mail clerk at Goldman Sachs have a say in corporate policy? So why should we grant Goldman political rights when in actuality the actions of a corporation are decided by a very small group of people at the top of the organization? That's granting those people a lot of power, and it's not granting that same power to those lower on the totem pole.

Have you by chance seen the HBO series" The Newsroom"? Your comment reminds me of several scenes. Talks about the concept of a greater fool and the difference between a corporation and an individual. Great show! You should definitely check it out. I think you'll like it.

August

10-31-12, 11:39 PM

19Herr_Rapp86

10-31-12, 11:49 PM

CaptainHaplo

11-01-12, 09:06 AM

Libya is killing this president. The economy is killing him. Everything is falling down around his ears - every poll has him either tied with or losing to Romney - and independents are breaking hard Romney while voter energy is also for Romney.

His days in office are coming to a close.

With regards to Libya - you can bet that Romney will open up a can of worms by using the Executive office to push for real "openness" into the matter. In a partisan way? Time will tell.

Fast and Furious however is going to be a major thing. Romney will rescind the Executive Privilege claim, and expect him to actually KEEP Holder on to make him resign in disgrace over it or be held accountableafter going before Congress again - with all the records laid out. I don't think I agree with that - its entirely partisan and its petty. Personally I think a completed investigation will result in criminal charges for those responsible, and then let it be. It should not be a "witch hunt".

Buddahaid

11-01-12, 09:25 AM

No not all polls have Obama losing. The polls are all over the map and not even worth looking at.

mookiemookie

11-01-12, 10:22 AM

I'm not sure what Haplo's smoking, but it sounds awesome.

Looks to me like Obama's got the edge in the battleground states:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/11/01/us/politics/fivethirtyeight-1031-1/fivethirtyeight-1031-1-blog480.png

Tribesman

11-01-12, 02:47 PM

I didn't say he was protecting his career. I said he's committing political suicide over Benghazi. And I, along with everyone else who has posted about it, wants to know, too. The point I have been making the whole time is there is more going on than we, the average Americans, know about. Sure, we want, if not, demand answers as to why 4 Americans are dead, why we've lost the first Ambassador since 1972 (I think), why the response was told to stand down. Something caused, obviously something major, that reaction from the Administration.
Could it be in relation to the activities in the adjoining facilities in Benghazi? Or could we take Augusts insistance that there was no secret dope surrounding US intelligence facilities in a nation that is still in the midst of a civil war ?
Why oh why won't the President put all information in the public domain? Its not like the CIA do classified stuff is it or that the west is still trying to work out which of the ever splitting factions in Libya it can sort of work with.

geetrue

11-01-12, 04:15 PM

Not saying sweep it under the rug. Lord knows that isn't going to happen. I'm saying instead of wallowing in the mud of the media by throwing accusations around, be sensible about the whole thing. Think outside the partisan politics box a little. Neither one of us has top secret clearance, which is what it is going to take to get the straight dope on Benghazi.

I have top secret clearance lol

The Lord told me right after President Obama was elected and then took office in January 2009 ... He out and out said that the "Clitons would be Obama's downfall"

Mrs Cliton has taken the blame for these four deaths, the press has blamed the President as they rightly should, but I sincerely believe it was forordained.

If this results in the dismissal of President Obama then so be it, but as I also have a right to think ... I think President Obama has a predestined office to defeat the Muslim nation.

make fun of prophecy all you want to ... I believe, besides I don't want to be a real prophet ...

They kill prophets for being wrong in the old testament :wah:

Sailor Steve

11-01-12, 05:23 PM

They kill prophets for being wrong in the old testament :wah:
More often real prophets are killed for being right. The Fake Prophet business is much more profitable. And safe. :sunny:

19Herr_Rapp86

11-01-12, 05:27 PM

Could it be in relation to the activities in the adjoining facilities in Benghazi? Or could we take Augusts insistance that there was no secret dope surrounding US intelligence facilities in a nation that is still in the midst of a civil war ?
Why oh why won't the President put all information in the public domain? Its not like the CIA do classified stuff is it or that the west is still trying to work out which of the ever splitting factions in Libya it can sort of work with.

That's the point I'm trying to make. We don't know the whole story behind the attack. As Americans, of course we want answers, but want in one hand.... You know the rest. More happened there than what we will ever know about, and I think its foolish to blame the President. We're all arm chair presidents, but I guarantee there is more to that job than meets the eye.

Tribesman

11-01-12, 05:50 PM

That's the point I'm trying to make.
I know, that is why it was written how it was written.
In a similar vein with the same sort of theme there were lots of questions raised over the water when 2 soldiers from the Royal Signals were murdered by a mob up in the six counties.
Why didn't they have more protection? why didn't the other troops and police intervene? what the hell were they doing in that location at that time in that situation?
Some of those answers did come out years later and others will be answered in several decades when the security classification changes.
Thats just the way things work.

19Herr_Rapp86

11-01-12, 06:03 PM

geetrue

11-01-12, 06:53 PM

NPR apologizes to Abigael Evans, the 'Bronco Bama' ... (http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7jtzCpNQS1sAuglXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB2MDdna21 yBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA01TWTAwNF8xMjU-/SIG=14pmhcgpq/EXP=1351842547/**http%3a//www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-st-npr-apologizes-abigael-evans-bronco-bama-girl-20121101,0,3571460.story%3ftrack=rss)

Los Angeles Times - 3 hours ago Abigael Evans, the 4-year-old Colorado girl who was driven to tears by the seemingly neverending presidential campaign coverage, has received a very rare thing in our modern media age: a formal ... more » (http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7jtzCpNQS1sAuwlXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB2MDdna21 yBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA01TWTAwNF8xMjU-/SIG=14pmhcgpq/EXP=1351842547/**http%3a//www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-st-npr-apologizes-abigael-evans-bronco-bama-girl-20121101,0,3571460.story%3ftrack=rss)

more Bronco Bama girl stories » (http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7jtzCpNQS1sAvAlXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB2MDdna21 yBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA01TWTAwNF8xMjU-/SIG=13cdjhj8r/EXP=1351842547/**http%3a//news.search.yahoo.com/search%3fp=Bronco%2bBama%2bgirl%26fr=fp-tts-521%26fr2=swnew)

Here's a little girl that is tired of it all :woot:

August

11-01-12, 08:15 PM

And I believe what you just said there. We'll get some answers in time. Not sure how long America waits before classified information is released to the public. But it will be awhile. After congressional hearings and some commissions report, etc.

"It's classified"

What a wonderful excuse for evading the consequences of everything from incompetence to outright treason.

But where it fails in this case is that Americans have died. No secret reason in the world justifies deliberately putting American civilians in mortal danger then ignoring their pleas for help as they are murdered. Neither would it justify trying to sell this tragedy off as merely spontaneous and unexpected demonstration of Muslim outrage against some unpublished movie that nobody ever heard of instead of the planned Al Quaeda operation it turned out to be.

But again Benghazi isn't the only time this administration has resorted to lying to avoid taking responsibility for their foul ups (at least i hope it was a foul up instead of something more sinister).

This administration deliberately allowed the sale of over 2000 modern firearms to the Mexican drug cartels and one of them was used to murder border agent Brian Terry. Others have been used in crimes on both sides of the border as well as kill an estimated 150 Mexican civilians.

To date nobody has been called to account for this abomination except for a few low ranking patseys who have been forced to resign. You can't claim the "it's classified" excuse for that. High ranking heads should be rolling over this screwup, and would have been in any previous administration, yet the Attorney General is being given a pass because, believe it nor not, "he didn't know about the operation". A huge sting operation involving foreign nationals and the AG didn't know? Well to me that's a stunning admission of incompetence and reason alone for his resignation yet Obama continues to protect him and stonewall the Congressional investigation for obviously political reasons.

This administration is as rotten as any we've ever had and it's high time to send them packing. I'm just not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on Benghazi given what I've seen for the past three years.

19Herr_Rapp86

11-01-12, 08:41 PM

This administration deliberately allowed the sale of over 2000 modern firearms to the Mexican drug cartels and one of them was used to murder border agent Brian Terry. Others have been used in crimes on both sides of the border as well as kill an estimated 150 Mexican civilians.

To date nobody has been called to account for this abomination except for a few low ranking patseys who have been forced to resign. You can't claim the "it's classified" excuse for that. High ranking heads should be rolling over this screwup, and would have been in any previous administration, yet the Attorney General is being given a pass because, believe it nor not, "he didn't know about the operation". A huge sting operation involving foreign nationals and the AG didn't know? Well to me that's a stunning admission of incompetence and reason alone for his resignation yet Obama continues to protect him and stonewall the Congressional investigation for obviously political reasons.

This administration is as rotten as any we've ever had and it's high time to send them packing. I'm just not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on Benghazi given what I've seen for the past three years.

I'm going to guess that you are a staunch republican. Your comment sounds familiar. I've heard this before. Oh, that's right. I remember now. The Iran-Contra scandal of 1986 during the Reagan Administration. It actually lasted from 1985 to 1987 and involved the sale of modern (for that time) weapons to Iran in exchange for the release of hostages, and those sales would fund the Nicaraguan Contras. Of course, Reagan denied any knowledge of it and the Tower Commission found no evidence of involvement. "A huge sting operation involving foreign nationals and the President didn't know?" Don't go telling me that heads would be rolling in any other administration

August

11-01-12, 09:17 PM

I'm going to guess that you are a staunch republican. Your comment sounds familiar. I've heard this before. Oh, that's right. I remember now. The Iran-Contra scandal of 1986 during the Reagan Administration. It actually lasted from 1985 to 1987 and involved the sale of modern (for that time) weapons to Iran in exchange for the release of hostages, and those sales would fund the Nicaraguan Contras. Of course, Reagan denied any knowledge of it and the Tower Commission found no evidence of involvement. "A huge sting operation involving foreign nationals and the President didn't know?" Don't go telling me that heads would be rolling in any other administration

No, I'm a staunch Independent. I've never voted in a primary and never registered for any party, except one year I registered for the Cool Moose party, a local Rhode Island party with just one candidate running for Lt. Governor on the platform that he'd abolish the position if elected. Other than that I vote for the person, not the party. I guess I did in that instance as well. I have voted for Democrats, Republicans and Independents.

As for the Iran Contra you have that wrong too. I was in the Army when those animals took our people hostage and I watched in frustration as our weakling president first dithered then got some of my comrades killed by ordering a rescue operation without the proper preparation and planning.

The thought of any subsequent administration dealing with those people, giving them weapons even, turns my stomach to this day. At very least Reagan should have fired the CIA director and Chairman of the JCS and done it long before the story became public.

19Herr_Rapp86

11-01-12, 09:41 PM

I have that wrong? You sure about that? Pretty sure I've got all the facts straight on that one.

19Herr_Rapp86

11-01-12, 09:47 PM

I watched in frustration as our weakling president first dithered then got some of my comrades killed by ordering a rescue operation without the proper preparation and planning.

You come off to me as the type of person that would say the same thing if the Bin Laden raid went badly. But I'm willing to bet you were celebrating with the rest of us. Oohrah when it works. Hang CINC high if it doesn't.

19Herr_Rapp86

11-01-12, 10:13 PM

And, also, do I need to mention AGAIN that I'm voting for Romney. I agree with you. Obama has got to go! My whole beef is you act like Obama is the only corrupt politician in American history, when we've had good and bad of both parties throughout our history, you lumped ALL democrats into the same category, and attacked peoples opinions by accusations of spitting on dead Americans graves or something of the like. I felt it necessary to help get the facts straight. Our politicians skew the facts enough already. Let's be above the clout.

August

11-01-12, 10:20 PM

I have that wrong? You sure about that? Pretty sure I've got all the facts straight on that one.

Are you asking me if I am lying to you?

August

11-01-12, 10:20 PM

And, also, do I need to mention AGAIN that I'm voting for Romney.

So?

19Herr_Rapp86

11-01-12, 10:21 PM

Enlighten me, please.

August

11-01-12, 10:22 PM

Enlighten me, please.

Ok, no I am not lying in the post you reference.

19Herr_Rapp86

11-01-12, 10:23 PM

Ok, no I am not lying in the post you reference.

That's not enlightenment. Explain where my facts are wrong.

August

11-01-12, 10:23 PM

By the way is that you dressed in the nazi uniform?

August

11-01-12, 10:24 PM

That's not enlightenment. Explain where my facts are wrong.

What facts? You claimed i am a starch republican. I told you that I am not. How about you explain what you're fishing for?

19Herr_Rapp86

11-01-12, 10:24 PM

By the way is that you dressed in the nazi uniform?

Yep. Its a clever halloween costume I thought. Considering this is a navy and naval history website

August

11-01-12, 10:26 PM

Yep. Its a clever halloween costume I thought. Considering this is a navy and naval history website

So your forum name and sig are just part of the halloween costume too?

19Herr_Rapp86

11-01-12, 10:26 PM

As for the Iran Contra you have that wrong too.

Need I say more?

August

11-01-12, 10:28 PM

Need I say more?

Well yeah because I was obviously referring to your implication that I supported or at least was willing to ignore Iran Contra for political reasons.

19Herr_Rapp86

11-01-12, 10:29 PM

So your forum name and sig are just part of the halloween costume too?

Wow I don't believe this!!!! Have you even browsed the rest of this site?! Or I guess the rest of us that play Silent Hunter I, II, III, and V, Aces of the Deep, etc are pro Nazi

19Herr_Rapp86

11-01-12, 10:30 PM

Well yeah because I was obviously referring to your implication that I supported or at least was willing to ignore Iran Contra for political reasons.

You were ignoring it.

August

11-01-12, 10:31 PM

Wow I don't believe this!!!! Have you even browsed the rest of this site?! Or I guess the rest of us that play Silent Hunter I, II, III, and V, Aces of the Deep, etc are pro Nazi

Yeah but not everyone dresses up as a nazi and posts a picture of themselves on the internet while sporting a nazi name.

How about you answering my other questions or are you faking this disbelief in order to avoid them?

Takeda Shingen

11-01-12, 10:32 PM

Wow I don't believe this!!!! Have you even browsed the rest of this site?! Or I guess the rest of us that play Silent Hunter I, II, III, and V, Aces of the Deep, etc are pro Nazi

SH1 featured US fleet subs in the Pacific, not uboats.

August

11-01-12, 10:33 PM

You were ignoring it.

Wrong again.

The thought of any subsequent administration dealing with those people, giving them weapons even, turns my stomach to this day. At very least Reagan should have fired the CIA director and Chairman of the JCS and done it long before the story became public.

19Herr_Rapp86

11-01-12, 10:37 PM

Sorry. I'm a little furious! How dare you call me a Nazi.I stand for freedom. Not genocide. That's why joined the Corps. You disrespectful punk. Its a naval website for God's sake.

19Herr_Rapp86

11-01-12, 10:40 PM

I put my ass on the line for my flag voluntarily. My Grandpa fought against the Japanese on Guam. I'm furious. Disrespectful.

19Herr_Rapp86

11-01-12, 10:44 PM

SH1 featured US fleet subs in the Pacific, not uboats.

Sorry Takeda. My error

August

11-01-12, 10:44 PM

Sorry. I'm a little furious! How dare you call me a Nazi.I stand for freedom. Not genocide. That's why joined the Corps. You disrespectful punk. Its a naval website for God's sake.

I accused you of nothing. I just asked.

But given your recent posts to me I don't really think you deserve any respect. This fake outrage you're now displaying is hardly going to change that. No real Marine has that thin of a skin.

19Herr_Rapp86

11-01-12, 10:45 PM

I accused you of nothing. I just asked.

But given your recent posts to me I don't really think you deserve any respect. This fake outrage you're now displaying is hardly going to change that. No real Marine has that thin of a skin.

Moderator. He's attacking my service now! Is this relevant

August

11-01-12, 10:52 PM

Oh please. You accuse me of lying so I think I have a right to know a little about the person making the accusation. You can complain to the moderators if you want but that doesn't show me butkis.

19Herr_Rapp86

11-01-12, 10:53 PM

Since you're so hell-bent on pictures, how's this for Nazism you punk...

http://imageshack.us/a/img534/2665/1101122240.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img560/2893/1101122242.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img4/9717/1101122243.jpg

There's your answer as to who I am. The three pictures on the wall are my dad, my uncle Steve, Sergeant Major Steve Rapp to be exact, and the B&W one is my Grandpa. Sergeant Rapp. My dad was a Corporal. Three tours in Iraq. BP Tripoli 2006. COP Dulab 2007-08, Fallujah 2009. Honorable Discharge. Good Conduct Medal. Sea Service Deployment Ribbon with 2 stars. Combat Action Ribbon. Iraq Campaign Medal. National Defense Service Medal. Global War on Terror Service Medal. Now that you know who I am, you can start addressing me as Corporal Rapp, since Herr Rapp doesn't satisfy you.

http://img802.imageshack.us/img802/8437/1101122256.jpg

August

11-01-12, 11:00 PM

Since you're so hell-bent on pictures, how's this for Nazism you punk...

There's your answer as to who I am.

Well assuming those are yours then good for you. Maybe you should post that instead of the nazi uniform.

Here's one of me taken probably about the time you were getting out of diapers.

http://www.rattrig.com/photo_gallery/Gallery%20Pictures/my%20RATT%20rig%20in%20Italy.jpg

19Herr_Rapp86

11-01-12, 11:04 PM

19Herr_Rapp86

11-01-12, 11:13 PM

Oh please. You accuse me of lying so I think I have a right to know a little about the person making the accusation. You can complain to the moderators if you want but that doesn't show me butkis.
And when did I accuse you of lying? Please tell me. I'm confounded

August

11-01-12, 11:37 PM

Instead of attacking your service, I'm going to thank you for it. The Uboat Captain's uniform.... Again. Take a look around you. It's a naval website. A lot of people on here play these games for fun. Some of the games, you play as the Germans, and since Mr. Stevens, the owner/creator of the site likes history, I thought it would be a cool costume idea. Sue me. Don't attack my service again though, and don't you dare call me a nazi.

Well first off I thanked you for your service way back in post 326 although you probably ignored that along with the rest of the post saying how i was in agreement with you about Iraq and Saddam, or again in post 329 where I agreed with you that there is plenty of criminal incompetence to go around on both sides of the aisle.

Second I am perfectly able to play a computer game without adopting the persona to go with it but be that as it may I did not call you a nazi any more than you called me a liar about my party registration (you weren't were you?). I only asked because it strikes me as a bit unusual for a person who has worn a uniform for real to get into the role playing so deeply but hey whatever floats your boat.

Finally yes I've known Neal Stevens as a member of this website for over seven years now. I know exactly what this place is all about.

As for attacking your service it was your reaction to my questions about the nazi name and uniform that made me a little suspicious of who you really were. Although to this day I don't understand the thinking behind it, I've seen way too many military posers, mostly on the internet, to take anyones claims without question.

Morts

11-01-12, 11:42 PM

The Lord told me
Priceless :rotfl2:

19Herr_Rapp86

11-01-12, 11:46 PM

I'm going to guess that you are a staunch republican.

Well first off I thanked you for your service way back in post 326 although you probably ignored that along with the rest of the post saying how i was in agreement with you about Iraq and Saddam, or again in post 329 where I agreed with you that there is plenty of criminal incompetence to go around on both sides of the aisle.

Second I am perfectly able to play a computer game without adopting the persona to go with it but be that as it may I did not call you a nazi any more than you called me a liar about my party registration (you weren't were you?).

No. I wasn't. The way you were ragging on POTUS I said "I'm going to guess that you are a staunch republican." You then said I was wrong about the Iran Contra scandal.

August

11-01-12, 11:59 PM

No. I wasn't. The way you were ragging on POTUS I said "I'm going to guess that you are a staunch republican." You then said I was wrong about the Iran Contra scandal.

Then when I told you that I wasn't you said:

I have that wrong? You sure about that? Pretty sure I've got all the facts straight on that one. So I wouldn't be sure of my own politics? You think that I wasn't being straight with you when I told you about my voting record and opinion on Iran Contra? It sounds to me like you're calling me a liar there. Not directly mind but certainly a far stronger implication than my two simple questions about your nazi picture and forum name.

Now this old man has to get up for work tomorrow. I'll leave you the last word.

19Herr_Rapp86

11-02-12, 12:04 AM

As for the Iran Contra you have that wrong too.

I have that wrong? You sure about that? Pretty sure I've got all the facts straight on that one.

No spin zone. Facts only. There they are. I never called you a liar about your political party. You said I was wrong on Iran Contra. I replied. Asked and answered.

CaptainMattJ.

11-02-12, 12:21 AM

As far as i can tell he is dressed in a Kriegsmarine uniform. Not all members of the Kriegsmarine, (or most branches of the German military) were nazis, only doing their service. Many were drafted. Its not like dressing up as Hitler himself. From what i can see from the rather small photo he isnt wearing any swastika armbands or sporting any flags. In fact the only thing hes wearing is the cap, which is hardly indicative of Naziism nor dressing up as a Nazi.

Neither is the fact that his name is Herr Rapp. Herr is simply a German title, equivalent to mister. I don't see how you could clump together Germans and Nazis so freely.

Hottentot

11-02-12, 12:52 AM

I don't see how you could clump together Germans and Nazis so freely.

Hush! Pass me some more popcorn, please.

Tribesman

11-02-12, 03:02 AM

I don't see how you could clump together Germans and Nazis so freely.

I think its called doing a Godwin, it was the next move after the "I want all the answers about Benghazi now as the secret service doesn't have any secrets" line he was using turned out to be so ridiculous.

Herr Rapp, you must note that although he follows the party line and spews all the same "hot topics" with the same themes as the spinners on Faux you cannot call August a Republican, its just that he hates anything the Democrats do.

I do like his attack on your service though, its just so swifty style:03:

Onkel Neal

11-02-12, 05:28 AM

Nice pictures. BTW, let's ramp down on the personal attacks, ok? :timeout:

Betonov

11-02-12, 05:43 AM

http://www.rattrig.com/photo_gallery/Gallery%20Pictures/my%20RATT%20rig%20in%20Italy.jpg

Listening post, command post, portable kitchen ?? :hmmm:

19Herr_Rapp86

11-02-12, 06:41 AM

http://imageshack.us/a/img560/2893/1101122242.jpg

By the way, yes that's me with everybody's favorite person. I know its coming so everyone, commence hazing! Lol

HunterICX

11-02-12, 06:56 AM

^You should've totally worn that Kriegsmarine outfit when that picture was taken.

HunterICX

19Herr_Rapp86

11-02-12, 07:17 AM

^You should've totally worn that Kriegsmarine outfit when that picture was taken.

HunterICX

Ha. I was still in the Corps. when that photo was snapped. Being a Kansan , I volunteered for the relief for the 2007 Greensburg tornado. That's where that was taken. Not sure how my Commander in Chief would have reacted to that one! Lol

EDIT:That was the second picture I have with him. My first was in 2006 in Shannon, Ireland on our way to Iraq. Our plane had a "engine malfunction". When we turned around and landed, Air Force One was sitting on the Tarmac

Sailor Steve

11-02-12, 07:28 AM

By the way, yes that's me with everybody's favorite person. I know its coming so everyone, commence hazing! Lol
HazeHazeHaze!!! :O:

I spent several years working for a charter bus company, driving skiers from the Salt Lake airport to seven different resorts. In 1999 I picked up three young couples in Park City to take them back to their flight. They asked if they could stop at a convenience store to get coffee. When they came out they were carrying armfuls of newspapers. They had bought every paper in the store, and they had to show my why. The Clintons were in town that week for a ski vacation, and the Prez had gone out for a photo op, and these people just happened to be in the right place at the right time. The woman whose picture was in the Local section shaking Bill's hand while her husband smiled asked me if I liked President Clinton. I politely said "Not really", and she said "Neither do I, but...but..."

I replied "But you got your picture taken shaking hands with the President of The United States, and that's something to show your grandchildren someday."

And it is.

August

11-02-12, 07:31 AM

Listening post, command post, portable kitchen ?? :hmmm:

Radio Teletype rig.

This is what they looked like on the inside.

http://www.rattrig.com/photo_gallery/Gallery%20Pictures/10th%20sfg%20rig%20inside.jpg

Sailor Steve

11-02-12, 07:36 AM

Hottentot

11-02-12, 08:34 AM

Oh boy, are you in trouble!

Back when I was in, that sort of thing was considered so secret that when we took one of our small units ashore for replacement we had to cover it with a blanket so nobody could see those three dials and four jacks! Of course nobody said a word when we took family and girlfriends on a tour of the ship, including the 'secret' parts, the day we returned from overseas.

Meh, during my short stay (approximately 8 weeks) in our glorious defence forces, I got trained in using some ultra secret equipment too. There was this radio thingy, and the NCO instructing us on using it stressed all the time that we can't take photos of it and can't tell about it to anyone outside the army, because it's the ultra secret radio equipment thingy. I was all the time thinking it looked familiar.

Sure enough, on the next leave I browsed the glorious website of our glorious defence forces and under the subsection conveniently labeled "equipment" I found a photo of precisely the same machine, complete with all the technical hush-hush details the NCO told us not to ever in our lifetime reveal to anyone.

Oh well. We are after all talking about the institution that used Vladimir Zhirinovsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Zhirinovsky) as an example of why Russia is going to start a war, like, tomorrow. :dead:

August

11-02-12, 08:46 AM

Oh boy, are you in trouble!

Back when I was in, that sort of thing was considered so secret that when we took one of our small units ashore for replacement we had to cover it with a blanket so nobody could see those three dials and four jacks! Of course nobody said a word when we took family and girlfriends on a tour of the ship, including the 'secret' parts, the day we returned from overseas.

Funny you should mention that. In the first picture you can just make out the newspaper I used to cover the KW-7 crypto unit so I wouldn't get in trouble if the powers that be happened to see the photo. :)

All that stuff is way obsolete nowadays (like me too I suppose).

Here's a picture of where a lot of those rigs ended up. I believe it's a field somewhere in rural Pennsylvania. It's a margin breaker so I'll just leave it as a link.

http://www.rattrig.com/photo_gallery/Gallery%20Pictures/IMG_0504.JPG

We even have a memorial website now. Apparently there's a few people around who buy these rigs, recondition them and use them as Ham radio stations. If I win the lottery that's something i'd probably want to do too!

http://www.rattrig.com/default.html

You can find some more pictures of me on the photo page.

Onkel Neal

11-02-12, 09:42 AM

I'm very jealous :cool:

geetrue

11-02-12, 01:56 PM

Well assuming those are yours then good for you. Maybe you should post that instead of the nazi uniform.

Here's one of me taken probably about the time you were getting out of diapers.

http://www.rattrig.com/photo_gallery/Gallery%20Pictures/my%20RATT%20rig%20in%20Italy.jpg

I scanned his thumb August and at least he's not regsitered as a Nazi, sounds like he's at trying to be a good American.

By the way what kind of foot wear is that you have on in that picture? Looks like shoes with legging's instead of boots.

Plus I thank both of you for your service to our country have a Happy Vets day :up:

August

11-02-12, 02:17 PM

By the way what kind of foot wear is that you have on in that picture? Looks like shoes with legging's instead of boots

Thanks GT. Those would be a rather beat up pair of Corcoran jump boots.

http://www.midwestboots.com/Corcoran-Combat-Boots-XC1500-L.jpg

Onkel Neal

11-02-12, 09:36 PM

Back to the election: this is a fun tool to play with. (http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/ecalculator?hpt=hp_abar#?battleground)

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/121024091301-map-wall-4-tease.jpg

This is my slate: http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/ecalculator#share-HID,AKR,FLR,NHD,MID,VTD,MED4,RID,NYD,PAD,NJD,DED,M DD,VAR,WVR,OHD,INR,ILD,CTD,WID,NCR,DCD,MAR,TNR,ARR ,MOR,GAR,SCR,KYR,ALR,LAR,MSR,IAD,MND,OKR,TXR,NMD,K SR,NER5,SDR,NDR,WYR,MTR,COD,IDR,UTR,AZR,NVR,ORD,WA D,CAD

Let's see who can post here by Mon Noon and who gets the closest.

mookiemookie

11-02-12, 10:16 PM

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/ecalculator#share-HID,AKR,FLR,NHD,MID,VTD,MED4,RID,NYD,PAD,NJD,DED,M DD,VAD,WVR,OHD,INR,ILD,CTD,WID,NCR,DCD,MAD,TNR,ARR ,MOR,GAR,SCR,KYR,ALR,LAR,MSR,IAD,MND,OKR,TXR,NMD,K SR,NER5,SDR,NDR,WYR,MTR,COD,IDR,UTR,AZR,NVD,ORD,WA D,CAD

19Herr_Rapp86

11-02-12, 10:25 PM

Okay. Can't figure out how to share to here from my kindle fire, but I have Romney winning 285 electoral votes.
Romney state predictions:
Alaska
Nevada
Utah
Arizona
Colorado
Wyoming
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Nebraska
Kansas
Oklahoma
Texas
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
Indiana
Ohio
Tennessee
Kentucky
Alabama
Georgia
Florida
North Carolina
South Carolina
Virginia
New Hampshire
West Virginia
Idaho

AVGWarhawk

11-03-12, 04:21 AM

I have myself winning my sanity back when this campaign is over. I have heard enough negativity from the entire ordeal to last a life time. The campaigning has gone on for over a year.

Onkel Neal

11-03-12, 04:25 AM

There's a Share your map link for email in the top right corner, then just c&p.

Why is it Romney cannot win the state he was guv in? :-?

mookiemookie

11-03-12, 07:25 AM

I have myself winning my sanity back when this campaign is over. I have heard enough negativity from the entire ordeal to last a life time. The campaigning has gone on for over a year.

I usually don't watch TV news, but it was on the in background yesterday as I was doing something else and I caught a snippet of someone saying "It's been an emotionally charged presidential campaign..." I thought to myself that it was a completely stupid and unnecessary statement. EVERY presidential campaign is emotionally charged. Has there ever been one where it's been like two guys saying, "meh, I guess I'd like to be President. Vote for me, if you want. Or maybe my opponent. You know, either way. Whatever."

Why is it Romney cannot win the state he was guv in? :-?

Yes, it's Huffington Post, but the poll numbers bear out the statements made here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/16/mitt-romney-massachusetts-home-state_n_1521713.html

Obama's got about a 15 to 18 point lead in Mass. I think it's a pretty safe state for him.

August

11-03-12, 07:44 AM

Why is it Romney cannot win the state he was guv in? :-?

Because he's a republican and this state is about as blue as they get.

Sailor Steve

11-03-12, 10:19 AM

Why is it Romney cannot win the state he was guv in? :-?

Because he's a republican and this state is about as blue as they get.
No, it's because they know him too well. :O:
:rotfl2:

But seriously, I'm sure August has the right answer. Of course that raises the question of how he got elected Governor.

As to the list of predictions, there's only one that's going to count. I find speculation useless...but commonplace.

Onkel Neal

11-03-12, 10:46 AM

Well, I think Obama has it, but it is pretty close, so anything can happen. And with the storm in the east, there's a chance all those Democrat voters who think Obama's running mate is Paul Ryan, they may not make it to the polls.

Of course, that's probably balanced out by the on-the-fence crowd who feel Obama came to the rescue in Sandy's aftermath....

August

11-03-12, 10:58 AM

Of course that raises the question of how he got elected Governor.

We seem to have this idea that a Republican governor is a good counterpoint to a Democrat controlled legislature. He was like the 4th one in a row. Then the Democrats tried to get Romney disqualified on residency issues and that engendered a lot of public sympathy for him as the underdog which translated into even more votes.

Kind of like what happened in 2010 when we elected Republican Scott Brown to fill US senate seat vacated by the dead Ted Kennedy.

At the last debate before the election host David Gergen asked Brown:

"Are you willing, under those circumstances, to say I'm gonna be the person, I'm gonna sit in Teddy Kennedy's seat, and I'm gonna be the person that's gonna block health care reform for another 15 years?"

Brown responds: "Well, with all due respect, it's not the Kennedys' seat, and it's not the Democrats' seat, it's the people's seat..."

I believe that pretty much sums up why he won.

August

11-03-12, 11:02 AM

Betonov

11-03-12, 11:05 AM

Then again, maybe the relief efforts are a lot smoother when politicians are not around :O:

Onkel Neal

11-03-12, 11:07 AM

19Herr_Rapp86

11-03-12, 12:50 PM

There's a Share your map link for email in the top right corner, then just c&p.

Why is it Romney cannot win the state he was guv in? :-?

I think its too blue. The democrat to republican ratio is 3 to 1. Sure they have voted in two republican governors, but I think they will stick to party lines in the presidential election.

geetrue

11-03-12, 01:01 PM

To hate is a sin ...

Be leery and win ...

98% of the emails that get forwarded to me hate Obama,
but 100% of them are from white men and women :hmm2:

Al Gore didn't win his home state of Tenn in the closes election of all time, either

August

11-03-12, 01:08 PM

See, that's phrased a certain way, August, and I don't agree with it. It suggests Obama doesn't care about people. I know he does. I just don't agree with his politics, how he and left-leaning utopians feel that govt can solve everyone's problems by taxing the bejeezus out of the minority voters (the "rich").

But to suggest Pres. Obama is insensitive? Yeah, I didn't like those tactics when they were used on Pres. Bush, either. :ping:

Well the way I see it Neal turnabout is fair play. Democrats deserve to have every one of their dirty tricks and snide remarks from the past dozen years thrown back in their faces at every opportunity.

mookiemookie

11-03-12, 01:09 PM

See, that's phrased a certain way, August, and I don't agree with it. It suggests Obama doesn't care about people. I know he does. I just don't agree with his politics, how he and left-leaning utopians feel that govt can solve everyone's problems by taxing the bejeezus out of the minority voters (the "rich").

But to suggest Pres. Obama is insensitive? Yeah, I didn't like those tactics when they were used on Pres. Bush, either. :ping:

What's not mentioned is the phone calls he placed the day after those disasters that offered federal aid. I have a hard time believing ANY president, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, etc. would just completely blow off any sort of national disaster. It just doesn't happen.

Platapus

11-03-12, 01:37 PM

Then again, maybe the relief efforts are a lot smoother when politicians are not around :O:

The last thing any disaster recovery needs is a POTUS at the site. Talk about messing up logistics. :nope:

I actually respect a POTUS that does NOT show up at a disaster site. He can direct support from thousands of miles away. It is not like the POTUS is ever going to do anything personally.

But then again some will complain that a POTUS is not showing up (does not care)
Some will complain that a POTUS shows up (just a photo op)

Pretty much anything a POTUS does or does not do will upset someone. Some seem to be looking for things to get upset about.

Not that there is the slightest chance of this: But you could not pay me enough to be POTUS these days. :nope:

Me, I want to be vice-president to a popular healthy President. :D

What a job.

1. Wake up
2. Call White House Physician
3. Ask if the POTUS is OK
4. Major job responsibilities dispatched
5. Hit the snooze alarm.

:D:D

geetrue

11-03-12, 01:39 PM

What's not mentioned is the phone calls he placed the day after those disasters that offered federal aid. I have a hard time believing ANY president, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, etc. would just completely blow off any sort of national disaster. It just doesn't happen.

Remember hurricane Andrew in 1992 the year Bush Sr lost to Bill Cliton?

even though President Bush at the time signed up 11 billion dollars in aid many blamed him for not resonding fast enough. They were still living in tents years later by the way.

Platapus

11-03-12, 01:40 PM

Well the way I see it Neal turnabout is fair play.

And that's the problem with the state of American politics. :yep:

The sooner our political parties can get out of the mind set of elementary school recess, the sooner our country can start working together and solve some problems.

Hottentot

11-03-12, 01:44 PM

The sooner our political parties can get out of the mind set of elementary school recess, the sooner our country can start working together and solve some problems.

Wouldn't that require the voters getting out of it first?

19Herr_Rapp86

11-03-12, 01:49 PM

The last thing any disaster recovery needs is a POTUS at the site. Talk about messing up logistics. :nope:

I actually respect a POTUS that does NOT show up at a disaster site. He can direct support from thousands of miles away. It is not like the POTUS is ever going to do anything personally.

But then again some will complain that a POTUS is not showing up (does not care)
Some will complain that a POTUS shows up (just a photo op)

Pretty much anything a POTUS does or does not do will upset someone. Some seem to be looking for things to get upset about.

Not that there is the slightest chance of this: But you could not pay me enough to be POTUS these days. :nope:

Me, I want to be vice-president to a popular healthy President. :D

What a job.

1. Wake up
2. Call White House Physician
3. Ask if the POTUS is OK
4. Major job responsibilities dispatched
5. Hit the snooze alarm.

:D:D

Ronald Reagan once said the 9 most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm with the government and I'm here to help."

August

11-03-12, 01:56 PM

And that's the problem with the state of American politics. :yep:

The sooner our political parties can get out of the mind set of elementary school recess, the sooner our country can start working together and solve some problems.

Unfortunately it's a lot like disarmament, it must be unilateral to work. It's a political reality that the side which slacks off first is the side that looses the election.

Platapus

11-03-12, 02:00 PM

Ronald Reagan once said the 9 most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm with the government and I'm here to help."

Reagan also said "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles." So perhaps Reagan is not the best source for quotes. :D

19Herr_Rapp86

11-03-12, 02:09 PM

Reagan also said "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles." So perhaps Reagan is not the best source for quotes. :D

On that logic then is any politician a good source for quotes? I mean, Bush said "History moves towards freedom because freedom is written in every human heart." But he also said "Is there children learning?"

Platapus

11-03-12, 02:11 PM

On that logic then is any politician a good source for quotes?

Politicians are only good for political quotes.
And political quotes should never be confused with factual or logical concepts. :) They are often emotionally based quotes designed to manipulate/influence the public.

19Herr_Rapp86

11-03-12, 02:18 PM

Politicians are only good for political quotes.
And political quotes should never be confused with factual or logical concepts. :) They are often emotionally based quotes designed to manipulate/influence the public.

Maybe in Germany in 1939, but you can't tell me all politicians only speak misconception to get votes. We've had many great men, revered men, that believe in American exceptionalism, that have spoken truth. That did what was right

Onkel Neal

11-03-12, 02:51 PM

Well the way I see it Neal turnabout is fair play. Democrats deserve to have every one of their dirty tricks and snide remarks from the past dozen years thrown back in their faces at every opportunity.

I understand. The way I see it, we have to be better than that. It will bring its own reward with time.

What's not mentioned is the phone calls he placed the day after those disasters that offered federal aid. I have a hard time believing ANY president, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, etc. would just completely blow off any sort of national disaster. It just doesn't happen.

Yep, agreed. When we start defying logic in order to demonize the other side, it really says a lot about us, and does us no good.

Unfortunately it's a lot like disarmament, it must be unilateral to work. It's a political reality that the side which slacks off first is the side that loses the election.

Not necessarily. One reason I was a strong support of Reagan was he ran on principles he believed in, and was not very reliant on mudslinging. It's also the reason I did not vote for Bush Sr, in either election. I have confidence a lot of people can recognize politicians who run a clean race.

Sailor Steve

11-03-12, 02:55 PM

We seem to have this idea that a Republican governor is a good counterpoint to a Democrat controlled legislature.
It's similar here, if not exactly the same. In a predominately (almost universally) Republican state, the two most fondly remembered governors have been Democrats. On the other hand most "liberal" Democrats here would be staunch conservatives anywhere else.

Brown responds: "Well, with all due respect, it's not the Kennedys' seat, and it's not the Democrats' seat, it's the people's seat..."

I believe that pretty much sums up why he won.
Yeah, that is a good quote. :sunny:

Sailor Steve

11-03-12, 03:00 PM

Al Gore didn't win his home state of Tenn in the closes election of all time, either
Sorry, that wasn't even close to being the closest election of all time. Back in 1800 they had an actual tie, which had to be decided by the House of Representatives, and which changed the rules. In 1824 no candidate got the required majority and again it went to the house, where the candidate with less votes won.

The election of 2000 could have gone either way depending on the votes of one state, Florida, but as far as the actual count goes it wasn't really close at all.

August

11-03-12, 03:21 PM

Not necessarily. One reason I was a strong support of Reagan was he ran on principles he believed in, and was not very reliant on mudslinging. It's also the reason I did not vote for Bush Sr, in either election. I have confidence a lot of people can recognize politicians who run a clean race.

I used to have such confidence too but look at what happened to John McCain.

Tribesman

11-03-12, 03:59 PM

I used to have such confidence too but look at what happened to John McCain.
August has a good point, look at what they did with all the mud slinging when he was running against Bush.
Then next time they hitched him to a village idiot to ruin his campaign.

Onkel Neal

11-03-12, 05:36 PM

This is getting good.

In scenario one, Mitt Romney could win in a landslide, taking Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Ohio.

Polls currently show that Romney is the favorite to win North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, and Florida. However, if he can pull of a surprise victory on those remaining states, he will win a total of 315 electoral votes to the president’s 223.

Romney is making big plays in Wisconsin and Ohio, attracting a large crowd of 30,000 in Ohio yesterday. The governor has even added the blue-state of Pennsylvania to his campaign stops in the final days.

Even better, independent voters are breaking for Romney in nearly every poll. Democrats are likely to have a much lower turnout this cycle than they did in 2008, proving to be negative for the president.

And this from a Socialist media outlet (http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/conscience-conservative/2012/nov/3/two-ways-romney-could-win/), weird.

19Herr_Rapp86

11-03-12, 05:45 PM

This is getting good.

And this from a Socialist media outlet (http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/conscience-conservative/2012/nov/3/two-ways-romney-could-win/), weird.

Good! We need Romney. I don't like the direction this great nation is taking

mookiemookie

11-03-12, 06:11 PM

I find that pretty hard to believe. Looking at Friday's battleground state polls, Obama's leading or tied in 21/22 of them:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/11/03/us/politics/fivethirtyeight-1102-1/fivethirtyeight-1102-1-blog480.png

That doesn't sound like a "tossup" race to me. I'm suspicious of any site that cites "polls" in general and doesn't give hard numbers and specifics.

Of course the media has to sell it as a "tossup" race in order to keep viewers tuning in.

Oberon

11-03-12, 09:24 PM

I think we're still going to be counting chads on Wednesday night... :yep:

Betonov

11-04-12, 02:47 AM

Elections on tuesday huh ?? :hmmm:

Gives me only two days to write my piece on: why it's important for us non yenkies about who wins the US elections

Platapus

11-04-12, 07:13 AM

Well there is only one poll that really counts and that's the one on Tuesday.

I can't wait for Wednesday. This has not been a pleasant campaign season. :down:

Oberon

11-04-12, 07:56 AM

A good piece from the Beeb:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20168393

STEED

11-04-12, 09:11 AM

I have a feeling Obama is going to scrape back into power. I got no faith in ether of them but that said I got no faith in the three we have in the UK.

BossMark

11-04-12, 09:17 AM

My money is going on Obama to get back into power but only just :yep:

Onkel Neal

11-04-12, 09:45 AM

A good piece from the Beeb:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20168393

Very good piece. :yep:
This is a great country which is losing its economic dominance and has not found any kind of consensus about how it might be recovered. Politicians have loaded the country with debt, much of it now owned by China.

America is declining, and it really doesn't matter which party has the office of President. It starts with the people, and the people of this country are not the same as they were 50 years ago.

Oberon

11-04-12, 10:00 AM

It starts with the people, and the people of this country are not the same as they were 50 years ago.

Neil De Grasse Tyson tweeted a few months ago:

"Politicians lie not because they're evil, but because they say what voters want to hear. So it's we who are the problem."

Something to think about.... :yep:

Platapus

11-04-12, 11:50 AM

Politicians have loaded the country with debt, much of it now owned by China.

Much of it owned by China? Well not really BBC. Unless less than 10% is the current definition of "much"

All foreign holders of our national debt total to about 45% of the debt. 55% of the debt of the United States is owed to the Government, States, and US individuals. Yes, that means that the majority of the debt we owe to ourselves.

Let's then look at the remaining foreign held debt

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txt

Total of foreign held debt

5430 Billion Dollars (5.4T$)

Amount held by China

1153.6 (1.1T$)

China holds 21.5% of the foreign held debt (which is only 45% of the total debt (14.5T$)

That means that China holds less than 10% of the US debt.

That makes it much, I guess.

It is true that China is the single largest holder of our debt, but it still is less than 10%.

I agree that the US has too much debt held by foreign nations, but, the BBC and countless other media, to single out China as holding "much" is inaccurate.

CaptainMattJ.

11-04-12, 04:27 PM

Much of it owned by China? Well not really BBC. Unless less than 10% is the current definition of "much"

All foreign holders of our national debt total to about 45% of the debt. 55% of the debt of the United States is owed to the Government, States, and US individuals. Yes, that means that the majority of the debt we owe to ourselves.

Let's then look at the remaining foreign held debt

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txt

Total of foreign held debt

5430 Billion Dollars (5.4T$)

Amount held by China

1153.6 (1.1T$)

China holds 21.5% of the foreign held debt (which is only 45% of the total debt (14.5T$)

That means that China holds less than 10% of the US debt.

That makes it much, I guess.

It is true that China is the single largest holder of our debt, but it still is less than 10%.

I agree that the US has too much debt held by foreign nations, but, the BBC and countless other media, to single out China as holding "much" is inaccurate.
glad someone else beat me to it.

as for the issue of whether or not Obama has done enough is questionable. His 2 years with congress under his control was a very slow and inefficient 2 years because of the outrageous amount of refining, re-refining, changing, and red tape they had to wade through to get anything done. The last 2 have been nothing but brick wall obstructionism. The same things republicans cried for months before, such as tax breaks for the middle class, were shot down by congress.

The problem is very deep-rooted. Many americans fail to see that voting for congressman and senators, in all reality, is the true way to get things done. The president's biggest factor is his ability to appoint justices to the supreme court. Otherwise, congress can pass whatever they want, and even if the president vetoes it, they can veto the veto and go ahead anyway. Congress holds the majority of power in the federal government, its only true contender being the supreme court, which actually has to have conclusive and factual evidence from the constitution to declare something unconstitutional. But people get so worked up in the presidential race that they don't pay enough attention to their much more important congressman and senators. The President can't get anything done if he doesn't have congressional control.

The problem also lies with, as mentioned in the article,the overwhelming corruption through big money. The article points out how we didn't pass enough regulation so as to keep this kind of monopoly of power out of the hands of corporations. If democrats get control of congress again along with president obama, the first thing they need to do is bring the ungodly hammer of regulation down on these slimy corporations. close loopholes, enforce taxation, put harsh penalties for exporting jobs to foreign countries, the works. Everytime we allow the private sector supergiants to do whatever they want, they manage to sink into a fissure and bring the rest of the economy with them. They continue to make record profits, deliberately evade taxation, continue exporting jobs overseas, yet we see a comparatively dreadful employment increase here in the U.S along with little to no wage increase, while the cost of living goes up.

Onkel Neal

11-04-12, 10:40 PM

Question: if by midnight Tues, it's looking like returns in NY, NJ, and PA are at historic lows, because of the storm, should additional time to vote be granted? What if Romney were to win one or more of these states due to low turnout? Can you imagine the howls?

Oberon

11-05-12, 12:32 AM

Personally I think Yes.
However it's a tricky situation, it could be weeks before the situation in NY, NJ and PA is stabilised enough that voter turnout would be at a normal level. Certainly in this situation politics should take a back seat to ensuring the welfare of the people who have been displaced as winter draws in.
If it comes that close that the people of NY, NJ and PA are the kingmakers of the 2012 election then you really need to be sure that every vote is counted, so to speak.
The last thing that's needed is another Florida scenario.

Skybird

11-05-12, 12:22 PM

LINK (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/commentary-total-capitalism-and-the-downfall-of-america-a-865437-druck.html)

Germans see the US election as a battle between the good Obama and the evil Romney. But this is a mistake. Regardless of who wins the election on Tuesday, total capitalism is America's true ruler, and it has the power to destroy the country.

The United States Army is developing a weapon that can reach -- and destroy -- any location on Earth within an hour. At the same time, power lines held up by wooden poles dangle over the streets of Brooklyn, Queens and New Jersey. Hurricane Sandy ripped them apart there and in communities across the East Coast last week, and many places remain without electricity. That's America, where high-tech options are available only to the elite, and the rest live under conditions comparable to a those of a developing nation. No country has produced more Nobel Prize winners, yet in New York City hospitals had to be evacuated during the storm because their emergency generators didn't work properly.

Anyone who sees this as a contradiction has failed to grasp the fact that America is a country of total capitalism. Its functionaries have no need of public hospitals or of a reliable power supply to private homes. The elite have their own infrastructure. Total capitalism, however, has left American society in ruins and crippled the government. America's fate is not just an accident produced by the system. It is a consequence of that system.

Obama couldn't change this, and Romney wouldn't be able to either. Europe is mistaken if it views the election as a choice between the forces of good and evil. And it certainly doesn't amount to a potential change in political direction as some newspapers on the Continent would have us believe.

omney, the exceedingly wealthy business man, and Obama, the cultivated civil rights lawyer, are two faces of a political system that no longer has much to do with democracy as we understand it. Democracy is about choice, but Americans don't really have much of a choice. Obama proved this. Nearly four years ago, it seemed like a new beginning for America when he took office. But this was a misunderstanding. Obama didn't close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, nor did he lift immunity for alleged war criminals from the Bush-era, or regulate the financial markets, and climate change was hardly discussed during the current election campaign. The military, the banks, industry -- the people are helpless in the face of their power, as is the president.

Not even credit default swaps, the kind of investment that brought down Lehman Brothers and took Western economies to the brink, has been banned or even better regulated. It is likely the case that Obama wanted to do more, but couldn't. But what role does that play in the bigger picture?

We want to believe that Obama failed because of the conservatives inside his own country. Indeed, the fanatics that Mitt Romney depends on have jettisoned everything that distinguishes the West: science and logic, reason and moderation, even simple decency. They hate homosexuals, the weak and the state. They oppress women and persecute immigrants. Their moralizing about abortion doesn't even spare the victims of rape. They are the Taliban of the West.

Still, they are only the symptom of America's failure, not the cause. In reality, neither the idealists and Democrats, nor the useful idiots of the Tea Party have any power over the circumstances.

From a European perspective, it doesn't matter who wins this election. Only US foreign policy is important to us -- and Obama is no dove and Romney no hawk. The incumbent president prefers to wage his wars with drones instead of troops, though the victims probably don't care if they're killed by man or machine. Meanwhile, despite all the criticism, his challenger says he wouldn't join Israel were the country to go to war with Iran because the US can now no longer afford such a thing.

In any case, it is wrong to characterize Republicans as the party of warmongers and Democrats as the party of peace -- or even to call the latter a left-wing party at all. After all, it was Democratic presidents Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson who started the wars in Korea and Vietnam. Republican presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and Richard Nixon ended these wars. And Ronald Reagan, who Europeans see as the embodiment of both the evil and absurd aspects of American politics, was a peaceful man compared to the standards we have since become accustomed to. He only ever invaded Grenada.

The truth is that we simply no longer understand America. Looking at the country from Germany and Europe, we see a foreign culture. The political system is in the hands of big business and its lobbyists. The checks and balances have failed. And a perverse mix of irresponsibility, greed and religious zealotry dominate public opinion.

The downfall of the American empire has begun. It could be that the country's citizens wouldn't be able to stop it no matter how hard they tried. But they aren't even trying.

Damn, somebody seems to have a hidden wire directly into my brain and steals the words from my lips before I speak them!

August

11-05-12, 12:29 PM

Damn, somebody seems to have a hidden wire directly into my brain and steals the words from my lips before I speak them!

That's because your brain has been washed into believing this tripe as fact.

"taliban of the west"? Please. :roll:

Skybird

11-05-12, 12:39 PM

August

11-05-12, 12:44 PM

Please what?

I have said myself often enough that in see no principal difference in the mindsets of Christian fundamentalism, Jewish fundamentalism, and Islam, which i see in all its Quranic beauty as a fundamentalist ideology. Have I left any doubts that I did not mean that absolutely serious whenever I said that?

What is with the rest of the views presented in that article, hm? I again do not hide that they all could have been written by me, that much they mirror my own perception of the status quo in the world, and America. The author did say some things more than just "western taliban", didn't he.

Yeah but I have a job and don't have the time to refute this garbage point by point. In fact the only thing in my opinion that the article got right is that you Germans don't understand us. You never had and you never will, but I can live with that. The question is can you?

Armistead

11-05-12, 12:57 PM

I think the article Skybird posted has much truth to it. The biggest fear I have is corporate America is basically running government. My biggest concern is the FED, basically ran by a dictator, full of past Goldman Sachs employees. Obama did nothing to change this. The rich got richer during this last recession and our Treasury is still basically run by Goldman Sachs.

AVGWarhawk

11-05-12, 01:10 PM

yet in New York City hospitals had to be evacuated during the storm because their emergency generators didn't work properly.

Hospital is responsible for the structure and generators. Hospitals are a business. By and large privately owned.

The elite have their own infrastructure.

Huh?

Obama couldn't change this, and Romney wouldn't be able to either.

Four years ago BO said he would. Romney has said nothing of substance really.

Romney, the exceedingly wealthy business man, and Obama, the cultivated civil rights lawyer,

True for Romney. BO is a community organizer.

The premise here is one man(POTUS) can change the world. It is a false premise.

mookiemookie

11-05-12, 01:13 PM

We've become a Corporatocracy where the rights of the people come second to the profit margins of the corporation. And neither side is willing or able to change that.

nikimcbee

11-05-12, 01:13 PM

Sailor Steve

11-05-12, 01:23 PM

Plutocracy.:D
Our new president?

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/clippluto31.gif

Buddahaid

11-05-12, 01:46 PM

Hospital is responsible for the structure and generators. Hospitals are a business. By and large privately owned.

These generators are also load tested monthly so the transfer switch likely screwed up or they failed to start. It may also be that they are very old and cranky, and long overdue for replacement but administration won't spend the money. This is a trend I've noticed where the core infrastructure gets neglected while the cosmetics are kept looking nice as appearance counts more in attracting business.

Armistead

11-05-12, 01:55 PM

Get ready for four more years of OBAMA....

The question is, how will the GOP redefine itself for 16?

AVGWarhawk

11-05-12, 02:28 PM

We've become a Corporatocracy where the rights of the people come second to the profit margins of the corporation.

Capitalism.

AVGWarhawk

11-05-12, 02:30 PM

Get ready for four more years of OBAMA....

The question is, how will the GOP redefine itself for 16?

As the "NO!" party.

Skybird

11-05-12, 02:33 PM

Apropos "old and cranky" (Buddahaid)

LINK: America after a brilliant century and a terrible decade (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/divided-states-of-america-notes-on-the-decline-of-a-great-nation-a-865295-druck.html)

Do yourself a favour, August, and don't read it. Just leave your head stuck in the sand. Helps to keep your temper calm and cozy.

mookiemookie

11-05-12, 02:36 PM

Get ready for four more years of OBAMA....

The question is, how will the GOP redefine itself for 16?

If they quit pandering to the "God, Gays and Guns" contingent and went back to true fiscal conservatism (and not nitpicking on things that don't matter like PBS and the Park Service), they may find some people willing to listen to them. Unfortunately the Christian Right and the Dominionists won't let that happen.

Tchocky

11-05-12, 02:51 PM

LINK (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/commentary-total-capitalism-and-the-downfall-of-america-a-865437-druck.html)

Damn, somebody seems to have a hidden wire directly into my brain and steals the words from my lips before I speak them!

That's a horrendous load of rubbish. Seriously awful. Makes us over 'ere look bad.

The United States Army is developing a weapon that can reach -- and destroy -- any location on Earth within an hour. At the same time, power lines held up by wooden poles dangle over the streets of Brooklyn, Queens and New JerseyHUrricane Sandy ripped them apart there and in communities across the East Coast last week, and many places remain without electricity. That's America, where high-tech options are available only to the elite, and the rest live under conditions comparable to a those of a developing nation.This is an utterly moronic comparison to make.

Christ, make sure this guy never finds out that iPhones are made in China, his head will probably implode.

Um, sure. The economy that has provided more advanced technology to more people at lower prices than any other is actually either Monaco or Mali, depending on where you sit. The country that produced the fastest growth of a strong middle class in the 20th century is really a black-or-white hellhole. There is no middle ground at all. Yes, income inequality is rising in the US, but this guy has taken the extreme result trend as hos things actually are.

No country has produced more Nobel Prize winners, yet in New York City hospitals had to be evacuated during the storm because their emergency generators didn't work properly.Nothing had ever gone wrong in an emergency before this. Certainly not over here in Utopia.

Anyone who sees this as a contradiction has failed to grasp the fact that America is a country of total capitalism. No it isn't. America has a government, taxes, and a public sector just like the rest of us. The author is failing to grasp objective reality.

Its functionaries have no need of public hospitals or of a reliable power supply to private homes. The elite have their own infrastructure."Sorry fella, Poor Street is flooded and there's no local government response. Hell I ain't even a policeman because there aren't any over here in Totally Capitalist Land. If you can afford the toll you can take Elite Parkway or Affluence Avenue."

Total capitalism, however, has left American society in ruins and crippled the government.We are in no way being hyperbolic about this. America is in RUINS! GET OUT WHILE YOU CAN

Obama didn't....regulate the financial marketsLook up Dodd-Frank.

Not even credit default swaps, the kind of investment that brought down Lehman Brothers and took Western economies to the brink, has been banned or even better regulated. It is likely the case that Obama wanted to do more, but couldn't. But what role does that play in the bigger picture?Oy. Credit Default Swaps have been regulated by the Dodd-Frank Bill. I guess the author doesn't know this because he doesn't know there was a bill.

From a European perspective, it doesn't matter who wins this election. Only US foreign policy is important to us -- and Obama is no dove and Romney no hawk.I can only assume the author lives on the Moon and is totally isolated form the global economy. Thank God the US economy has absolutely zero effec ton the rest of the world.

The truth is that we simply no longer understand America. Looking at the country from Germany and Europe, we see a foreign culture. The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club.

Of course it's a foreign culture. It's a foreign country.

mapuc

11-05-12, 03:48 PM

Two candidates, who will win? It's a slight advantage to Obama. I have tried to follow Obama's policies over the last 4 years, so it's somehow well known (thinking in particular of Obamacare) Romney's policy I do not know so much about.

Have Obama's policy, led the U.S. out of the crisis, or has it been worse during his term as President, or has the situation been at status que?

Will Romney's politics led the US out of the crisis or will it get worse?

Are these the right person to lead the United States out of the economic crisis?

I am going to follow the elections with excitement. I do not have any favorites. I know from experience from my own country, that regardless of who is in power, politics is the same.

Markus

Tchocky

11-05-12, 04:12 PM

or has it been worse during his term as President, or has the situation been at status que?

I don't know if this was a typo or not, but it's perfect!

mookiemookie

11-05-12, 04:28 PM

words

I agree with your assessment for the most part, but I do take issue with the matter of Credit Default Swaps. Dodd-Frank mandated that they be cleared through an exchange or a clearinghouse, so we have an idea of the size of the market, but it did little else to regulate them. They're still exempt from any sort of insurance regulation (and their stated purpose is to insure oneself from the event of a credit default) and there's still no reserve requirement associated with them - banks can pile on as much CDS as they like without having to set aside capital reserves in case they blow up, a la AIG. It would only make sense to make sure a company writing CDS contracts can actually back them up if a credit event occurs and they they're called on to pay up. Unfortunately, Dodd-Frank addresses none of that. It was a watered down bill.

Tchocky

11-05-12, 05:00 PM

I agree with your assessment for the most part, but I do take issue with the matter of Credit Default Swaps. Dodd-Frank mandated that they be cleared through an exchange or a clearinghouse, so we have an idea of the size of the market, but it did little else to regulate them. They're still exempt from any sort of insurance regulation (and their stated purpose is to insure oneself from the event of a credit default) and there's still no reserve requirement associated with them - banks can pile on as much CDS as they like without having to set aside capital reserves in case they blow up, a la AIG. It would only make sense to make sure a company writing CDS contracts can actually back them up if a credit event occurs and they they're called on to pay up. Unfortunately, Dodd-Frank addresses none of that. It was a watered down bill.

Heh, words.

Fair enough about Dodd-Frank, I think the industry is your field (isn't it?. I was just remembering what I had read when it was passed.

My prediction for tomorrow - Obama with a clear EC victory, with the popular vote going for him very slightly. Maybe only .1/.2 of a %.
House stay Republican, Democratic gains of 7/8 seats. Senate stays Democratic, not sure about the result, maybe Dems going down to 51, 52 with Angus King in Maine.

Message to all our friends in the colonies - vote! :salute:

Skybird

11-05-12, 05:16 PM

I read the campaign costed 5.8 billion.

I can only shake my head. I would prefer to cut some people's heads off instead, but unfortunately that is not within my reach.

:nope:

Tchocky

11-05-12, 05:24 PM

If you think elections are expensive, try dictatorship.

Tribesman

11-05-12, 05:27 PM

If you think elections are expensive, try dictatorship.
Would a dictatorship allow him to cut off heads though?
I think Sky needs to move to Saudi to be happy:rotfl2:

Penguin

11-05-12, 05:41 PM

LINK: America after a brilliant century and a terrible decade (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/divided-states-of-america-notes-on-the-decline-of-a-great-nation-a-865295-druck.html)

This is a much better article than the opinion piece, not perfect, but better. It looks like Augstein took all his information he has about the US from this article, abbrevied it drastically and poured some black&white sauce over it. If you look closely, you notice that he copied some terms nearly word for word - I noticed it when I stumbled about "Brooklyn, Queens and New Jersey".

Some flaws of Augstein's piece, besides the one's that Tchocky already mentioned are:

- it does not even mention congress once, while the author even takes the time to explain that Democrats are no angels and the Republicans are not the devil :roll:, it fails to mention one of the most basic and fundamental principles of the US system: the President isn't solely responsible for bills - or the lack of

- high school dropout rates are taken out of context - in fact the numbers have been falling over the last years, also a comparision with the numbers in Europe would be nice - Germany is not so much better by the percentage.

- the general moral high ground tone: how much did the EU do against the sharks from the finance industry to prevent a financial crisis 2.0? How is the state of democracy here - just an example: How many countries in Europe helda referendum about the EU? Or how does the legislative body of the EU get elected? How many propositions/referendums are held in Germany per year? See? all a matter of perspective

Also I feel very sorry for the people from the UK, the Nordic countries, Australie, New Zealand that they live in developing countries because they use cables on poles :88)

mapuc

11-05-12, 05:49 PM

I read the campaign costed 5.8 billion.

I can only shake my head. I would prefer to cut some people's heads off instead, but unfortunately that is not within my reach.

:nope:

Democracy is not cheap you know. Mostly of these 5.8 billions comes from private donation- I can't say how much exactly it is.

Markus

Onkel Neal

11-05-12, 05:59 PM

August

11-05-12, 06:26 PM

August

11-05-12, 06:28 PM

If so, I would cut the wire, that article is cringe-inducing embarrassment.

:haha:

Oberon

11-05-12, 07:44 PM

Here's another little link to stimulate the reading senses in preparation for the big day:

http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/read/2011/08/21/if-i-were-president

geetrue

11-05-12, 07:51 PM

I read the campaign costed 5.8 billion.

I can only shake my head. I would prefer to cut some people's heads off instead, but unfortunately that is not within my reach.

:nope:

Hurricane Sandy cost $50 billion dollars paid by tax payers

The election is paid by special interest groups that want the parties favor in return for donations. I use to work for the Republican party phone room and even old people on Social Secuity were donating $10. :)

mapuc

11-05-12, 08:17 PM

The latest from the swedish newspaper-says that Romney leds by 1

The latest from the danish newspaper-says that Obama leds by 1

Markus

Sailor Steve

11-05-12, 08:48 PM

Well, tomorrow we'll see who leads by how much, and half the predictors will look foolish and the other half will be crowing about how smart they were.

Sources making predictions are always saying what they don't know and hoping they're right. Just like weathermen.

Cybermat47

11-05-12, 10:05 PM

Well, tomorrow we'll see who leads by how much, and half the predictors will look foolish and the other half will be crowing about how smart they were.

Wasn't there an election were everyone was so certain that one guy was going to win that they printed newspapers saying THIS GUY WINS BY LANDSLIDE...then the other guy won!

August

11-05-12, 10:10 PM

Wasn't there an election were everyone was so certain that one guy was going to win that they printed newspapers saying THIS GUY WINS BY LANDSLIDE...then the other guy won!

Dewey/Truman 1948 :yep:

Cybermat47

11-05-12, 10:12 PM

Dewey/Truman 1948 :yep:

Thanks.

Truman must have felt awesome.

August

11-05-12, 10:14 PM

Thanks.

Truman must have felt awesome.

Check him out!

http://www.classroomhelp.com/lessons/Presidents/presimages/truman_deweywins.jpg

Oberon

11-06-12, 01:15 AM

Well, today's the big day, although it's probably not quite Tuesday in the States yet.

No matter what happens today, no matter who gets in to office, tomorrow America will still be there, in fifty, sixty years, America will still be there.
There have been presidents and leaders worse than Obama and Romney and nations have come through them.
The only thing that is going to change on Wednesday night/Thursday morning is the people who are complaining will either still be complaining or they will be celebrating, and the people who aren't complaining will be either complaining or celebrating. That's all. No massive asteroid or judgment of God bringing about the end times, no sudden massive economic collapse leading to a return to the hunter gather age, not even a massive uprising of monkeys and apes (well...probably not).

Anyone who claims that candidate X will doom America and the world is wrong, just as people have claimed that every single candidate from Bush to Lincoln would destroy society as we know it and end the American way of life, has been wrong. Things have changed, things always change, and life has gone on.

Good voting America, and I hope that the process goes smoothly, and send my congratulations to the victor, it's been a hard fought race, and a close one, so whoever gets it will deserve it.

See you on the flip side.