U.S. Presidential Debates & Election

[Sailor Steve]

@ 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]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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]

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]

Originally Posted by August

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]

Originally Posted by 19Herr_Rapp86

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

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

[vienna]

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...

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]

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]

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

[vienna]

Originally Posted by 19Herr_Rapp86

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]

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]

Originally Posted by vienna

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]

Originally Posted by vienna

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]

...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]

Originally Posted by vienna

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]

Kippers, anyone...

<O>