The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romneys-prep-school-classmates-recall-pranks-but-also-troubling-incidents/2012/05/10/gIQA3WOKFU_story.html

Really disturbing images of young Mitt. Him and a friend pick on someone weaker and holds them down while Mitt takes scissors to cut the boy's hair.

Bully. It was a long time ago and most of us did stupid things when we were in high school. But I never respected the class bully. 

If you defend Mitt for being a bully, you condone this behavior. If this wasn't your candidate, you wouldn't defend him.

This is all over my twitter feed and FB pages.

I didn't think this story would go anywhere...of course, I don't follow Fox or Beck's rag.

The "schoolmates" they're quoting sure are trying to hammer some nails in this coffin.

Meh, Obama talks about shoving a girl when he was in grade school.  Then he probably went home and ate his dog.

I am close to Mitt's age. We did stuff that was stupid in Jr. HIgh, (we once locked a smaller student in his locker) but nothing like that in High School. You risked getting your butt in deep trouble. If you were still doing bully smile in HS the die was set and you likely felt bulletproof as an adult.

Maybe it was different in Prep schools.

My real concern, as is usual in these drama filled bogus news stories, is his reaction. He at first denied it and said he didn't remember the guy, then laughed it off, then mentioned that they didn't know he was gay. Curious remarks. Just fess up and say what we all feel about our high school years...they were an embarrassment to our current selves for many reasons, then move on.

Quote from: Conan71 on May 11, 2012, 01:09:55 PM
Meh, Obama talks about shoving a girl when he was in grade school.  Then he probably went home and ate his dog.

If Obama had held a guy down and used anything sharp on him in Highschool in the 60's he'd've been sentenced to a long stint in the pokey.

Quote from: Townsend on May 11, 2012, 01:16:00 PM
If Obama had held a guy down and used anything sharp on him in Highschool in the 60's he'd've been sentenced to a long stint in the pokey.

RMoney probably leaked this, thinking it'll make him look like less of a Milhouse. It is interesting that he doesn't remember the incident but he does remember that he didn't think the guy was gay.

Romney Battled LGBT Anti-Bully Commission As Governor
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/romney-threatened-lgbt-anti-bully-commission-as-governor.php

A couple of links giving this "story" some perspective:

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/11/scarborough-i-question-the-timing-of-the-wapo-hit-piece-on-romney/

And the victim of the bullying's family speaks out, as well as NBC calling out the accuracy of the story.

http://themoderatevoice.com/146840/sister-of-alleged-romney-target-starting-to-dispute-parts-of-washington-post-story/

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2012/05/11/nbc-reports-romney-bully-story-labeled-factually-incorrect-family-alle

Quote from: guido911 on May 11, 2012, 02:26:11 PM
A couple of links giving this "story" some perspective:

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/11/scarborough-i-question-the-timing-of-the-wapo-hit-piece-on-romney/

And the victim of the bullying's family speaks out, as well as NBC calling out the accuracy of the story.

http://themoderatevoice.com/146840/sister-of-alleged-romney-target-starting-to-dispute-parts-of-washington-post-story/

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2012/05/11/nbc-reports-romney-bully-story-labeled-factually-incorrect-family-alle

Calling out the "accuracy of the story" is misleading. They are disputing the portrayal of the victim, they are NOT saying the incident didn't happen and they had no direct knowledge anyway.

Quote
Betsy Lauber, one of John Lauber's three sisters, spoke with ABC News Tuesday night regarding the accuracy of the story.
"The family of John Lauber is releasing a statement saying the portrayal of John is factually incorrect and we are aggrieved that he would be used to further a political agenda. There will be no more comments from the family," she said.
She did not say specifically how the Washington Post story was incorrect.

Quote
Christine Lauber, who is a few years older than John Lauber, was at college when the alleged incident happened, and said the brother and sister were "doing our own thing" at the time.
When ABC News showed her the story, Christine Lauber's eyes welled up with tears and she became agitated.
She described her brother as a "very unusual person."
"He didn't care about running with the peer group," Christine Lauber said. "What's wrong with that?"

Quote
"Even if it did happen, John probably wouldn't have said anything," Christine Lauber said.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/sister-of-alleged-romney-target-has-no-knowledge-of-any-bullying-incident/

They aren't saying it didn't happen, at all. She doesn't like the portrayal of her brother but that has nothing to do with the accuracy of the article and her own quotes seem to support the portrayal of her brother.

Quote from: swake on May 11, 2012, 02:44:57 PM
Calling out the "accuracy of the story" is misleading. They are disputing the portrayal of the victim, they are NOT saying the incident didn't happen and they had no direct knowledge anyway.

And neither did Romney have knowledge. Didn't stop WaPo from running the "story" did they. I'm no Romney fan, but sheesh. This is what we can expect? Anyway, let's see how this plays out over the next couple of days because if more facts show the story to be BS, folks in here will have some 'splainin to do.

Quote from: guido911 on May 11, 2012, 02:52:06 PM
And neither did Romney have knowledge. Didn't stop WaPo from running the "story" did they. I'm no Romney fan, but sheesh. This is what we can expect? Anyway, let's see how this plays out over the next couple of days because if more facts show the story to be BS, folks in here will have some 'splainin to do.

What do you mean?

edited to say:  I mean the "This is what we can expect?".  If you're questioning this popping up during a political year then, yes, this is always what we can expect.

As far as "splainin", this is a story on the 24/7.  Haven't heard anything about Obama being Muslim or not a US citizen being 'splained from the other side when those were proved to be wrong.

Really Guido.....what about Rev. Wright?....what about that terrorist association game?....what about the ole community organizer slant?

A bit two faced of you. >:( :-*

Quote from: Townsend on May 11, 2012, 02:54:15 PM
What do you mean?

edited to say:  I mean the "This is what we can expect?".  If you're questioning this popping up during a political year then, yes, this is always what we can expect.

As far as "splainin", this is a story on the 24/7.  Haven't heard anything about Obama being Muslim or not a US citizen being 'splained from the other side when those were proved to be wrong.

I'll splain the Muslim faith thing...



As for your point, there was PLENTY of demonizing from the left on these BS distractions. Those levying the claims (as well as those who shared the political view) faced its wrath, were even called racist. That's kinda what can be expected if some dumb@ssed story about what Romney may have done in damned high school is false.

Quote from: guido911 on May 11, 2012, 03:18:08 PM
As for your point, there was PLENTY of demonizing from the left on these BS distractions. Those levying the claims (as well as those who shared the political view) faced its wrath, were even called racist. That's kinda what can be expected if some dumb@ssed story about what Romney may have done in damned high school is false.

Many of those levying those attacks are racist.

Many of the attacks on Obama are based on things when he was a small child, younger than high school.  Not with a group of kids/teens holding another down and physically attacking him.

If Romney really did this, he did a bad thing.  Would it make him a bad president?  I don't know.  Not really important to me. 

Quote from: guido911 on May 11, 2012, 03:18:08 PM
I'll splain the Muslim faith thing...

As for your point, there was PLENTY of demonizing from the left on these BS distractions. Those levying the claims (as well as those who shared the political view) faced its wrath, were even called racist. That's kinda what can be expected if some dumb@ssed story about what Romney may have done in damned high school is false.

Guido, you're such an exit! :D

Quote from: Townsend on May 11, 2012, 03:23:11 PM


Many of the attacks on Obama are based on things when he was a small child, younger than high school.  Not with a group of kids/teens holding another down and physically attacking him.

I'll pass along your concerns about the age a person suffers abuse having some sort of meaning to Trig Palin...

I can't really condemn someone for high school hijinks, no matter how shitty. The vast majority of us were complete morons in high school. It comes with the territory. There's plenty not to like about Mittens in the last decade. There's no need to go farther to find something to put a wet blanket on any enthusiasm one might have had for him.

Part of the problem is that he has serious trouble showing any real empathy. I understand what he meant when he said we don't have to worry about poor people because they've got a safety net, but the way he put it was very nearly the least empathetic and most dismissive possible.

Quote from: guido911 on May 11, 2012, 03:32:04 PM
I'll pass along your concerns about the age a person suffers abuse having some sort of meaning to Trig Palin...

Might want to tell his mother to knock it off too.

Quote from: Townsend on May 11, 2012, 03:23:11 PM
Many of those levying those attacks are racist.

Many of the attacks on Obama are based on things when he was a small child, younger than high school.  Not with a group of kids/teens holding another down and physically attacking him.

If Romney really did this, he did a bad thing.  Would it make him a bad president?  I don't know.  Not really important to me. 

What a whiney baby. He only got held down on the ground by a bunch of boys while they called him a fag and cut his hair. It's not like they raped him.

Quote from: carltonplace on May 11, 2012, 03:38:29 PM
What a whiney baby. He only got held down on the ground by a bunch of boys while they called him a fag and cut his hair. It's not like they raped him.

The guy's dead Carlton....We can't ask him how he feels about anything right now.

Quote from: guido911 on May 11, 2012, 02:52:06 PM
Anyway, let's see how this plays out over the next couple of days because if more facts show the story to be BS, folks in here will have some 'splainin to do.

And if the story proves true, we expect the same from you.

Can anyone on here honestly say they never made fun of or bullied someone else?  I hardly think this rises to the level of qualification or disqualification for POTUS.

Let's talk about economic acumen and real world accomplishments, not who strapped a dog to a car, not who ate a dog, not who wears magic underwear or who attended church led by a black separatist.

Quote from: Conan71 on May 11, 2012, 03:55:40 PM
Can anyone on here honestly say they never made fun of or bullied someone else? 

Nope. Just you and Mitt on this one.

Quote from: Conan71 on May 11, 2012, 03:55:40 PM
Can anyone on here honestly say they never made fun of or bullied someone else? 

Never grabbed a group of guys and held a kid down in order to do harm, no.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 11, 2012, 03:50:05 PM
And if the story proves true, we expect the same from you.

And you'll get it. I was wondering when you would start kicking up dust in favor of Obama. I remember last election cycle when you went after Obama when you were bumping with ol' Hillary. Here's a thread where RM went after Obama for being unAmerican:

QuoteThe voters in Michigan deserve to have their votes counted. Either count the earlier election or have a do-over.

The demcratic national committee is OK with the plan, The Governor of Michigan is OK with the plan. The top democratic leadership is OK (and came up with the plan), and the Hillary camp is OK with the plan to re-vote.

Obama stands in the way.

To not count every vote is un-American.

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=9376.0

[Emphasis added].

And another...

QuoteSorry, rufnex.

The point of the story is that Obama said he would follow the rules for public financing if McCain did. McCain did, but Obama wants to change his mind.

Now he can raise more money...I guess money is more important than doing what you said you would do.

And another...

QuoteThe reason why USA Today did a story on it and I posted in here was that Obama is running television ads saying he is not taking this money. He is criticizing the others while doing the same himself.

Yes, they all take money from lobbyists. Obama just runs misleading ads saying he doesn't.
   

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=9764.0

And another....
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=9698.0

And the kicker....

QuoteI am saying that Obama is lying.

He has every right to take money from any individual and any individual has a right to contribute to him. He knows clearly well that people in the oil industry gave him money, but he made a campaign commercial where he said he didn't take money from oil companies.

When the CEO of an oil company becomes a campaign bundler for you, you don't get to pander to the American public and attack oil companies and lie about your relationship with them.

Obama folks said Hillary lied when she embellished her personal story about a trip to Bosnia. To me, Obama's lie is worse. He made a paid commercial.

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=9493.0

throw down....

To be fair, Romney probably has evolved from being a homophobic monster into someone who now cares for people over a period of 50 years.   ::)The question really is has RM evolved from his despising of Obama in less than four years?

Quote from: guido911 on May 11, 2012, 04:00:38 PM
And you'll get it. I was wondering when you would start kicking up dust in favor of Obama. I remember last election cycle when you went after Obama when you were bumping with ol' Hillary. Here's a thread where RM went after Obama for being unAmerican:

And the kicker....

That has nothing to do with this.  We're ripping on Romney on this thread.  There are over 100 threads to go rip on Obama.

Obama wears mom jeans, et al.

Realizing what Romney did and continuing to hear people make excuses for him is starting to get to me a bit.  Making me want to smash.(https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQdhPOZ8oP7Eq2S88mJDmgZC-fvnvIDiT-1MIl_VrY8GL_BIEFOqw)

Quote from: Townsend on May 11, 2012, 04:05:24 PM
That has nothing to do with this.  We're ripping on Romney on this thread.  There are over 100 threads to go rip on Obama.

Obama wears mom jeans, et al.

Realizing what Romney did and continuing to hear people make excuses for him is starting to get to me a bit.  Making me want to smash.

You should be used to it by now.  Everyone's been making excuses for Obama for the last four years.

You caught me. I spoke out against Obama.

I still have reservations about him. I wish he would have accelerated the troop withdrawals. I wish he would have not added to the bank bailout. I don't feel as if he has taken the lead on the economy and has instead allowed Congress to go first. He renewed the Bush tax cuts in exchange for a small tax holiday. I don't think he is a good negotiator.

I do believe he was a better choice than McCain and a better choice than Romney. What's your point?

Quote from: Conan71 on May 11, 2012, 04:08:24 PM
You should be used to it by now.  Everyone's been making excuses for Obama for the last four years.

Now excuses are being made for a candidate for physically attacking someone weaker than him.

Pass.

It shouldn't happen until he declares war on a country.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 11, 2012, 04:08:35 PM
You caught me. I spoke out against Obama.

I still have reservations about him. I wish he would have accelerated the troop withdrawals. I wish he would have not added to the bank bailout. I don't feel as if he has taken the lead on the economy and has instead allowed Congress to go first. He renewed the Bush tax cuts in exchange for a small tax holiday. I don't think he is a good negotiator.

I do believe he was a better choice than McCain and a better choice than Romney. What's your point?

Umm.....Nothing. Just reminding folks on your track record on ripping candidates...And your calling me out to be intellectually honesty if your little story is accurate is just the cherry on top.  

Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 11, 2012, 04:08:35 PM
You caught me. I spoke out against Obama.

I still have reservations about him. I wish he would have accelerated the troop withdrawals. I wish he would have not added to the bank bailout. I don't feel as if he has taken the lead on the economy and has instead allowed Congress to go first. He renewed the Bush tax cuts in exchange for a small tax holiday. I don't think he is a good negotiator.

I do believe he was a better choice than McCain and a better choice than Romney. What's your point?

Things won't change until you figure out where the money comes from. All these people think there are two sides (Dem & Rep) at war with each other, when in reality they are all paid for by the same people. Why else did wall street get bailed out. In particular Goldman Sachs, because they pay the best (and they all work in government now). This is the primary reason that me and others on here preach reductions in government. It's not because I trust business more than government. It's because I understand the goals of business; to make money. Government on the other hand is far more complicated. And as long as they insist on having more oversight, they will be more and more beholden to monied interest. If you remove the reason to lobby, you will get less of it.

This in my opinion is why all the politicians, regardless of what they say, seem to act in lock step with each other.

Quote from: guido911 on May 11, 2012, 04:16:31 PM
Umm.....Nothing. Just reminding folks on your track record on ripping candidates...And your calling me out to be intellectually honesty if your little story is accurate is just the cherry on top.  

Wait a second. Me posting about Romney is not allowed if I also posted years ago some stuff against Obama?

You call that dishonest?

I have ripped Obama, McCain, Fallin, WalMart, shadows, and the state of Texas on this forum. I readily admit it.

Stuff that cherry in your exit.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 11, 2012, 04:23:40 PM
Stuff that cherry in your exit.

I'm famous.

Quote from: Townsend on May 11, 2012, 04:24:44 PM
I'm famous.

You see. Everyone likes that word, so I guess it will have to be edited.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 11, 2012, 04:23:40 PM
Wait a second. Me posting about Romney is not allowed if I also posted years ago some stuff against Obama?

You call that dishonest?

I have ripped Obama, McCain, Fallin, WalMart, shadows, and the state of Texas on this forum. I readily admit it.

Stuff that cherry in your exit.

You are "allowed" to do whatever you want. But it's nice to know that calling Obama a liar and campaign cheater and perhaps unAmerican is just "some stuff" in your book. So I guess prep school bullying is "some stuff" as well?

I am not trying to call you dishonest, you are just not being honest with your criticisms.  :P

What is being dishonest?

Do you know what that word means?

Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 11, 2012, 04:54:16 PM
What is being dishonest?

Do you know what that word means?

"I am not trying to call you dishonest, you are just not being honest with your criticisms."
Nevermind.

(http://i556.photobucket.com/albums/ss5/j004y/over20your20head.jpg?t=1242248214)

Quote from: erfalf on May 11, 2012, 04:18:00 PM
If you remove the reason to lobby, you will get less of it.

If that were true, lobbying would have gone down in the 90s. ;) There are always special favors to be asked for, pet projects to be funded, defense projects to push for, and so on. The irony is that it's nearly as bad in many or most of our states, but it hardly gets reported on. The answer, of course, is getting rid of first past the post voting and eliminating gerrymandering by using something like the shortest splitline algorithm to draw districts. The increased (average) competitiveness of the districts combined with the removal of the barriers to third and fourth party representatives should lead to voters having more influence.

If we increased the size of the house to a few thousand representatives (perish the thought..maybe we could build some dormitories and cut their gold plated salary to help pay for it) it would make it harder for donors to spread around enough cash to have a big influence other than through advertising. And we'd be a lot closer to levels of representation our founders were comfortable with. If we were lucky, it would also make it even louder and more raucus, so it would be both more entertaining and less likely to pass laws for the hell of it.

So now our choice for president has been reduced to:

A) Wealthy prep school bully who belongs to a secretive cult, and wears magic underwear.

B) High school pothead/drunk/cokehead who went to class as little as possible (by his own account mind you) and has been on the government dole for much of his adult life.  He even lives in public housing now.

Man, what a choice.

Quote from: Conan71 on May 11, 2012, 06:27:43 PM
So now our choice for president has been reduced to:

A) Wealthy prep school bully who belongs to a secretive cult, and wears magic underwear.

B) High school pothead/drunk/cokehead who went to class as little as possible (by his own account mind you) and has been on the government dole for much of his adult life.  He even lives in public housing now.

Man, what a choice.

That's about the size of it. Fortunately, the dog eating/dog roofing is a wash.

Quote from: guido911 on May 11, 2012, 06:35:44 PM
the dog eating/dog roofing is a wash.

There's just no comparison between sampling a cultural delicacy, and the sheer callousness and incompetence of treating a family pet like a piece of luggage.   Even his gay-bashing was more compassionate than how he treated his dog.

patric...they don't get it. Their political blinders keep them from seeing what a creep Romney is.

I agree with you. Mistreating the family pet is a terrible thing. Abusing this classmate is a terrible thing.

There is something wrong with Romney.

Quote from: Conan71 on May 11, 2012, 06:27:43 PM
B) High school pothead/drunk/cokehead who went to class as little as possible (by his own account mind you) and has been on the government dole for much of his adult life.  He even lives in public housing now.

I would guess that most people who grew up in the 1960s and 1970s tried drugs. Bill Clinton and George Bush also tried drugs. I would bet that Romney and most of the other candidates for president this year also experimented with drugs. Obama said he quit using them before he turned 20. Why is this an issue for you?

He has had a successful career as a public servant. His career is no different than your congressmen John Sullivan, your governor Mary Fallin or your senator Jim Inhofe. Getting elected and moving up to higher and higher office is the most common way to become any of those important jobs.

If you can't vote for anybody that tried drugs as a teenager or has held public office before, you are going to be stuck with candidates like Donald Trump. Is that what you really want?   

"You're just going to ignore a man in a wheelchair?" Romney: "WELL, I SPOKE WITH HIM"


Ron Paul would've been a better candidate....




Shall we move the Romney high school incident from a privileged boarding school to an inner city public high school. Then let's pretend Mitt and his gang were black teenagers. Wouldn't they have been charged with gang assault? Romney committed a felony and got away with it.

RMoney is obviously pure evil. Obama is a much better person in every way. I urge everyone to vote for him. ;)

Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 12, 2012, 12:26:29 PM
patric...they don't get it. Their political blinders keep them from seeing what a creep Romney is.

I agree with you. Mistreating the family pet is a terrible thing. Abusing this classmate is a terrible thing.

There is something wrong with Romney.

We get it RM. Romney screws up. Worse thing ever. Obama screws up. Kids will be kids. And we know what's wrong with Romney, he's running against Obama. Just like we knew what was wrong with Obama 4 years ago (liar, campaign cheat, race baiter). He was running against Hillary. Now, a few years ago, I read something. What was it?  Oh yes.

Quote
Please try and discuss these politicians with a little respect, FOTD. Your attacks have no place on this forum. Please.

Take it to the alley.

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=9355.45

Quote from: guido911 on May 12, 2012, 05:32:21 PM
We get it RM. Romney screws up. Worse thing ever. Obama screws up. Kids will be kids. And we know what's wrong with Romney, he's running against Obama. Just like we knew what was wrong with Obama 4 years ago (liar, campaign cheat, race baiter). He was running against Hillary. Now, a few years ago, I read something. What was it?  Oh yes.

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=9355.45

Ha! You're pathetic Gwee.... the highlighted words makes you wonder if Potus Obama is not playing from the Nixon play book. This FOTD poster appears to know what he talks about. Where'd Chix Little and Homie end up?

(http://www.philzone.org/discus/messages/439459/770336.jpg)

Quote from: Teatownclown on May 12, 2012, 06:42:51 PM
Where'd Chix Little and Homie end up?

(http://www.philzone.org/discus/messages/439459/770336.jpg)

They didn't become dumb@ssed dooshbags by changing their names.

FOTD was exiled....

Those other two must  have found their exit....

Quote from: guido911 on May 12, 2012, 05:32:21 PM
We get it RM. Romney screws up. Worse thing ever. Obama screws up. Kids will be kids. And we know what's wrong with Romney, he's running against Obama.

I think it is impossible for you to read anything about Romney without instantly changing the topic to be about Obama. That is really sad.

Remind me not to have you represent me in court. If I was accused of running a red light, your defense would be that other people run red lights too.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 12, 2012, 07:31:25 PM
I think it is impossible for you to read anything about Romney without instantly changing the topic to be about Obama. That is really sad.

Remind me not to have you represent me in court. If I was accused of running a red light, your defense would be that other people run red lights too.

I think the better defense would not allow you to testify because the jury would only see this  ;D:

(http://a1.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/3/62f4769280484f159ae857b2cee76440/l.jpg)

Attacking me for writing about Obama four years ago? Again, you obviously can't defend Romney so now you just attack me. You really need to learn to discuss issues better.

Mitt Romney and another student held down a boy and cut his hair off. It was inexcusable. The boy who helped him said he felt terrible about it. When questioned, Romney says he didn't remember, then said he didn't do it because the boy was gay.

How does this have anything to do with Obama or anything I wrote four years ago?

Try hard. I just know you can answer this.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 12, 2012, 09:16:25 PM
Mitt Romney and another student held down a boy and cut his hair off. It was inexcusable. The boy who helped him said he felt terrible about it. When questioned, Romney says he didn't remember, then said he didn't do it because the boy was gay.

And giggled while he said it

Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 12, 2012, 09:16:25 PM
Attacking me for writing about Obama four years ago? Again, you obviously can't defend Romney so now you just attack me. You really need to learn to discuss issues better.

Mitt Romney and another student held down a boy and cut his hair off. It was inexcusable. The boy who helped him said he felt terrible about it. When questioned, Romney says he didn't remember, then said he didn't do it because the boy was gay.

How does this have anything to do with Obama or anything I wrote four years ago?

Try hard. I just know you can answer this.

Can't defend Obama's record so you have to attack his opponent by going back 40+ plus years to find something you think others might find objectionable?

Why are you making such a big deal out of a youthful indiscretion which happened 40+ years ago?  It doesn't matter to you that Obama was a pothead in high school, why would it matter to you what Romney did in high school?  How would you like it if you were hounded about stupid things you did in school?  We all did stupid smile, it doesn't define who we are now.

With millions still out of work, I think it's important we look past what sort of stupid smile someone did in high school to how well-equipped they are to deal with the economy, healthcare, foreign relations, etc.  Are you afraid he's going to hold down Putin and shave his back in front of the cameras?

Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 12, 2012, 09:16:25 PM
Attacking me for writing about Obama four years ago? Again, you obviously can't defend Romney so now you just attack me. You really need to learn to discuss issues better.

Mitt Romney and another student held down a boy and cut his hair off. It was inexcusable. The boy who helped him said he felt terrible about it. When questioned, Romney says he didn't remember, then said he didn't do it because the boy was gay.

How does this have anything to do with Obama or anything I wrote four years ago?

Try hard. I just know you can answer this.

Everything is on the table, and in this case, it's your credibility. Folks in here are fond of saying to me, "I wouldn't hire you as my lawyer because...". Assuming of course I would accept you as a client (haha), a similar thing can be said listening to the opinions of full time political operatives who happen to be persons occupying positions in this community. You have employees and a voice in this town on matters some might find important. Do you want to be known as a person with some integrity and consistency or just a hacky band wagoner? That's what it looks like when the guy you were tearing a new one for lying and cheating less than four years ago suddenly has the moral high ground over a person who ALLEGEDLY did something 40-50 years ago. Heck, was Obama even in kindergarten when that event went down?

Oh, and please get past the "attack"/victim BS. You went after me personally/professionally too.

I was wrong about you. You obviously can't or won't defend Romney's behavior . Go ahead and write about me and my thoughts about Obama four years ago.

I am honestly sad for you. You are somehow forced to accept a flawed candidate and your only way to help that candidate is to bad mouth his opponent and any supporter.

There are many wonderful republicans in America. I think locally republicans have been great leaders as councilors, commissioners, mayors, state reps, etc. The belief of the republican party of limited goverment and personal responsibility are simple and beautiful truths. I have to say that most of my closest friends are republicans. I got my career because a republican mayor inspired me many years ago.

Then look at Romney. He is completely out of touch with the average American. Growing up the wealthy son of the president of a car company and governor gave him passes for bad behavior. While most of us had early jobs like waiting tables or construction, he bought and sold companies, sometimes wrecking them if needed be to make a profit. His top achievement as governor was creating a health care system requiring everyone to have insurance. Because the biggest criticism of Obama's presidency is ObamaCare, even that campaign issue is softened when Romney is the nominee.

Romney doesn't inspire us to be better Americans.  You don't see him as anything but someone different than Obama. In the choice between the two of them, I choose, and I believe America will choose, Obama

Not interested in defending Romney on this because I do not give a sh!t about this stupid story. I wasn't even born when this crap happened. Your obsession over it is what is truly sad. Sheesh. The guy is over 35 and U.S. citizen, raised a family, has employs/does employ a sh!t ton more people than you (and Obama before running for anything), and is an experienced businessman and leader. He's qualified and can do the job. Anyway, you wanting to be taken seriously after your massive flip flop on Obama is also what is sad.

With all that said, I have loooonnnngggg been a proponent of giving a loud mouth enough rope to hang themselves. Romney has "bad behavior", is "flawed", and doesn't inspire huh? Well, let's take a look at that:

QuoteWhile water temperatures were a balmy 75 degrees, the deepening darkness obscured other boaters' vision -- prompting the victims' terrified howls as they were buzzed by other vessels cruising in the entrance to Wolfeboro Bay.

Chasing fleeting glimpses of "bobbling heads" in the water, the Romney trio arrived on their two Jet Skis to find three women and three men wearing lifejackets they hadn't even had time to buckle.

The governor pulled the two younger women aboard his three-seater Jet Ski and zoomed back to shore, while his sons helped the mother of the family onto their vehicle.

In the middle of the rescue, the governor actually took a dunking himself -- thrown off the Jet Ski as one anxious boater scrambled aboard and tipped the craft off-balance.

The rescuing Romneys also managed to snatch the family dog, McKenzie, from a watery grave -- grabbing the Scottish terrier first because it was the only passenger without a lifejacket.

http://www.dailynewstranscript.com/news/x1128483358?zc_p=0#axzz1l9jpsMrS

My gosh, he even saved the dog (no word on whether he ate it later  :P) Or there's this:

QuoteAs we reported then, based on contemporary news reports, the girl sneaked away on July 6, 1996, to go to a rave party in New York City, where she took the drug Ecstasy. She had told her parents she was playing tennis. When she didn't return, Boston-based Bain Capital, where Romney was founder and CEO, essentially shut down to help search for Gay's 14-year-old daughter Melissa. Bain Capital's 50 employees went to New York, where they convinced more than 200 other people to help search the streets for two days. They printed and passed out fliers. Romney clearly had a leading role in the company's operations, but news reports from the time also said other Bain partners helped coordinate the search effort...


By all accounts, the effort by Bain employees was central to the effort to locate the girl, and Romney reportedly played a significant role in that effort. We give the account now circulating a rating of True.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/30/chain-email/viral-internet-story-says-mitt-romney-helped-locat/

Yeah, saving lives makes people flawed and uninspiring.

edited. The guy isn't perfect. Just get some damned perspective.

Then what is the purpose of excelling in high school or college? If it is all just "high school" smile, or immature young people smile, then why should we pay any attention to the positive accomplishments of that time period? Remember, at 18 there are Romney's and Obama's serving in the military and holding down reponsible jobs. High school punk one year, responsible young adult the next. Do you think that a year earlier when Romney held down a gay and sheared his hair or harassed a gay guy in class that a year later he is substantially different? Or that Obama's youthful indiscretions of smoking a joint negate his successes from that time period? His penchant for exploring new experiences, of intellectual curiosity suddenly disappears a year later? If so, you need to discount all of their successes and heroism at that age.

The serious truth is that few people change the framework of their personalities after the age of 3-5 years old. By that time the way you view the world and how you process information, socialize, received or give love, learn, even your preference for politics is pretty much set. Your parents and the environment you were first nurtured in setup your framework. Everything after that is fine tuning.

I would much rather support a man who smoked a joint in high school to one who bullied people in high school. But then that's just me.

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-8W1Z6OeIgQ4/T6_PKfNFawI/AAAAAAAALGU/5r0827iTag0/w497-h373/mothers%2Bday.jpg)

http://swampland.time.com/2012/05/11/bully-pulpit-second-thoughts/?xid=rss-topstories

Bully Pulpit Second ThoughtsBy Joe Klein

I fear that I went too easy on Mitt Romney with regard to his high school bullying escapades. It's not the incident itself that troubles me — though it was, obviously, outrageous and disgraceful — so much as his current response: He doesn't remember it. This is patent nonsense. How could he not remember it? Obviously he remembers it, or he wouldn't have been so quick to issue his blanket apology yesterday for any and all hurt he may have caused at Cranbrook.  And this transparent fudge once again raises questions about his character.

It comes during the same week that he claims credit for saving the auto industry, even though he opposed the bailout that made possible the structured bankruptcy he favored. It comes the same week that he expresses his opposition to gay marriage, even though he promised to be a more aggressive proponent of gay rights than Ted Kennedy when he ran for the Senate in 1994 — of course, it's possible that Romney has evolved in the opposite direction as President Obama, and most Americans, on this issue, but I doubt it. It seems a day can't go by without some Romney embarrassment or bald-faced reversal of a former position.

I'm still waiting for the moment when Romney actually tells the truth about something difficult. He could have said, "You know, I've been troubled by the Cranbrook episode for most of my life, and I feel relieved, in a way, that it's come out now. I did a really stupid and terrible thing. Teenage boys sometimes do such things and deserve to be punished for them. What I most regret is that I never apologized to John and won't be able to now that he's gone, but let me apologize to his family and friends. Bullying is unacceptable under any circumstances. It is especially unacceptable when prejudice — against one's race, ethnicity or sexual orientation — is involved. If elected President, I will try to atone for my teenage behavior by campaigning against bullying all across this country. What I did back then should be an example of how not to behave. I hope we can all learn from this. I know I have."

Instead, Romney has a near perfect record of cowardice, obfuscation and downright lies. It shows enormous disrespect for the intelligence of the public.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?subjectid=61&articleid=20120514_61_A7_Mostev333944

How could Romney forget such a 'prank?'
By World's Editorials Writers
Published: 5/14/2012 

Most everyone has done something in their youth that makes them cringe years later. The teen years are especially fraught with regrets. Mitt Romney evidently had a regrettable incident of his own. But he doesn't remember. A prep school classmate of the presumptive Republican presidential candidate told the Washington Post that he saw Romney and some buddies hold down a classmate and cut off chunks of his long hair. This allegedly took place at school in 1965. The witness, Phillip Maxwell, says he is still haunted by what he saw and wishes he had done something to stop it.

Maxwell is like most of us. Those embarrassing, sometimes hurtful, things we did or failed to do as kids never leave us. We think of them sometimes in the middle of the night. We have regrets.

That's the difference between most of us and Romney. He says he doesn't remember any of it. He did say that he engaged in some pranks that "might have gone too far" and he apologized for them: "Back in high school, I did some dumb things, and if anybody was hurt by that or offended, obviously I apologize for that." The victim of this "prank" is not around to verify or deny the story; he died in 2004.

The fact that the former governor might have been involved in what some are calling an assault is not the issue. No one is looking to bring Romney up on assault charges. What is disturbing is that he won't simply admit to making a bad decision when he was younger or categorically deny it and move on. It is very difficult for most people to believe that he doesn't remember such an event.

And there's this: If he really doesn't remember, it calls into question his conscience. If he does remember and chooses to deny, then that makes him disingenuous. This was not a "senior moment" for Romney. It would be something most people would never forget, no matter how old they are.

I graduated from high school 28 years ago.  I don't remember every stupid or painful thing I ever did.  Who really does?  I'm sure if I polled some of your buddies from Will Rogers or Aqua Man's from Central, I might hear some really shocking stuff.  You might not even remember the incidents yourself, but as a football player, it's probably a better chance than not you bullied someone at some point.  I'm sure I probably called someone a fag for grabbing my gym bag.  I'm sure I probably pushed someone who pissed me off.  I'm sure I probably made disparaging comments toward someone I secretly envied or who was creepy and made me feel uncomfortable. 

Do your stupid actions in high school define who you are now or how you carry out your job duties?  Of course not.

It's obvious you libs are going to vote for Obama and won't vote for Romney.  If you think an incident which happened 46 years ago really defines a candidate, that means you can't find anything substantive in his professional record which makes him ill-suited for the presidency.  There apparently isn't much in Obama's record to defend or boast about so it's far easier to point to incidents in Romney's live which happened more than half his lifetime ago.  The other problem with this story is one person seems to be at the center of promoting it.  Even the "victim's" family knows nothing or little of the event.  Wow, he's been "haunted" by it for 46 years?  Get a friggin' therapist, pull the arrow out, and move on.

Aside from Bill Clinton, how many recent presidents or presidential candidates really are in touch with the average American or knew what it was like to grow up disadvantaged?  Obama sure as heck isn't in touch and doesn't appear to have been very disadvantaged unless you mistakenly think skin color is a handicap.

Quote from: Conan71 on May 14, 2012, 09:23:09 AM
I graduated from high school 28 years ago.  I don't remember every stupid or painful thing I ever did.  Who really does?  I'm sure if I polled some of your buddies from Will Rogers or Aqua Man's from Central, I might hear some really shocking stuff.  You might not even remember the incidents yourself, but as a football player, it's probably a better chance than not you bullied someone at some point.  I'm sure I probably called someone a fag for grabbing my gym bag.  I'm sure I probably pushed someone who pissed me off.  I'm sure I probably made disparaging comments toward someone I secretly envied or who was creepy and made me feel uncomfortable. 

Do your stupid actions in high school define who you are now or how you carry out your job duties?  Of course not.

It's obvious you libs are going to vote for Obama and won't vote for Romney.  If you think an incident which happened 46 years ago really defines a candidate, that means you can't find anything substantive in his professional record which makes him ill-suited for the presidency.  There apparently isn't much in Obama's record to defend or boast about so it's far easier to point to incidents in Romney's live which happened more than half his lifetime ago.  The other problem with this story is one person seems to be at the center of promoting it.  Even the "victim's" family knows nothing or little of the event.  Wow, he's been "haunted" by it for 46 years?  Get a friggin' therapist, pull the arrow out, and move on.

Aside from Bill Clinton, how many recent presidents or presidential candidates really are in touch with the average American or knew what it was like to grow up disadvantaged?  Obama sure as heck isn't in touch and doesn't appear to have been very disadvantaged unless you mistakenly think skin color is a handicap.

I'll likely not vote for Romney and still unsure if I will vote incumbent.  Romney's issue with me has nothing to do with bullying, or dog on the top of the car.  It has everything to do with pandering on a position....the so called "Etch A Sketch" issue with him.  First he was ok with abortion, then he was against it when it was prudent to do so.  Then he essentially created an "ObamaCare" in Massachusetts, but said the first thing he'd do if elected would be to repeal "Obama/Romneycare".  He's a flip-flopper, plain and simple.  And his apparent disconnect to the 'common-folk' is really what did it for me.  The comment during one of the debates where he bets a fellow Republican $10,000 on a point he made was a huge mistake and hurt him, IMO.

He panders to the extreme of the Republican Party, when his views don't reflect that's where he comes from.

Quote from: Hoss on May 14, 2012, 09:43:25 AM
He panders to the extreme of the Republican Party, when his views don't reflect that's where he comes from.

Those extremists will cost him the election.  I heard one evangelical say "Jesus isn't on the ballot this election" on an interview on NPR.

What happened with McCain will happen with Romney.  They just won't show up to vote.

Those are the folks that make me dislike what the Republican party has become.

..and Romney's a hair puller.

Quote from: Conan71 on May 14, 2012, 09:23:09 AM
It's obvious you libs are going to vote for Obama and won't vote for Romney.  If you think an incident which happened 46 years ago really defines a candidate, that means you can't find anything substantive in his professional record which makes him ill-suited for the presidency. 

Why would you assume this is the single incident that made us decide to not support Romney?

This is why I don't support Romney. I wrote it here five weeks ago...

I could never vote for Romney. I think he represents everything I hate about politicians. He has no core values and has been on both sides of every issue. He says what ever he thinks will make him popular. He was pro-choice, then pro-life. He was against the assault weapons ban, then was for it a few years later. Romney was supportive of the stimulus package, then said he was against it. He campaigned for Governor in a democrat state saying he was opposed to the economic policies of Reagan, then while running for president as a republican, says Reagan's policies were correct. He has flat out lied about immigration saying he has never hired an illegal immigrant, then minutes later admits to hiring a lawn company that used them. He believed in global warming in June, then said he did not believe in it in October last year. He said he would never sign a no new tax pledge, then announced he was the only candidate to sign it. He was for the auto bailout, then decided he was against it.

I believe in the ability and need to change your mind. I think it is one of the most important aspects of critical thinking. Circumstances do change. But with Romney, I don't think he ever really has given any issue any thought. He just says what he thinks people want to hear and stands for nothing.

Romney is a wind vain pointing whichever way the wind blows. I want a president who wants to change the wind, not point it out.   
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=18908.msg234754#msg234754

Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 14, 2012, 10:58:00 AM
Why would you assume this is the single incident that made us decide to not support Romney?

This is why I don't support Romney. I wrote it here five weeks ago...

I'm in the tank for Obama.  Pure and simple.  I've never voted for a Republican for president and it won't happen now.   
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=18908.msg234754#msg234754

Edited for brevity.

Quote from: Conan71 on May 14, 2012, 12:44:33 PM
Edited for brevity.

Could also be edited to say Obama instead of Romney.

I have it on good authority that Romney also used to burn ants with a magnifying glass.

OK conan.

Please explain why you support Romney. Try to focus on the actual candidate, his experience, his beliefs you agree with, etc.

Or are you just a poser?

Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 14, 2012, 02:19:42 PM
OK conan.

Please explain why you support Romney. Try to focus on the actual candidate, his experience, his beliefs you agree with, etc.

Or are you just a poser?

No I'm not a poser.  I'm a racist, that's why I'm voting for the homophobic white guy Romney.

Okay, seriously, I think either choice is still a pile, it's figuring out which one has the least disagreeable aftertaste.

In my mind, the biggest single issue still facing the United States after four years is the economy.  My personal belief is Romney is better suited to lead the country to a full recovery with his better understanding of what it really takes for business to be successful.  Of course Bain has had failures, what the cutesy Youtube videos fail to take into account is how much success Bain has incubated which might not have happened without their funding and management guidance.  I think he's a smart businessman, brilliant leader, and moderate enough to get the country moving forward again.  I'm hoping he will be a good consensus builder and will do a better job at bi-partisanship than "take it or leave it" or sticking "gotchas" into every piece of legislation he'd like to make Democrats look like crap.  He's at least shown as much as Governor of Mass.  He's shown great leadership in every endeavor he's undertaken.

On the other hand, I think President Obama is an all-around nice and charming guy.  He comes off as a great family guy with great family values.  He's a bright guy, great scholar, good orator, but he's never run a business in his life.  He looks at the economy through theory only, not theory mixed with a real world working knowledge of it.  I think had he walked in under any other economic circumstances he would have had a great first term in office and could be a shoo in for a second term.  To be perfectly honest, I don't think McCain had really much more of a grasp on real world economics either, he's been in D.C. far too long.

I'm interested to hear more about proposed energy policy from both candidates.  That's a major issue to my personal economics.  I haven't made my mind up yet on which way I will vote though I can honestly say there's very little chance I'd vote for Obama based on his first term performance.  His priorities were out of whack, he went right to work on healthcare reform when we needed 100% focus on saving the economy.  He's abdicated leadership to Congress and others on our most pressing issues.  He's ignored the advice of what I thought was a brilliant economic panel, and his only excuse for poor performance and unmet expectations was it was all the fault of his predecessor.  He's a great mid-level management guy, someone who could inspire a sales team, but he's not really fit for CEO duty.

Hey, you axed.

Running a business is not like running the government, else Hank Paulson would have been one of the best Treasury Secretaries in history. The problem is that all of the Republicans who make it to the point where they are running for high office don't run businesses very well at all. They make their money from government subsidies, like when Bain buys a company and dumps its pension obligations on the PBGC after sucking money out of it with management fees. Or when GWB made a bunch of money on the Rangers thanks to the stadium taxpayers paid most of the cost for (and arguably abused eminent domain to get the land).

Why would I want a President who is going to lead us even farther down the road of corporate socialism? At least Obama talks about forcing companies to stand on their own two feet.

Quote from: nathanm on May 14, 2012, 02:45:41 PM
Running a business is not like running the government, else Hank Paulson would have been one of the best Treasury Secretaries in history. The problem is that all of the Republicans who make it to the point where they are running for high office don't run businesses very well at all. They make their money from government subsidies, like when Bain buys a company and dumps its pension obligations on the PBGC after sucking money out of it with management fees. Or when GWB made a bunch of money on the Rangers thanks to the stadium taxpayers paid most of the cost for (and arguably abused eminent domain to get the land).

Why would I want a President who is going to lead us even farther down the road of corporate socialism? At least Obama talks about forcing companies to stand on their own two feet.

You have to have an inner knowledge of how business works to help business succeed.

Force companies to stand on their own two feet and give the workers no incentive to find a job.  Check.  Obama talks a good game, but what has he done significantly different than President Bush in terms of corporate welfare?

Quote from: Conan71 on May 14, 2012, 02:48:30 PM
You have to have an inner knowledge of how business works to help business succeed.

Force companies to stand on their own two feet and give the workers no incentive to find a job.  Check.  Obama talks a good game, but what has he done significantly different than President Bush in terms of corporate welfare?

Bush ran several companies.  Look how well he ran our economy.  Into the ground.

Quote from: nathanm on May 14, 2012, 02:45:41 PM
Why would I want a President who is going to lead us even farther down the road of corporate socialism? At least Obama talks about forcing companies to stand on their own two feet.

Oil companies maybe. No subsidies for them.

Quote from: Hoss on May 14, 2012, 02:50:42 PM
Bush ran several companies.  Look how well he ran our economy.  Into the ground.

Yeah, because we know he did that all on his own, right?

If I've got this straight. You are criticizing Romney for not really being a business man as much as a government insider, yet you support the quintessential political insider? Is Romney just not enough of a political hack?

Quote from: Conan71 on May 14, 2012, 02:58:36 PM
Yeah, because we know he did that all on his own, right?

Hey, the righties right now are blaming Obama for this.  He's not void of fault but let's not kid ourselves Colin.  There's enough blame to go around.  For someone who had six years of a Republican controlled congress, he sure didn't spend like a fiscal conservative, now did he?  What was it you said?  "Like a drunk sailor on leave"?

Quote from: erfalf on May 14, 2012, 02:58:42 PM
If I've got this straight. You are criticizing Romney for not really being a business man as much as a government insider, yet you support the quintessential political insider? Is Romney just not enough of a political hack?

Dude burned ants as a kid.  Isn't that enough?

Quote from: Hoss on May 14, 2012, 03:01:59 PM
Hey, the righties right now are blaming Obama for this.  He's not void of fault but let's not kid ourselves Colin.  There's enough blame to go around.  For someone who had six years of a Republican controlled congress, he sure didn't spend like a fiscal conservative, now did he?  What was it you said?  "Like a drunk sailor on leave"?

I actually do think the tax cut was the appropriate response to the slowdown we were encountering toward the end of the Clinton Admin.  His biggest failing was maintaining a tax cut in the aftermath of a national emergency then creating another stupid bureaucracy as a knee-jerk response to 9/11, then still not doing anything to raise revenue under an economy which was pretty robust even as we faced multiple costly national disasters.

There's plenty of documentation he tried to reign in the derivatives and financial markets and he was blocked multiple times.  That's what sparked the ultimate collapse in the first place.  Sometimes I wish he'd have made us just deal with it in 2001 instead of continuing to put bandages on the problem and hoping it wouldn't blow up again until he left office.

From the psychological aspect, Bush was far more pro-business (in liberalspeak that translates to: anti-environment, starve the poor, and throw grandma under the bus) than Obama.  Obama kept on beating on the economy for over two years instead of inspiring any confidence in it.  A major component to every recession or depression is the confidence people and companies have in the economy and it's leadership.  If people perceive the actions of an administration are anti-business and the leader is saying the situation is bleak, they can sit on their money and wait for a more business-friendly environment.  The perception is even more powerful than reality when you are speaking to people who can afford to hire new people (or spend money in the consumer economy) or simply sit on their wallet.

Quote from: Conan71 on May 14, 2012, 02:48:30 PM
Obama talks a good game, but what has he done significantly different than President Bush in terms of corporate welfare?

Not much other than words. Congress (where the real problem lies) hasn't exactly been amenable to the idea of eliminating corporate welfare. Welfare is actually a bad term, since it implies that you get help only when you're down. I did the math the other day, over the last 10 years on the order of 10% of the profits from the oil business have come from government tax breaks, subsidies, and whatever else we give them.

Maybe I haven't looked closely enough at their financial statements, but the big guys seem to be doing well enough to not need to take our tax money.

Conan: please provide the documentation of the Bush administration's efforts to do anything about subprime and derivatives. Maybe I missed something, but I recall the last real effort was when Brooksley Born tried to use the CFTC to regulate derivatives, which Congress quickly forbade (largely at the behest of Larry effin' Summers and Alan Greenspan). I don't remember any action on the part of Congress or the administration to change the law such that derivatives could be regulated or even brought into the public eye until Dodd-Frank, which of course had most of the useful regulation and the requirement that derivatives contracts be traded openly dropped before passage.

Quote from: nathanm on May 14, 2012, 03:20:39 PM
Not much other than words. Congress (where the real problem lies) hasn't exactly been amenable to the idea of eliminating corporate welfare. Welfare is actually a bad term, since it implies that you get help only when you're down. I did the math the other day, over the last 10 years on the order of 10% of the profits from the oil business have come from government tax breaks, subsidies, and whatever else we give them.

Maybe I haven't looked closely enough at their financial statements, but the big guys seem to be doing well enough to not need to take our tax money.

Conan: please provide the documentation of the Bush administration's efforts to do anything about subprime and derivatives. Maybe I missed something, but I recall the last real effort was when Brooksley Born tried to use the CFTC to regulate derivatives, which Congress quickly forbade (largely at the behest of Larry effin' Summers and Alan Greenspan). I don't remember any action on the part of Congress or the administration to change the law such that derivatives could be regulated or even brought into the public eye until Dodd-Frank, which of course had most of the useful regulation and the requirement that derivatives contracts be traded openly dropped before passage.

Posted multiple times on this forum by multiple posters, use the Googlez it's out there.

Quote from: Conan71 on May 14, 2012, 03:15:11 PM
I actually do think the tax cut was the appropriate response to the slowdown we were encountering toward the end of the Clinton Admin.  His biggest failing was maintaining a tax cut in the aftermath of a national emergency then creating another stupid bureaucracy as a knee-jerk response to 9/11, then still not doing anything to raise revenue under an economy which was pretty robust even as we faced multiple costly national disasters.

There's plenty of documentation he tried to reign in the derivatives and financial markets and he was blocked multiple times.  That's what sparked the ultimate collapse in the first place.  Sometimes I wish he'd have made us just deal with it in 2001 instead of continuing to put bandages on the problem and hoping it wouldn't blow up again until he left office.

From the psychological aspect, Bush was far more pro-business (in liberalspeak that translates to: anti-environment, starve the poor, and throw grandma under the bus) than Obama.  Obama kept on beating on the economy for over two years instead of inspiring any confidence in it.  A major component to every recession or depression is the confidence people and companies have in the economy and it's leadership.  If people perceive the actions of an administration are anti-business and the leader is saying the situation is bleak, they can sit on their money and wait for a more business-friendly environment.  The perception is even more powerful than reality when you are speaking to people who can afford to hire new people (or spend money in the consumer economy) or simply sit on their wallet.

Larry Summers pleaded for more stimulus only to be cut short. Looks like he was right. The economy drags on to the tune of slow growth.

Conan, where'd you get your degree in economics? CMC?

Quote from: Conan71 on May 14, 2012, 03:22:52 PM
Posted multiple times on this forum by multiple posters, use the Googlez it's out there.

Funny, if I do a search for "bush derivatives regulation" I get one article talking about how Bush admin appointees kept telling Congress derivatives regulation was not only unnecessary but harmful to the economy and a bunch of others talking about Clinton's failure to regulate them when he had the chance (and one article quoting him as saying that was a mistake).

The only person I know of that made any move in that direction was Sheila Bair, but she didn't even see the problem until 2007 or 2008. (which she once stated herself on Frontline, IIRC) Given that it was her agency, the FDIC, that would end up on the hook for thousands of bank failures, it makes a certain amount of sense she would have said something.

I didn't know the guy burned ants with a magnifying glass. Welcome to the club Mr. R. They asked for it.

That aside, I find it interesting that Conan and others would dwell on Mr. R's business expertise. I seem to remember a difference between knowledge and skill at a micro level versus a macro level. R's experience in business has been pretty narrowly constructed and I don't think of the world that way anymore. If countries overseas, like Greece, China or France sneeze, we feel fever, aches and pain over here. How does he take his experience at making money and translate it to dealing with countries with totally different goals and systems.

Making huge sums of money ain't all that in some countries, especially if it was on the backs of others rather than through resource exploitation, ingenious products or labor.

Quote from: AquaMan on May 14, 2012, 06:08:28 PM
I didn't know the guy burned ants with a magnifying glass. Welcome to the club Mr. R. They asked for it.

That aside, I find it interesting that Conan and others would dwell on Mr. R's business expertise. I seem to remember a difference between knowledge and skill at a micro level versus a macro level. R's experience in business has been pretty narrowly constructed and I don't think of the world that way anymore. If countries overseas, like Greece, China or France sneeze, we feel fever, aches and pain over here. How does he take his experience at making money and translate it to dealing with countries with totally different goals and systems.

Making huge sums of money ain't all that in some countries, especially if it was on the backs of others rather than through resource exploitation, ingenious products or labor.

Silly me!!!  President Obama's economic success has been so amazing, why on earth would I figure you would vote for anyone else?

In addition to having more than a basic grasp of economics, Romney has run a government budget, ostensibly quite successfully.  Romney rescued an Olympics which was destined to be a bust.  That's a good deal more experience than Mr. Obama brought to the office.

Quote from: Gaspar on May 14, 2012, 03:03:50 PM
Dude burned ants as a kid.  Isn't that enough?

Now THAT was fun!!

Quote from: Conan71 on May 14, 2012, 08:34:27 PM
Silly me!!!  President Obama's economic success has been so amazing, why on earth would I figure you would vote for anyone else?

In addition to having more than a basic grasp of economics, Romney has run a government (small state) budget, ostensibly (judgment call) quite successfully.  Romney rescued an Olympics which was destined to be a bust (again, limited scope).  That's a good deal more experience than Mr. Obama brought to the office.

I expected no less from you. But it doesn't answer the question, it merely attempts to denigrate Obama as having had no experience either. Well, if that was true, it isn't now and if you believe he has been such an abject failure with that previous lack of experience, why would you want to make the same mistake again?

Truly, the thought was not mine. An economist friend of mine pointed out that Romney's experience on a micro level of making money off of our system would be practically useless on a larger world stage and that the global/macro view is what we need to succeed economically.

Quote from: AquaMan on May 14, 2012, 09:37:06 PM
Well, if that was true, it isn't now and if you believe he has been such an abject failure with that previous lack of experience, why would you want to make the same mistake again?

Some people learn more from their experiences than others.  Spin that however you want.

Quote from: Conan71 on May 14, 2012, 08:34:27 PM
Silly me!!!  President Obama's economic success has been so amazing, why on earth would I figure you would vote for anyone else?

In addition to having more than a basic grasp of economics, Romney has run a government budget, ostensibly quite successfully.  Romney rescued an Olympics which was destined to be a bust.  That's a good deal more experience than Mr. Obama brought to the office.

I came across this on Wikipedia over the weekend, Conan.

Romney worked to ensure the safety of the Games following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks by coordinating a $300 million security budget. Overall, he oversaw a $1.32 billion budget, 700 employees, and 26,000 volunteers. The federal government provided $382 million of that budget, much of it because Romney lobbied Congress to provide money for security- and non-security-related items. An additional federal $1.1 billion was spent on indirect support in the form of highway and transit projects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney)

One positive note, and that's Mitt and his wife donated $1 million of their own money to the Olympics and he donated the $1.4 million he received in salary and severance to charity.  But there's no denying that the federal government (and presumably the state though it's not mentioned) contributed more than half the money to support the Olympics.  Transit projects are a good use of federal funds in such an effort because they don't go away when the Games are over, yet I could see the tea party fundamentalists being in a lather over it.  And I wonder if our current Republicans in the Senate would filibuster a similar use of federal funds just to deny Mr. Obama any kind of positive accomplishment.

Quote from: Ed W on May 14, 2012, 10:10:20 PM
I came across this on Wikipedia over the weekend, Conan.

Romney worked to ensure the safety of the Games following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks by coordinating a $300 million security budget. Overall, he oversaw a $1.32 billion budget, 700 employees, and 26,000 volunteers. The federal government provided $382 million of that budget, much of it because Romney lobbied Congress to provide money for security- and non-security-related items. An additional federal $1.1 billion was spent on indirect support in the form of highway and transit projects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney)

One positive note, and that's Mitt and his wife donated $1 million of their own money to the Olympics and he donated the $1.4 million he received in salary and severance to charity.  But there's no denying that the federal government (and presumably the state though it's not mentioned) contributed more than half the money to support the Olympics.  Transit projects are a good use of federal funds in such an effort because they don't go away when the Games are over, yet I could see the tea party fundamentalists being in a lather over it.  And I wonder if our current Republicans in the Senate would filibuster a similar use of federal funds just to deny Mr. Obama any kind of positive accomplishment.

Is the world flat?  Well, to the Tea Partiers, anyway....

:P

Quote from: Conan71 on May 14, 2012, 02:48:30 PM
You have to have an inner knowledge of how business works to help business succeed.

Force companies to stand on their own two feet and give the workers no incentive to find a job.  Check.  Obama talks a good game, but what has he done significantly different than President Bush in terms of corporate welfare?

You left out that you need a little luck. How has RMoney been lucky?

You keep ignoring the fact that it was under Obama's leadership that the banking system stabilized. QE1 and QE2 may have been brought on by the FED but the coordinated effort between treasury and the President brought about the confidence necessary to stabilize a situation that will come to be known as the edge of the abyss. You must have a short memory not to recall what was taking place in 2008. The GOP/Teabaggers, for their own political benefit, used obstinacy as their method which has had a negative effect on confidence in government and stalled any recovery.

You think people don't see this charade? Doesn't it look like you are just a participant in the "set up" portion of the failed GOP/Teabagger Sting?

Quote from: erfalf on May 14, 2012, 02:58:42 PM
If I've got this straight. You are criticizing Romney for not really being a business man as much as a government insider, yet you support the quintessential political insider? Is Romney just not enough of a political hack?

.

No, he's a dick.....with a christian conscience....

It's going to be alright. You can all sleep with the light on for the next four years if you like. :)

Quote from: Teatownclown on May 14, 2012, 11:34:59 PM
You left out that you need a little luck. How has RMoney been lucky?

You keep ignoring the fact that it was under Obama's leadership that the banking system stabilized. QE1 and QE2 may have been brought on by the FED but the coordinated effort between treasury and the President brought about the confidence necessary to stabilize a situation that will come to be known as the edge of the abyss. You must have a short memory not to recall what was taking place in 2008. The GOP/Teabaggers, for their own political benefit, used obstinacy as their method which has had a negative effect on confidence in government and stalled any recovery.

Whomever the next president was, the banking situation had to be and would be stabilized.  That's sort of the same thing as acting like Obama giving the okay to bag Bin Laden was something any other sitting president wouldn't have done last year.

I'm not aware of any prior superior finance experience which would suggest POTUS Obama acted alone in stabilizing the banking system.

He's had a couple of great opportunities to take credit for other people's work.  Meh. Must run in the administration.

Quote from: Ed W on May 14, 2012, 10:10:20 PM
I came across this on Wikipedia over the weekend, Conan.

Romney worked to ensure the safety of the Games following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks by coordinating a $300 million security budget. Overall, he oversaw a $1.32 billion budget, 700 employees, and 26,000 volunteers. The federal government provided $382 million of that budget, much of it because Romney lobbied Congress to provide money for security- and non-security-related items. An additional federal $1.1 billion was spent on indirect support in the form of highway and transit projects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney)

One positive note, and that's Mitt and his wife donated $1 million of their own money to the Olympics and he donated the $1.4 million he received in salary and severance to charity.  But there's no denying that the federal government (and presumably the state though it's not mentioned) contributed more than half the money to support the Olympics.  Transit projects are a good use of federal funds in such an effort because they don't go away when the Games are over, yet I could see the tea party fundamentalists being in a lather over it.  And I wonder if our current Republicans in the Senate would filibuster a similar use of federal funds just to deny Mr. Obama any kind of positive accomplishment.

The Olympics is a major global tourism draw and communities also wind up with more than just new roads, they get new stadiums and arenas and improvements to sporting facilities.  Those are the kinds of things which improve the livability of a region.  Yes, region.  I think most people realize an Olympics may encompass a 100 mile or so radius for all the sporting events to take place.

To me, it's along the lines of cities building arenas which have a tangible value well beyond any monetary payback.

I've been doing more reading on Romney and I see some very good leadership tendencies from his tenure as the Massachusetts governor, as well as a pretty good ability to gain bi-partisan cooperation.  If you have the time:

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/whitepapers/?subsec=137&id=905

Quote from: Conan71 on May 15, 2012, 08:40:14 AM
Whomever the next president was, the banking situation had to be and would be stabilized.  That's sort of the same thing as acting like Obama giving the okay to bag Bin Laden was something any other sitting president wouldn't have done last year.

I'm not aware of any prior superior finance experience which would suggest POTUS Obama acted alone in stabilizing the banking system.

He's had a couple of great opportunities to take credit for other people's work.  Meh. Must run in the administration.

Translation: he may not accept responsibility for successes or improvements and he must take responsibility for all failures and negativity.

Take a fishing trip. Whomever goes fishing will find that there are fish in the lake so catching one is no big deal. They are there for everyone. If you use your guts and skill to shoot a water moccasin while running your trout line, well, anyone would have done that, just aim and fire, so no big deal. Absolutely no evidence that you have any fishing or defensive skills whatsoever.

But come home on a stretcher with a snake bite and no fish and sure enough you ain't no fisherman.

Quote from: Conan71 on May 15, 2012, 08:40:14 AM
That's sort of the same thing as acting like Obama giving the okay to bag Bin Laden was something any other sitting president wouldn't have done last year.

Bush said he wasn't important anymore. McCain said we shouldn't go into Pakistan to get him. Romney said it wasn't worth spending money to catch him. Of course, three days later Romney reversed his position and said Bin Laden is going to pay and he is going to die.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 15, 2012, 02:00:56 PM
Bush said he wasn't important anymore. McCain said we shouldn't go into Pakistan to get him. Romney said it wasn't worth spending money to catch him. Of course, three days later Romney reversed his position and said Bin Laden is going to pay and he is going to die.

Please, you are making yourself look ridiculous.  Aside from being a top security priority, it was a once-in-a-lifetime PR coup for any leader that no president would have refused to act on- especially after how hard Clinton got crapped on for not acting on the opportunity to seize or kill him in the 1990s.

Quote
Jose A. Rodriguez Jr. is a 31-year veteran of the CIA and the author of "Hard Measures: How Aggressive CIA Actions After 9/11 Saved American Lives."

As we mark the anniversary of Osama bin Laden's death, President Obama deserves credit for making the right choice on taking out Public Enemy No. 1.

But his administration never would have had the opportunity to do the right thing had it not been for some extraordinary work during the George W. Bush administration. Much of that work has been denigrated by Obama as unproductive and contrary to American principles.

He is wrong on both counts.

Shortly after bin Laden met his maker last spring, courtesy of U.S. Special Forces and intelligence, the administration proudly announced that when Obama took office, getting bin Laden was made a top priority. Many of us who served in senior counterterrorism positions in the Bush administration were left muttering: "Gee, why didn't we think of that?"

The truth is that getting bin Laden was the top counterterrorism objective for U.S. intelligence since well before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. This administration built on work pain­stakingly pursued for many years before Obama was elected — and without this work, Obama administration officials never would have been in a position to authorize the strike on Abbottabad, Pakistan, that resulted in bin Laden's overdue death.

In 2004, an al-Qaeda terrorist was captured trying to communicate with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of the terror organization's operations in Iraq. That captured terrorist was taken to a secret CIA prison — or "black site" — where, initially, he was uncooperative. After being subjected to some "enhanced interrogation techniques" — techniques authorized by officials at the most senior levels of the U.S. government and that the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel confirmed were consistent with U.S. law — the detainee became compliant. He was not one of the three al-Qaeda operatives who underwent waterboarding, the harshest of the hard measures.

Once this terrorist decided that non-cooperation was a non-starter, he told us many things — including that bin Laden had given up communicating via telephone, radio or Internet, and depended solely on a single courier who went by "Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti." At the time, I was chief of the CIA's Counterterrorism Center. The fact that bin Laden was relying on a lone courier was a revelation that told me bin Laden had given up day-to-day control of his organization. You can't run an operation as large, complex and ambitious as al-Qaeda by communicating only every few months. It also told me that capturing him would be even harder than we had thought.

Armed with the pseudonym of bin Laden's courier, we pressed on. We asked other detainees in our custody if they had ever heard of "al-Kuwaiti." Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, reacted in horror when he heard the name. He backed into his cell and vigorously denied ever hearing of the man. We later intercepted communications KSM sent to fellow detainees at the black site, in which he instructed them: "Tell them nothing about the courier!"

In 2005 another senior detainee, Abu Faraj al-Libi, told us that this courier had informed him that Libi had been selected to be al-Qaeda's No. 3 official. Surely that kind of information is delivered only by highly placed individuals.

A couple of years later, after I became head of the National Clandestine Service, the CIA was able to discover the true name of the courier. Armed with that information, the agency worked relentlessly to locate that man. Finding him eventually led to tracking down and killing bin Laden.

With some trying to turn bin Laden's death into a campaign talking point for Obama's reelection, it is useful to remember that the trail to bin Laden started in a CIA black site — all of which Obama ordered closed, forever, on the second full day of his administration — and stemmed from information obtained from hardened terrorists who agreed to tell us some (but not all) of what they knew after undergoing harsh but legal interrogation methods. Obama banned those methods on Jan. 22, 2009.

This past weekend, Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Carl Levin attacked statements made in May 2011 by me, former CIA director Michael Hayden and former attorney general Michael Mukasey regarding what led to bin Laden's death. They misunderstood and mischaracterized our positions.

No single tactic, technique or approach led to the successful operation against bin Laden. But those who suggest it was all a result of a fresh approach taken after Jan. 20, 2009, are mistaken.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/04/books/manhunt-by-peter-l-bergen-about-the-bin-laden-killing.html?pagewanted=all

On March 14, 2011, Mr. Bergen reports, several possible courses of action were presented to Mr. Obama, including a B-2 bombing run (which would incur civilian casualties and wipe out any proof of Bin Laden's death), a drone strike (favored, Mr. Bergen says, by Gen. James Cartwright) and the SEAL raid, which the president eventually embraced.

As has been reported, the director of central intelligence at the time, Leon E. Panetta, argued for going through with the raid; Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. advised against it; and Robert M. Gates, then the secretary of defense, was worried that evidence that Bin Laden was even in the compound was circumstantial. But whereas Mr. Biden has been reported as saying that all in the room hedged their bets besides himself and Mr. Panetta, Mr. Bergen writes that — based on interviews with senior administration officials — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton followed "a long, lawyerly presentation that examined both the upsides and downsides of the raid option" with this summary: "It's a very close call, but I would say: Do the raid."

Mr. Bergen also says that the national security adviser, Thomas E. Donilon; the deputy national security advisers Denis McDonough and Benjamin J. Rhodes; Michèle Flournoy, then an under secretary of defense; and the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., among others, endorsed the raid too. He quotes Mr. Obama's top military adviser at the time, Adm. Mike Mullen, who strongly advocated the plan, as saying that it was the president who insisted on additional backup for the SEALs — a prescient call, given that one of the two primary Black Hawk helicopters crash landed, and another Chinook had to be called in to help extract the team.

Quote from: Conan71 on May 15, 2012, 02:07:57 PM
...it was a once-in-a-lifetime PR coup for any leader that no president would have refused to act on-

Then why didn't Bush?

Don't tell me that you believe the family ties between the Bush and Bin Laden families kept him from acting?

Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 15, 2012, 02:18:51 PM
Then why didn't Bush?

Don't tell me that you believe the family ties between the Bush and Bin Laden families kept him from acting?

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-leNf6VRGuww/TZOFwIlk-9I/AAAAAAAACK4/msVBuCf9zAo/s400/181148-triple_facepalm_super.jpg)

Uh gee, I dunno, something about not having a confirmed location on Bin Laden until well over two years after Bush left office. 

Quote from: Conan71 on May 15, 2012, 02:32:33 PM
Uh gee, I dunno, something about not having a confirmed location on Bin Laden until well over two years after Bush left office. 

Rumsfeld had intel equally as strong, but he or someone else nixed plans to go get him.

Quote from: nathanm on May 15, 2012, 03:07:43 PM
Rumsfeld had intel equally as strong, but he or someone else nixed plans to go get him.

I think I get it now. When Bush had bin Laden cornered in Tora Bora, Bush intentionally called off the pressure in order to let the guy go.

Quote from: guido911 on May 15, 2012, 03:32:38 PM
I think I get it now. When Bush had bin Laden cornered in Tora Bora, Bush intentionally called off the pressure in order to let the guy go.

That's not at all what I wrote.

Quote from: nathanm on May 15, 2012, 03:07:43 PM
Rumsfeld had intel equally as strong, but he or someone else nixed plans to go get him.

Care to post any direct quotes from Rumsfeld saying as much?

Quote from: Conan71 on May 15, 2012, 04:07:16 PM
Care to post any direct quotes from Rumsfeld saying as much?

No, but I do have a news story from 2007:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/world/americas/08iht-web.0708intel.6547158.html?pagewanted=all

Quote
[T]he mission was called off after Donald Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, rejected an 11th-hour appeal by Porter J. Goss, then the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, officials said. Members of a Navy Seals unit in parachute gear had already boarded C-130 cargo planes in Afghanistan when the mission was canceled, said a former senior intelligence official involved in the planning.

Pretty rich for a guy who has since stated that such a call was an easy one, now that it's politically expedient. I take no stance on that part of it.

Quote from: nathanm on May 15, 2012, 03:42:21 PM
That's not at all what I wrote.

It was really directed to RM, but it applies equally to all those who honestly believe Bush wasn't interested in getting/killing bin Laden. Cripes, all we heard about Bush was that he was a warmonger, killer, etc., yet he had no interest in killing the one guy probably most deserving???

Quote from: guido911 on May 15, 2012, 06:53:16 PM
It was really directed to RM, but it applies equally to all those who honestly believe Bush wasn't interested in getting/killing bin Laden. Cripes, all we heard about Bush was that he was a warmonger, killer, etc., yet he had no interest in killing the one guy probably most deserving???

While I don't believe he wasn't interested in it, he sure put on that front.  Doesn't exactly resonate well.

Quote from: nathanm on May 15, 2012, 06:29:44 PM
No, but I do have a news story from 2007:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/world/americas/08iht-web.0708intel.6547158.html?pagewanted=all

Pretty rich for a guy who has since stated that such a call was an easy one, now that it's politically expedient. I take no stance on that part of it.

Nice way to cherry pick the story.  Also you said Rummy rejected an opportunity to get Bin Laden.  Bin Laden wasn't even there.  Now for the reason's why it was called off for those of you who won't click the link:

QuoteA secret military operation in early 2005 to capture senior members of Al Qaeda in Pakistan's tribal areas was aborted at the last minute after top Bush administration officials decided it was too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan, according to intelligence and military officials.

The target was a meeting of Qaeda leaders that intelligence officials thought included Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden's top deputy and the man believed to run the terrorist group's operations.

QuoteRumsfeld decided that the operation, which had ballooned from a small number of military personnel and CIA operatives to several hundred, was cumbersome and put too many American lives at risk, the current and former officials said. He was also concerned that it could cause a rift with Pakistan, an often reluctant ally that has barred the American military from operating in its tribal areas, the officials said.

QuotePentagon officials familiar with covert operations said that planners had to consider the political and human risks of undertaking a military campaign in a sovereign country, even in an area like Pakistan's tribal lands, where the government has only tenuous control. Even with its shortcomings, Pakistan has been a vital American ally since the Sept. 11 attacks, and the militaries of the two countries have close ties.

The Pentagon officials said tension was inherent in any decision to approve such a mission: a smaller military footprint allows a better chance of a mission going undetected, but it also exposes the units to greater risk of being killed or captured.

Officials said one reason Rumsfeld called off the 2005 operation was that the number of troops involved in the mission had grown to several hundred, including Army Rangers, members of the Navy Seals and CIA operatives, and he determined that the United States could no longer carry out the mission without Musharraf's permission. It is unlikely that the Pakistani president would have approved an operation of that size, officials said.

And of course the sources are all confidential:

QuoteAbout a dozen current and former military and intelligence officials were interviewed for this article, all of whom requested anonymity because the planned 2005 mission remained classified.

Quote from: Hoss on May 15, 2012, 07:01:04 PM

While I don't believe he wasn't interested in it, he sure put on that front.  Doesn't exactly resonate well.

Bush deciding not to commit 100,000 special ops forces to hunt down one guy, bin Laden, is a FAR cry from not wanting him killed or a refusal to give the order to do so if Bush knew his whereabouts. If that is going to be the tack you are taking, the more suited analogy is that Obama DID dedicate 100,000 special ops forces to get bin Laden and was successful. Otherwise, the argument collapses on irrelevancy.

Quote from: guido911 on May 15, 2012, 07:10:31 PM
Bush deciding not to commit 100,000 special ops forces to hunt down one guy, bin Laden, is a FAR cry from not wanting him killed or a refusal to give the order to do so if Bush knew his whereabouts. If that is going to be the tack you are taking, the more suited analogy is that Obama DID dedicate 100,000 special ops forces to get bin Laden and was successful. Otherwise, the argument collapses on irrelevancy.

Either way, the statement he made resonated the wrong way.  I was not the one who said he was disinterested.  The President himself inferred it with his words.  I remember it pretty clearly and how many of my right-leaning friends were a little baffled at the admission.

Bush could have committed those troops had he not made the decision to invade Iraq.  He chose the wrong front.  My opinion, of course.

I'm also guessing that your statement would be reversed if the political parties in power were reversed.

I think most just found it baffling that a military as powerful and high tech as ours couldn't find this guy. Or at least I, and some that I converse with think so. I mean seriously, I hear about some of the things they do pull off and then ponder that this guy evaded us for ten plus years. Unimaginable if you ask me. I understand working across unfriendly borders is complicated but still.

Honestly though, who could say with a straight face that any sitting President wouldn't want to take out the most hated criminal on the face of the planet. Politicians are politicians first, and this would be worth way too many points in elections to pass up for any hair brained reason.

Quote from: Conan71 on May 15, 2012, 04:07:16 PM
Care to post any direct quotes from Rumsfeld saying as much?

Don't be silly.  Bush bashing requires no documentation.  It's just all true.

Quote from: Hoss on May 15, 2012, 07:17:13 PM


I'm also guessing that your statement would be reversed if the political parties in power were reversed.

Nope.

Exhibit A:  My not continuing to harp on the nabbing of KSM, Padilla, Zubayda, or Saddam Hussein. Did Clinton keep taking credit (victory lapping) for the arrest of McVeigh? How about FDR when the German spies/saboteurs were caught in 1942?

As for Bush's message resonating. Not quite sure how to get past the earlier warmonger/torturer label he has. I also cannot get past the damned crickets from the left over Clinton's inability to get bin Laden when he had the chance(s).

Quote from: Conan71 on May 15, 2012, 07:09:19 PM
Nice way to cherry pick the story.  Also you said Rummy rejected an opportunity to get Bin Laden.  Bin Laden wasn't even there.  Now for the reason's why it was called off for those of you who won't click the link:

Choose to ignore the Secretary's plain language when he stated that the intelligence used to capture bin Laden was developed from waterboarding if you like.



People have been convicted of murder with less evidence than this. ;)

Guido, the only victory lapping is in Roger Ailes' head.

Quote from: guido911 on May 15, 2012, 08:09:55 PM
Nope.

Exhibit A:  My not continuing to harp on the nabbing of KSM, Padilla, Zubayda, or Saddam Hussein. Did Clinton keep taking credit (victory lapping) for the arrest of McVeigh? How about FDR when the German spies/saboteurs were caught in 1942?

As for Bush's message resonating. Not quite sure how to get past the earlier warmonger/torturer label he has. I also cannot get past the damned crickets from the left over Clinton's inability to get bin Laden when he had the chance(s).

McVeigh - Al Qaeda is apples and oranges.  McVeigh, in some circles, in considered a patriot.  A patriot because he stood up to the government in some eyes.  In other words, not a foreigner.  He was still a terrorist.

And I'll give you the issue with Clinton.

But Bush can't get away with this one...first week of his Presidency.

https://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/clarke%20memo.pdf

It is clear that even video of Bush saying we wasn't all that concerned with Bin Laden will convince the Bush spooners.

Bush stop trying to get Bin Laden once he had made the case to go after Saddam Hussein. After all, he promised his dad he would finish the job and take back that oil.

Thank goodness we now have a president who made the call to take out Bin Laden. The world is a safer place now.

I really don't care if you deny Obama any credit or not. In a free country you are allowed to be wrong all you want.

Quote from: Conan71 on May 15, 2012, 07:09:19 PM
Nice way to cherry pick the story.  Also you said Rummy rejected an opportunity to get Bin Laden.  Bin Laden wasn't even there.  Now for the reason's why it was called off for those of you who won't click the link:

And of course the sources are all confidential:

Interesting, then, that Obama did what Rummy wouldn't -- send troops into Pakistan to capture/kill Bin Laden. 

Quote from: we vs us on May 15, 2012, 09:07:39 PM
Interesting, then, that Obama did what Rummy wouldn't -- send troops into Pakistan to capture/kill Bin Laden. 

Did you bother to read the difference in mission scope and the amount of risk involved?  As well as there being a difference in our relationship with Pakistan 3 years into the WOT rather than 9.  I suppose that point was lost on you.  Secondly, Bin Laden was not even suspected to be at this high-ranking meeting of AQ operatives.  This was the difference in committing several hundred troops to capture underlings, not committing a couple of dozen servicemen to capture the head of AQ.   Huge difference.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 15, 2012, 08:38:41 PM

Bush stop trying to get Bin Laden once he had made the case to go after Saddam Hussein. After all, he promised his dad he would finish the job and take back that oil.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/85/ManWearingTinFoilHat.jpg/220px-ManWearingTinFoilHat.jpg)

Quote from: Conan71 on May 15, 2012, 09:13:02 PM
As well as there being a difference in our relationship with Pakistan 3 years into the WOT rather than 9.

Yes, our relations with Pakistan are much worse now.

http://articles.cnn.com/2002-09-27/politics/bush.war.talk_1_homeland-security-senators-from-both-parties-republican-phil-gramm?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

Bush calls Saddam 'the guy who tried to kill my dad'

Guess I can't see how Rummy didn't have the oomph to tailor the mission to whatever size he wanted.  Especially since Al Zawahri was second only to Bin Laden and a crucial target.

And I guess the other part is completely worth dismissing, then?  That Obama won't get credit for a hugely successful black ops mission into Pakistan, while Rummy gets plaudits because he couldn't pull the trigger on a similar mission?  

The math doesn't add up on that one.  

Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 15, 2012, 09:17:48 PM
http://articles.cnn.com/2002-09-27/politics/bush.war.talk_1_homeland-security-senators-from-both-parties-republican-phil-gramm?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

Bush calls Saddam 'the guy who tried to kill my dad'

D'oh!

QuoteU.S. Navy ships launched 23 Tomahawk missiles against the headquarters of the Iraqi Intelligence Service yesterday in what President Clinton said was a "firm and commensurate" response to Iraq's plan to assassinate former president George Bush in mid-April.

The attack was meant to strike at the building where Iraqi officials had plotted against Bush, organized other unspecified terrorist actions and directed repressive internal security measures, senior U.S. officials said.

Clinton, speaking in a televised address to the nation at 7:40 last night, said he ordered the attack to send three messages to the Iraqi leadership: "We will combat terrorism. We will deter aggression. We will protect our people."

Clinton said he ordered the attack after receiving "compelling evidence" from U.S. intelligence officials that Bush had been the target of an assassination plot and that the plot was "directed and pursued by the Iraqi Intelligence Service."

"It was an elaborate plan devised by the Iraqi government and directed against a former president of the United States because of actions he took as president," Clinton said. Bush led the coalition that drove Iraq from Kuwait in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. "As such, the Iraqi attack against President Bush was an attack against our country and against all Americans," Clinton said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm

Quote from: nathanm on May 15, 2012, 09:15:33 PM
Yes, our relations with Pakistan are much worse now.

So there is now less to lose by ticking off Pakistan.

Quote from: Red Arrow on May 15, 2012, 09:24:07 PM
So there is now less to lose by ticking off Pakistan.

You will not be getting my vote for Secretary of State. 

Quote from: we vs us on May 15, 2012, 09:25:14 PM
You will not be getting my vote for Secretary of State. 

I wasn't counting on it.

Quote from: we vs us on May 15, 2012, 09:21:39 PM
Guess I can't see how Rummy didn't have the oomph to tailor the mission to whatever size he wanted.  Especially since Al Zawahri was second only to Bin Laden and a crucial target.

And I guess the other part is completely worth dismissing, then?  That Obama won't get credit for a hugely successful black ops mission into Pakistan, while Rummy gets plaudits because he couldn't pull the trigger on a similar mission?  

The math doesn't add up on that one.  

Of course Obama gets credit.  

Somehow though this discussion turned into a Rumsfeld reach-around when it's mentioned that anyone else sitting in that chair last year would have given the same orders given the same set of circumstances and intelligence.  

By comparison, the risk was nowhere near the reward in the Rummy incident.  Several hundred soldiers to get some second and third tier AQ asshats vs. a couple of dozen or less to get the grand prize.

What's so tough with that sort of math?  Oh I forget, you were an English major ;)

Quote from: Red Arrow on May 15, 2012, 09:26:24 PM
I wasn't counting on it.

That's a shame.  I'm pretty persuasive amongst my caucus.

Quote from: Conan71 on May 15, 2012, 09:26:51 PM
Of course Obama gets credit.  

Somehow though this discussion turned into a Rumsfeld reach-around when it's mentioned that anyone else sitting in that chair last year would have given the same orders given the same set of circumstances and intelligence.  

By comparison, the risk was nowhere near the reward in the Rummy incident.  Several hundred soldiers to get some second and third tier AQ asshats vs. a couple of dozen or less to get the grand prize.

What's so tough with that sort of math?  Oh I forget, you were an English major ;)

Easy pal, even though I can string some words together, I'm quick with a graphing calculator. 

My point is that you minimize Obama's success by saying "aw any old person in that chair would've done the same thing,"  and the evidence that that's not true is quoted in the article.  Rummy was sitting in that chair and didn't give the order.  And for all we know Rummy did the right thing, but the fact that Obama did do it, with similar amounts of risk involved and similar sovereignty pitfalls speaks volumes. 

Quote from: we vs us on May 15, 2012, 09:33:34 PM
I'm pretty persuasive amongst my caucus.

Me too.

Quote from: we vs us on May 15, 2012, 09:39:07 PM
Easy pal, even though I can string some words together, I'm quick with a graphing calculator.

I do OK with a grammar checker and dictionary. 

Quote
My point is that you minimize Obama's success by saying "aw any old person in that chair would've done the same thing,"  and the evidence that that's not true is quoted in the article.  Rummy was sitting in that chair and didn't give the order.  And for all we know Rummy did the right thing, but the fact that Obama did do it, with similar amounts of risk involved and similar sovereignty pitfalls speaks volumes. 

I give credit to Obama for making the decision he did.  My comment about ticking off Pakistan was not entirely tongue in cheek though.   

Quote from: Conan71 on May 15, 2012, 02:07:57 PM
Please, you are making yourself look ridiculous.  Aside from being a top security priority, it was a once-in-a-lifetime PR coup for any leader that no president would have refused to act on- especially after how hard Clinton got crapped on for not acting on the opportunity to seize or kill him in the 1990s.

Yawn.  Yeah, somebody's making themselves look ridiculous... and it ain't RM....



Obama earned the right to tout Osama Bin Laden raid
Detractors are taking a page from Karl Rove's playbook
By Richard A. Clarke / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Published: Wednesday, May 2, 2012

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/obama-earned-tout-osama-bin-laden-raid-article-1.1070838

QuoteWhat would be best for the country on the issue of counterterrorism is if we could somehow manage to return it to a nonpartisan matter. Unfortunately, this early in the election year, that seems unlikely. Therefore, voters should be advised to look carefully at claims that are made by both sides, and stick to the facts.

Ten facts that tell the true story:

First, the Bush administration moved assets to Iraq away from the search for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Second, in 2006, the Bush administration closed the Bin Laden unit at the CIA in a reorganization.

Third, Bush changed his rhetoric from wanting Bin Laden "dead or alive" to publicly minimizing his importance. (Mitt Romney followed this pattern, saying in 2007, "It's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person.")

Fourth, in 2007, candidate Obama said he would send troops into Pakistan to get Bin Laden, unilaterally if necessary, and was criticized by leading Republicans (Romney included) for saying so.

Fifth, after he took office, Obama directed an increased priority be given to getting Bin Laden.

Sixth, the President personally participated in repeated high-level meetings on his aggressive new strategy for getting Al Qaeda and its leaders in Pakistan.

Seventh, Obama ordered a dramatic increase in drone attacks in Pakistan, wiping out Al Qaeda leaders and making it almost impossible for Bin Laden's senior commanders to operate there.

Eighth, the President rejected cabinet members' advice and ordered the raid that killed Bin Laden to go ahead.

Ninth, it was the commander-in-chief who ordered that additional helicopters be made part of the operation, a decision that turned out to be crucial.

Tenth, Bin Laden is dead.

This is not to say that counterterrorism professionals weren't hard at work in the Bush administration trying to do what they could to get Bin Laden. But it is to note that the elected and politically appointed officials of that administration did much less than they could have done to get Bin Laden both before 9/11 and after it.

Quote from: we vs us on May 15, 2012, 09:39:07 PM
Easy pal, even though I can string some words together, I'm quick with a graphing calculator. 

My point is that you minimize Obama's success by saying "aw any old person in that chair would've done the same thing,"  and the evidence that that's not true is quoted in the article.  Rummy was sitting in that chair and didn't give the order.  And for all we know Rummy did the right thing, but the fact that Obama did do it, with similar amounts of risk involved and similar sovereignty pitfalls speaks volumes. 

Rummy didn't have final say.  All the SOD can do on an operation like that is run it on up the ladder if he/she thinks it's a worthy endeavor.  An operation like that must cross not only the DOD, but State and Executive and probably an agency or two I'm leaving out.  We have no idea how many other false starts which could have been shitcanned by someone in the CIA, DOD, or even the executive branch from the 1990's to now.

My basic point should make perfect sense to the more liberal of you in the room: CEO's get to take credit for the work of the peons.  That seems to piss most of you off in the corporate world, but lets face it, Obama didn't pull the trigger and it took far less of an extraordinary act of courage to order the raid on the OBL compound than it did to jump out of the helicopter and put a double tap in OBL's temple.

I'm quite certain the president didn't overlook the seriousness of sending 20 some-odd Americans into harm's way.  For the umpteenth time, I applaud him for giving the order! 

There's simply no way to prove someone else lucky enough to be POTUS at the time wouldn't have given the same order.  From a purely PR standpoint (and yes, at least 1/2 or better of the job is good PR) we needed good news on WOT, and OBL needed to assume room temperature to help make the world a safer place.

The Rumsfeld story and using some obscure Romney sound bites is nothing but a straw man when trying to say whether or not anyone else in the same position as President Obama last year would have done the same thing.

Quote from: Conan71 on May 15, 2012, 11:45:22 PM
The Rumsfeld story and using some obscure Romney sound bites is nothing but a straw man when trying to say whether or not anyone else in the same position as President Obama last year would have done the same thing.

Sure, were it not for Romney's own words last go-round. ;)

Quote from: Conan71 on May 15, 2012, 11:45:22 PM
There's simply no way to prove someone else lucky enough to be POTUS at the time wouldn't have given the same order. The Rumsfeld story and using some obscure Romney sound bites is nothing but a straw man when trying to say whether or not anyone else in the same position as President Obama last year would have done the same thing.

What a wussy argument. We can't use Bush, Rumsfeld or Romney's actual words, but somehow deep down you know that he would do the same things Obama did. I am amazed that you know exactly what everyone else would do. I won't call you conan, instead refer to you as Carnac the magnificent from the old Johnny Carson show.

Lucky enough to be POTUS? Do you think Obama got to be president by some scratch-off ticket or by being the tenth caller to a radio show? That comment shows how biased you are against Obama.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 16, 2012, 07:13:12 AM
What a wussy argument. We can't use Bush, Rumsfeld or Romney's actual words, but somehow deep down you know that he would do the same things Obama did. I am amazed that you know exactly what everyone else would do. I won't call you conan, instead refer to you as Carnac the magnificent from the old Johnny Carson show.

Are you so dim you can't see that's precisely what you and others are doing by saying what others wouldn't do?

You must be in some alternative universe. When I hear George Bush say that capturing Bin Laden isn't important to him, I assume he means capturing Bin Laden isn't important to him.

Carnac, put the envelope up to your head and explain what you think he meant.

The people that suffered under his leadership wont vote for him.


BOSTON, Mass.—Don't bet on Mitt Romney winning his home state. Or even trying.

"That's not been a topic of discussion," Romney campaign adviser Kevin Madden said when asked if the Republican former Massachusetts governor would compete in the heavily Democratic state.

The fact that Romney likely cannot win Massachusetts -- and probably won't even try to -- illustrates the degree to which his currying favor with conservative Republicans in GOP presidential primaries has alienated the moderate base that launched his political career.

Quote from: guido911 on May 15, 2012, 06:53:16 PM
It was really directed to RM, but it applies equally to all those who honestly believe Bush wasn't interested in getting/killing bin Laden. Cripes, all we heard about Bush was that he was a warmonger, killer, etc., yet he had no interest in killing the one guy probably most deserving???

He wasn't interested in getting Bin Laden because he said he wasn't interested.  And because he acted toward his interests.

7:1.  The ratio interest in Saddam Hussein to the interest in Bin Laden.  The ratio of the effort spent during Bush's regime of Iraq compared to Afghanistan.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 16, 2012, 11:19:15 AM
You must be in some alternative universe. When I hear George Bush say that capturing Bin Laden isn't important to him, I assume he means capturing Bin Laden isn't important to him.

Carnac, put the envelope up to your head and explain what you think he meant.

I didn't take you for such a complete simpleton. 

"Deep in my heart I know [Osama bin Laden] is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission. Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match."

March 13, 2002 Press Conference at the The James S. Brady Briefing Room [34]"

Quote from: Conan71 on May 17, 2012, 02:43:48 PM
I didn't take you for such a complete simpleton. 

"Deep in my heart I know [Osama bin Laden] is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission. Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match."

March 13, 2002 Press Conference at the The James S. Brady Briefing Room [34]"

Why didn't you go ahead and quote the rest of it??

Where he said he just doesn't think about it that much any more....

And how he said this one time...
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

And this about what...6 months later??   Ultimate flip flopper!
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 17, 2012, 04:02:24 PM

Why didn't you go ahead and quote the rest of it??

Where he said he just doesn't think about it that much any more....

And how he said this one time...
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

And this about what...6 months later??   Ultimate flip flopper!
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

Pay attention much?  That's the quote your libtard friends are having such fun with.

He was making a simple point that the objectives of the WOT were much bigger than OBL.  Why waste the entire resources of our military trying to root out someone who was already heavily marginalized when we had car bombings, insurgencies, and other terrorist plots to thwart.  Instead of lying and saying we had our thumb on OBL, he stated the obvious.

Are you of this stupid mind-set that had Bush been presented with the sort of intel we had last may on OBL's whereabouts he would have passed on the raid because at some point that wasn't the highest priority of the admin?  Do you think finding OBL was really a daily priority of the Obama admin?  Your priorities ever change?

What's Mitt up to today?

Quote from: Townsend on May 17, 2012, 04:15:51 PM
What's Mitt up to today?

I heard he was photographed holding down an Irish Setter and cutting it's hair.

Then he drove off with a gay man strapped to the top of his SUV.

Quote from: Conan71 on May 17, 2012, 04:18:35 PM
I heard he was photographed holding down an Irish Setter and cutting it's hair.

Then he drove off with a gay man strapped to the top of his SUV.

Man, that cultist is just up to no good at all.

Quote from: Conan71 on May 17, 2012, 04:13:52 PM

Why waste the entire resources of our military trying to root out someone who was already heavily marginalized when we had car bombings, insurgencies, and other terrorist plots to thwart.  Instead of lying and saying we had our thumb on OBL, he stated the obvious.

Are you of this stupid mind-set that had Bush been presented with the sort of intel we had last may on OBL's whereabouts he would have passed on the raid because at some point that wasn't the highest priority of the admin?  Do you think finding OBL was really a daily priority of the Obama admin?  Your priorities ever change?

Then why did we waste 7 times the resources (men, material, money) on going after Saddam Hussein - at exactly the same point in history - especially when Saddam was NOT the kind of threat that OBL had proven to be.  It was "we don't like him (SH) because we think he might try something" versus "we are gonna leave him alone - don't even care about him - in spite of the fact that he had done something more heinous than anyone else in the history of the country".   Nice rationalization there...


Bush regime HAD the intel from the get-go from Richard Clarke and the Clinton administration.  Everybody knew it then, and everybody knows it now, it just doesn't fit well in the alternate universe whirled view that Fox wants people to believe in.

Quote from: Conan71 on May 17, 2012, 04:18:35 PM
I heard he was photographed holding down an Irish Setter and cutting it's hair.
Then he drove off with a gay man strapped to the top of his SUV.

Wow, what a flip-flop.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 17, 2012, 04:21:18 PM
Bush regime HAD the intel from the get-go from Richard Clarke and the Clinton administration.  

So that's why Clinton didn't go get OBL, he wanted to blame it on Bush.

Quote from: Red Arrow on May 17, 2012, 07:32:35 PM
So that's why Clinton didn't go get OBL, he wanted to blame it on Bush.

He both wanted to and tried to.  And left the file with Bush when he left.  Did you watch that Chris Wallace interview, by the way?


Kind of like Jimmy taking the blame for the Iran hostage episode.  And the fact that he was the one that actually tried to do something about it.  With the military that Nixon had left him.  Gutted, demoralized, and in massive disarray.  Not to mention ill equipped for even another southeast Asia adventure, let alone a desert expedition.  But hey, it's much more fun to idolize the guy that not only didn't have to do anything military, but actually DID do something illegal - bribed the Iranians to release our embassy people.  You remember Iran/Contra don't you?

But then, that's not what the American public wants - failure through no fault of one, but done legally is nowhere near as good a result as just paying off the people you are in conflict with.  Sounds a whole lot like the late Roman Empire, doesn't it?

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 17, 2012, 08:49:17 PM
He both wanted to and tried to.  And left the file with Bush when he left.

If he had the info necessary to get OBL, he should have been able to get OBL.

Quote
Kind of like Jimmy taking the blame for the Iran hostage episode.  And the fact that he was the one that actually tried to do something about it.  With the military that Nixon had left him.  Gutted, demoralized, and in massive disarray.  Not to mention ill equipped for even another southeast Asia adventure, let alone a desert expedition.

I don't remember Jimmy Carter doing anything to try to rebuild the military.  It seemed kind of strange for a former US Naval Officer.  Plus, it was a bit easier to have a large military with the draft.   Hey you, your number is up.   Get your butt to boot camp.  We own you for 6 years.

Quote
But hey, it's much more fun to idolize the guy that not only didn't have to do anything military, but actually DID do something illegal - bribed the Iranians to release our embassy people.  You remember Iran/Contra don't you?

Yeah, it would have been a lot better to get a bunch of GIs killed instead.  That way you could blame Reagan for that too.  I can see the history books.... US troops killed thousands of Iranians and lost hundreds of their own (I am optimistic) in order to save 52 people from captivity when their freedom could have been bought for a few million dollars.

Quote
But then, that's not what the American public wants - failure through no fault of one, but done legally is nowhere near as good a result as just paying off the people you are in conflict with. 

You expect us to embrace failure?  Carter was dealt a few bad hands but he didn't always play them well either.

Quote from: Red Arrow on May 17, 2012, 09:18:11 PM
Yeah, it would have been a lot better to get a bunch of GIs killed instead.  That way you could blame Reagan for that too.  I can see the history books.... US troops killed thousands of Iranians and lost hundreds of their own (I am optimistic) in order to save 52 people from captivity when their freedom could have been bought for a few million dollars.

Where Reagan or his team deserve condemnation on that is that they prenegotiated the release before the effing election (excellent!) and got the Iranians to agree to delay the prisoners' release to ensure it didn't mess up Reagan's chance of winning. (not excellent)

Quote from: Red Arrow on May 17, 2012, 09:18:11 PM

I don't remember Jimmy Carter doing anything to try to rebuild the military.  It seemed kind of strange for a former US Naval Officer.  Plus, it was a bit easier to have a large military with the draft.   Hey you, your number is up.   Get your butt to boot camp.  We own you for 6 years.

Yeah, it would have been a lot better to get a bunch of GIs killed instead.  That way you could blame Reagan for that too.  I can see the history books.... US troops killed thousands of Iranians and lost hundreds of their own (I am optimistic) in order to save 52 people from captivity when their freedom could have been bought for a few million dollars.


You expect us to embrace failure?  Carter was dealt a few bad hands but he didn't always play them well either.

Not much that would have happened at that time.  Just was not in the cards.


And yet, certain factions idolize Bush for getting thousands of our kids killed (not to mention the million Iraqis) for no particular reason at all other than fixing Daddy's embarrassment.  Oh, yeah...and oil. 

Then why didn't we just buy Saddam?  Oh, yeah...we did for 20+ years.  Then they decided to just kill him.

That is the truth - Carter did not play the cards very well.  I have always wished that Ford would have been elected.  My opinion - he was one of the greatest Presidents we have ever had.  Up in the top 10 certainly.  One big reason - he vetoed more spending bills than any other.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 17, 2012, 10:23:28 PM
And yet, certain factions idolize Bush for getting thousands of our kids killed (not to mention the million Iraqis) for no particular reason at all other than fixing Daddy's embarrassment.  Oh, yeah...and oil. 

and exporting terrorism.  Offering families something like $10,000 for their kids to become suicide bombers.  Little things like that.

Quote from: Red Arrow on May 17, 2012, 10:44:44 PM
and exporting terrorism.  Offering families something like $10,000 for their kids to become suicide bombers.  Little things like that.

That was Bin Laden...

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 17, 2012, 10:46:52 PM
That was Bin Laden...

Maybe him too but Saddam was right in there.

Quote from: Red Arrow on May 17, 2012, 10:59:34 PM
Maybe him too but Saddam was right in there.

He wasn't in any meaningful way. He wasn't exactly an Islamist, you know. Bad guy, to be sure. Deserved every bit of what came to him. His people, however, did not deserve what they got from us.

Quote from: nathanm on May 18, 2012, 12:47:57 AM
He wasn't in any meaningful way. He wasn't exactly an Islamist, you know. Bad guy, to be sure. Deserved every bit of what came to him. His people, however, did not deserve what they got from us.

Saddam was trying to be the leader of the Middle East.  I agree he wasn't an Islamist.  He was on his own power and glory trip. 

Quote from: Red Arrow on May 18, 2012, 12:41:56 PM
Saddam was trying to be the leader of the Middle East.  I agree he wasn't an Islamist.  He was on his own power and glory trip. 

He shouldn't have been the one we focused on after 9/11 though.  It seems like we were all for going after OBL until about the end of 2002, then the shift was to the WMD in Iraq.  Why?

Quote from: Hoss on May 18, 2012, 01:59:06 PM
He shouldn't have been the one we focused on after 9/11 though.  It seems like we were all for going after OBL until about the end of 2002, then the shift was to the WMD in Iraq.  Why?

Easy.  Taliban was out of power in Afghanistan and OBL had been driven into the mountains and his network was largely dismantled by that point.  At least compared to how it had been while the Taliban were still in power.

Either that or I can sound like a complete moron and say: "Baby Bush went in to avenge the embarrassment Saddam caused his daddy.  Oh and to steal their oil too!"

Quote from: Conan71 on May 18, 2012, 02:16:59 PM
Easy.  Taliban was out of power in Afghanistan and OBL had been driven into the mountains and his network was largely dismantled by that point.  At least compared to how it had been while the Taliban were still in power.

Either that or I can sound like a complete moron and say: "Baby Bush went in to avenge the embarrassment Saddam caused his daddy.  Oh and to steal their oil too!"

Only a tool would not come right out and say the Cheney gang wanted the oil in Iraq.

Conan, you're making Gweedoe doe look respectable.

Quote from: Teatownclown on May 18, 2012, 02:20:55 PM
the Cheney gang wanted the oil in Iraq.

Only a redneck would think that.

Quote from: Conan71 on May 18, 2012, 02:30:41 PM
Only a redneck would think that.

Wait, I thought the Redneck Party was pro-Cheney.

Quote from: Townsend on May 18, 2012, 02:31:42 PM
Wait, I thought the Redneck Party was pro-Cheney.

Maybe that's shot-neck party...

Quote from: Hoss on May 18, 2012, 01:59:06 PM
He shouldn't have been the one we focused on after 9/11 though.  It seems like we were all for going after OBL until about the end of 2002, then the shift was to the WMD in Iraq.  Why?

Because the type of "leader" he was trying to be was not acceptable.  It was a side issue to 9/11.  Whether or not it was important or justified will be better judged by history than by us.

Quote from: Red Arrow on May 18, 2012, 09:32:01 PM
Because the type of "leader" he was trying to be was not acceptable.  It was a side issue to 9/11.  Whether or not it was important or justified will be better judged by history than by us.

I don't entirely disagree with the notion that the U.S. needs to be sometimes aggressive in taking out bad leaders, why did Bush only go after Saddam?

Kim Jong ll of North Korea?  Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe? Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iraq?

Each of these killed more and committed more human rights violations.

If you don't think Bush 2 didn't choose Saddam in part because of his father, you are naive.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 18, 2012, 10:40:42 PM
I don't entirely disagree with the notion that the U.S. needs to be sometimes aggressive in taking out bad leaders, why did Bush only go after Saddam?

Kim Jong ll of North Korea?  Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe? Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iraq?

Each of these killed more and committed more human rights violations.

If you don't think Bush 2 didn't choose Saddam in part because of his father, you are naive.

If you think it was to avenge Daddy Bush you need to visit Bruno for one of his custom-fit hats.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 18, 2012, 10:40:42 PM
If you don't think Bush 2 didn't choose Saddam in part because of his father, you are naive.

I will agree with "in part".   Too many here try to make it "entirely because of his father".  They conveniently choose to ignore any other issues of the middle east and Saddam's historical mentors.

I will pass along the naive label to those who will not see any part of the picture beside the "his father" issue.

Quote from: Red Arrow on May 18, 2012, 11:18:56 PM
I will agree with "in part".   Too many here try to make it "entirely because of his father".  They conveniently choose to ignore any other issues of the middle east and Saddam's historical mentors.

I will pass along the naive label to those who will not see any part of the picture beside the "his father" issue.

I've never bought into the "war for oil" or "avenging daddy" crap, I think it played out like this:

"Look Rummy, we are already flying troops, bombs, tanks, planes, and all kinds of other cool stuff to Afghanistan, could we just do a drive-by bombing on Iraq?  I mean they are practically neighbors, drop off a few servicemen, some bombs, poison a few wells, and finally Clinton will shut the love up about 'there's no doubt there were unaccounted for weapons of mass destruction the day I left office'.  Damn I'm tired of that sound bite, and I'm getting really bucking tired of that a-hole telling the UN they can all get foobared.  Let's just go in and shut him the hell up already, eh?"

Quote from: Conan71 on May 18, 2012, 11:28:30 PM
I've never bought into the "war for oil" or "avenging daddy" crap, I think it played out like this:

"Look Rummy, we are already flying troops, bombs, tanks, planes, and all kinds of other cool stuff to Afghanistan, could we just do a drive-by bombing on Iraq?  I mean they are practically neighbors, drop off a few servicemen, some bombs, poison a few wells, and finally Clinton will shut the love up about 'there's no doubt there were unaccounted for weapons of mass destruction the day I left office'.  Damn I'm tired of that sound bite, and I'm getting really bucking tired of that a-hole telling the UN they can all get foobared.  Let's just go in and shut him the hell up already, eh?"

As I said, "in part".  I believe there were legitimate reasons to get rid of Saddam regardless of the WMD issue.  Why Saddam and not others?  We cannot do everything.  It's time for some other countries to put up or shut up.  As far as Iraq and our so called allies are concerned, can you say money?  It's easy to forget that a lot of countries had some lucrative deals going with Saddam.

Quote from: Red Arrow on May 18, 2012, 11:38:18 PM
As I said, "in part".  I believe there were legitimate reasons to get rid of Saddam regardless of the WMD issue.  Why Saddam and not others?  We cannot do everything.  It's time for some other countries to put up or shut up.  As far as Iraq and our so called allies are concerned, can you say money?  It's easy to forget that a lot of countries had some lucrative deals going with Saddam.

And the funny thing about that is how the Republicans eviscerated our current President when it appeared he was doing nothing in Libya.  I hate the US being the world police when we aren't directly threatened.  We weren't in Iraq either.  Oh, except for the oil interests.   ;D

Quote from: Hoss on May 19, 2012, 12:29:30 AM
And the funny thing about that is how the Republicans eviscerated our current President when it appeared he was doing nothing in Libya.  I hate the US being the world police when we aren't directly threatened.  We weren't in Iraq either.  Oh, except for the oil interests.   ;D

Libya is exactly what Iraq should have been.  Had it gone that easily, people might have eventually forgotten that Baby Bush stole the 2000 election with Daddy's Supreme Court.   ::)

Quote from: Conan71 on May 19, 2012, 08:31:23 PM
Libya is exactly what Iraq should have been.  Had it gone that easily, people might have eventually forgotten that Baby Bush stole the 2000 election with Daddy's Supreme Court.   ::)

Had Daddy helped the rebels in the South of Iraq when he encouraged them to coup, we might not even be having this discussion.  Then again, we might.

So many 'ifs'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq

Conan, quit re-writing history. :-*

Quote from: Conan71 on May 19, 2012, 08:31:23 PM
Baby Bush stole the 2000 election with Daddy's Supreme Court.   ::)

No, his brother's Secretary of State illegally purging tens of thousands of voters who were disproportionately poor and black did a fine job of giving the Supreme Court the opportunity to contradict the Constitution for partisan reasons.

Off subject ( ;) )Hoss, I recorded SNL during the THUNDER TRIUMPH last night and watched it late...omg, Mick Jagger used David and Foo Fighters and Jeff Beck as his back up band and it was splendid...the whole show was the best one I've seen in over 20 years. Look for clips ...



"Don't let Mitt Romney cut your hair" Mick Jagger

Quote from: Teatownclown on May 20, 2012, 11:44:19 AM
Off subject ( ;) )Hoss, I recorded SNL during the THUNDER TRIUMPH last night and watched it late...omg, Mick Jagger used David and Foo Fighters and Jeff Beck as his back up band and it was splendid...the whole show was the best one I've seen in over 20 years. Look for clips ...

"Don't let Mitt Romney cut your hair" Mick Jagger

I watched it as well...all kinds of musical WIN on stage last night.

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/mick-jagger-and-jeff-beck-tea-party/1402537/


rock on

Quote from: Red Arrow on May 18, 2012, 11:38:18 PM
As I said, "in part".  I believe there were legitimate reasons to get rid of Saddam regardless of the WMD issue.  Why Saddam and not others?  We cannot do everything.  It's time for some other countries to put up or shut up.  As far as Iraq and our so called allies are concerned, can you say money?  It's easy to forget that a lot of countries had some lucrative deals going with Saddam.

The Daddy Bush and oil topics are an umbrella that cover all the stated reasons we went into Iraq - none of which was true, as we knew then.  And know even better now.

I would really love to know what you - any of you - think legitimate reasons were to go into Iraq?   Keeping in mind that every single reason floated by Baby was known to be invalid at the time it was used.
This should be good.

And any "humanitarian" reason given is eclipsed by reality many times over.

Just curious...what could those "better" legitimate reasons possibly be?

Quote from: Conan71 on May 19, 2012, 08:31:23 PM
Libya is exactly what Iraq should have been.  Had it gone that easily, people might have eventually forgotten that Baby Bush stole the 2000 election with Daddy's Supreme Court.   ::)

You remember that?  Your tag line is working - recovering Republican....glad to hear it.


Which brings us to the question of why we supported this Libya thing at all?  A couple of decades ago, we told Kaddafi to sit down and shut up - with the bombing of his palace and killing some family - and he did for the most part, with a few unresolved questions, like Lockerbie.  But now all of a sudden, he is world enemy number 2 or 3?   How did that happen?  And how did we become so friendly with the people doing that revolt?  You remember them, the same ones who have been traveling to Iraq and Afghanistan to kill our kids....

Could it have anything to do with the talking he had been doing about trying to put together an African Union, modeled on the lines of the European Union?  Wonder what kind of effect that would have on all those cheap, rare resources we get from Africa, if they were able to get organized into a true economic entity?  Could they end up as a cartel?

Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 12, 2012, 11:46:34 PM

Then look at Romney. He is completely out of touch with the average American. Growing up the wealthy son of the president of a car company and governor gave him passes for bad behavior.

Sounds like Romney is Ted Kennedy--except for the "dead girl" thing.

Quote from: guido911 on May 22, 2012, 07:31:03 PM
Sounds like Romney is Ted Kennedy--except for the "dead girl" thing.

Guido is insecure. He wants us to think that he is important. It's a self worth issue that he is dealing with.

Quote from: Teatownclown on May 22, 2012, 07:36:09 PM
Guido is insecure. He wants us to think that he is important. It's a self worth issue that he is dealing with.

I like the way liberals deal with their own dooshbaggery, they blame the conservative over there in the closet behind that Bush.

Quote from: Conan71 on May 22, 2012, 07:41:56 PM
I like the way liberals deal with their own dooshbaggery, they blame the conservative over there in the closet behind that Bush.

I wouldn't throw "friend of the d!ckw@d" in the "liberal" category entirely. That last post not only made ZERO sense, it's source is well documented:

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Lj5KP8OgZVk/SCOqfKtAOsI/AAAAAAAACFA/2zl-Lq5PzLE/s400/8557060_f14bd4f251.jpg)

Quote from: guido911 on May 22, 2012, 07:31:03 PM
Sounds like Romney is Ted Kennedy--except for the "dead girl" thing.

. . .and the alcohol thing.

EDIT: I do have to give Kennedy credit for almost 3 years of sobriety.

Quote from: Gaspar on May 23, 2012, 07:22:42 AM
. . .and the alcohol thing.

EDIT: I do have to give him credit for almost 3 years of sobriety.

Now who's gone all bully?  :P

Quote from: guido911 on May 22, 2012, 07:48:16 PM


(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Lj5KP8OgZVk/SCOqfKtAOsI/AAAAAAAACFA/2zl-Lq5PzLE/s400/8557060_f14bd4f251.jpg)

That's the biggest coffee maker I've ever seen!

Mitt lies, he's just not skilled in the acting part.

Quotehttp://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/05/26


Published on Saturday, May 26, 2012 by Common Dreams
Doh! Romney Messes Up, Tells the Truth About Austerity
by William K. Black
Mitt Romney has periodic breakdowns when asked questions about the economy because he sometimes forgets the need to lie. He forgets that he is supposed to treat austerity as the epitome of economic wisdom. When he responds quickly to questions about austerity he slips into default mode and speaks the truth -- adopting austerity during the recovery from a Great Recession would (as in Europe) throw the nation back into recession or depression. The latest example is his May 23, 2012 interview with Mark Halperin in Time magazine.

Halperin: Why not in the first year, if you're elected -- why not in 2013, go all the way and propose the kind of budget with spending restraints, that you'd like to see after four years in office? Why not do it more quickly?

Romney: Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I'm not going to do that, of course.
Romney explains that austerity, during the recovery from a Great Recession, would cause catastrophic damage to our nation. The problem, of course, is that the Republican congressional leadership is committed to imposing austerity on the nation and Speaker Boehner has just threatened that Republicans will block the renewal of the debt ceiling in order to extort Democrats to agree to austerity -- severe cuts to social programs. Romney knows this could "throw us into recession or depression" and says he would never follow such a policy.

Romney, however, has not opposed Boehner's threat to use extortion to force austerity on the nation. Romney has the nomination sown up, but I predict that he will stand by and let Boehner try to throw us into a Great Depression rather than upset the Tea Party-wing of the Republican Party. Indeed, Romney will attack Democrats who have the political courage to defend our nation against his Party's demands for austerity that would throw us into recession or depression.

What does one call a politician who, solely to advance his personal political ambition, supports his Party's efforts to coerce austerity even though he knows that the austerity would cause a national economic catastrophe and states that he, "of course," would never adopt such self-destructive austerity if he were president? Romney is failing the tests of courage, integrity, and loyalty to our nation and people.

Later in the interview, Romney claims that federal budgetary deficits are "immoral." But he has just explained that using austerity for the purported purpose of ending a deficit would cause a recession or depression. A recession or depression would make the deficit far larger. That means that Romney should be denouncing austerity as "immoral" (as well as suicidal) because it will not simply increase the deficit (which he claims to find "immoral" because of its impact on children) but also dramatically increase unemployment, poverty, child poverty and hunger, and harm their education by causing more teachers to lose their jobs and more school programs to be cut. Fewer children will be able to get college degrees. Austerity is the great enemy of children -- it is the epitome of a self-destructive, immoral economic policy.

Listen for the sounds of silence from Romney in coming months. I predict that he will not act to protect our children or our economy from the suicidal and "immoral" austerity his Republican allies are trying to coerce the Democrats to inflict on our economy and our children.

This post originally appeared at New Economic Perspectives.

I would probably be a lot less sour towards Romney if he would tell the Teahadists in the House that they need to go read an economics textbook or five and then go read a history textbook before saying another word about spending, taxes, or anything else to do with money. The government is not a person. What makes sense for my budget does not necessarily make sense for the government's budget and vice versa.

Given the continued low interest rates and inflation and relatively low labor participation rate, it's pretty clear that the government is not taking too much of our productive capacity at the moment, regardless of what the budget deficit may or may not be numerically. When that changes, we need to be prepared to cut spending (or raise taxes, it doesn't matter) over a couple of year period. That's why we need to develop a realistic plan for doing that now. Running around like a chicken with its head cut off because we suddenly find ourselves in a situation where we need to make immediate changes to taxation and/or spending will be much less pleasant than hashing all this out before it's actually necessary.

What is even more imperative, and even less likely, is throwing both parties out. They have both rigged the system to favor guys like Romney over folks like you or I. Hell, guido gets screwed by them even more than we do. He (probably) makes far too little to get access to the sheltering schemes, but enough that both the Republicans and Democrats see him as a piggy bank. Far better than being destitute, or being in the cohort that has actually been losing ground for the last 30 years, but I understand how it can be so infuriating to be lumped in with the shitheels at the top whose incomes have been growing far faster than any of us can really fathom while they pay less and less tax every year. Unfortunately, he chooses to direct his ire at the people below him on the income ladder, who not being part of the donor class get little say, rather than the folks who are doing the screwing.

Quote from: nathanm on May 26, 2012, 03:47:49 PM
I would probably be a lot less sour towards Romney if he would tell the Teahadists in the House that they need to go read an economics textbook or five and then go read a history textbook before saying another word about spending, taxes, or anything else to do with money. The government is not a person. What makes sense for my budget does not necessarily make sense for the government's budget and vice versa.

Can't happen...first ya gotta be able to read....