WOW! http://www.project.nsearch.com/profiles/blogs/mitt-romney-i-was-too-important-to-go-to-vietnam
QuoteMonday, at a press event in California before the GOP primary in that state, former Gov. Mitt Romney was asked about his support of United States military involvement overseas. He was pleased to answer the question, however after his response, his answer to a follow-up question regarding his four deferments from the Vietnam War did not please onlookers, especially veterans.
Romney responded to the question regarding US military involvement by stating, "We are the most powerful nation in the world, and it is our responsibility to make sure we protect all of our interests both here and abroad. This helps protect each and every freedom that has been fought for and won over the centuries of our nation's existence. We will do what we have to in regard to strengthening our allied relationships, as well as letting our enemies know we do not intend to back down. We will stay the course of freedom at all costs. That is what our founders would have wanted."
This very rehearsed answer to a scripted question was followed by a question that the former governor was not prepared to answer, or so it seemed by his response.
The next question asked went as follows, "Governor Romney, it is true, is it not that you had four deferments from the Vietnam War... You have said before that you support war and the efforts of US military involvement overseas at all costs, yet you made sure you would never go to war yourself. What makes you think that veterans and those currently serving in the military think that you have their best interests at heart when you yourself weren't even interested in sacrificing your time, energy, or life for your nation at a time when it seemed most crucial?"
Romney responded:
"That's a good question, young man, and I would be happy to answer it. The Vietnam War came at a time in my life when I had other plans. I knew in my heart of hearts that I would one day serve my nation. That I would one day hold an office that would help not only our nation, but also the world. So I did what I could to make sure that I would be around to serve my nation, as well as serving God by teaching very important religious principles to a broader audience overseas. My father did not want me serving, and he convinced me that yes, I was too important to go to Vietnam. I had a greater purpose in life. I wasn't neglecting my nation, but rather preparing myself for a future of service."
An onlooker that seemingly was a Vietnam veteran shouted, "F#@k you, Romney! You wouldn't know service if it bit you on your well manicured donkey." To which Romney responded, "Please don't be testy, my friend. I did what I did for you, and I thank you for your service as well." That same veteran responded, "You only served yourself, you jackass. You could've served your nation even if your draft number wasn't called... but you didn't... you chose to serve yourself instead. Thanks for revealing your true colors."
The questioning was quickly ushered to the next topics of education and the environment. This apparent gaffe was too honest to appear to be a mistaken answer. We will have to wait and see if this topic gets brought up again in future interviews and possibly the presidential debates this fall.
Tell me again that Mitten's religion is not an issue when it comes to serving our country.
And for those who might be inclined to "leap first" in response on either side...that is satire. From Free Wood Post - kind of an "Onion" type news organization...sort of. But funny.
Like some of The Onion's better work (http://www.theonion.com/articles/bush-our-long-national-nightmare-of-peace-and-pros,464/), good satire can be hard to distinguish from reality at times. ;)
Love the Onion! You can walk around in Wisconsin and find the paper version on stands like we have the Apartment Finders here.
Slide show:
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2012/09/12/us/politics/12stanford.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120912
Dissecting Romney's Vietnam Stance at Stanford
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/us/politics/at-stanford-romney-stood-ground-on-vietnam.html?_r=1
More evidence that if elected, The USA would have a chicken hawk back in the ovulating orifice.
Quote from: Teatownclown on September 13, 2012, 04:46:01 PM
Slide show:
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2012/09/12/us/politics/12stanford.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120912
Dissecting Romney's Vietnam Stance at Stanford
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/us/politics/at-stanford-romney-stood-ground-on-vietnam.html?_r=1
More evidence that if elected, The USA would have a chicken hawk back in the ovulating orifice.
Didn't seem to be an issue with Cliton.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 13, 2012, 06:01:21 PM
Didn't seem to be an issue with Cliton.
(http://gifs.gifbin.com/072009/1247140047_mushroom-cloud.gif)
Quote from: Conan71 on September 13, 2012, 06:01:21 PM
Didn't seem to be an issue with Cliton.
Which land war did Clinton start?
(http://gifs.gifbin.com/072009/1247140047_mushroom-cloud.gif)
Quote from: nathanm on September 13, 2012, 08:37:45 PM
Which land war did Clinton start?
(http://gifs.gifbin.com/072009/1247140047_mushroom-cloud.gif)
Iraq of course.
Quote from: erfalf on September 13, 2012, 08:41:41 PM
Iraq of course.
Ok, no troops to Iraq, but I believe we bombed the heck out of them. Ironically because Clinton didn't think Hussein should be able to produce nuclear weapons. Plus he sent air forces to Sudan, Bosnia & Kosovo.
I think the only place troops sent was when we invaded Haiti.
Quote from: erfalf on September 13, 2012, 08:50:55 PM
Ok, no troops to Iraq, but I believe we bombed the heck out of them. Ironically because Clinton didn't think Hussein should be able to produce nuclear weapons. Plus he sent air forces to Sudan, Bosnia & Kosovo.
I think the only place troops sent was when we invaded Haiti.
Clinton sent troops to Bosnia but I think it was probably the right thing to do even though we had some difficulties there.
http://www.dtic.mil/bosnia/army/pres_bos.html
Quote from: erfalf on September 13, 2012, 08:50:55 PM
Ok, no troops to Iraq, but I believe we bombed the heck out of them. Ironically because Clinton didn't think Hussein should be able to produce nuclear weapons. Plus he sent air forces to Sudan, Bosnia & Kosovo.
I think the only place troops sent was when we invaded Haiti.
Battle of Mogaishu (the first one). Oct 1993. Had nephew in 160th SOAR as member of that particular cluster___.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 13, 2012, 09:06:39 PM
Clinton sent troops to Bosnia but I think it was probably the right thing to do even though we had some difficulties there.
Clinton did not start that war, but his military did manage to bomb the Chinese embassy. Oops.
Quote from: nathanm on September 13, 2012, 10:17:56 PM
Clinton did not start that war, but his military did manage to bomb the Chinese embassy. Oops.
I didn't say he did. I was responding to the statement that
QuoteI think the only place troops sent was when we invaded Haiti.
What's the saying, "Time heals all wounds". It's amazing the things that we just forget about. Things that at the time were just as big a deal as today's events.
Quote from: nathanm on September 13, 2012, 08:37:45 PM
Which land war did Clinton start?
(http://gifs.gifbin.com/072009/1247140047_mushroom-cloud.gif)
Which land war did Romney start?
Quote from: Conan71 on September 14, 2012, 08:51:24 AM
Which land war did Romney start?
None. He doesn't have any foreign policy experience.
;D
Quote from: Hoss on September 14, 2012, 10:04:47 AM
Which land war did Romney start?
None. He doesn't have any foreign policy experience.
So if a person has foreign policy experience they are more likely to start a war. You are making a case to vote
for Romney.
Quote from: erfalf on September 13, 2012, 11:07:56 PM
What's the saying, "Time heals all wounds". It's amazing the things that we just forget about. Things that at the time were just as big a deal as today's events.
Pretty sure the families of the four killed in Libya this week won't be forgetting about it any time soon.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 14, 2012, 10:13:21 AM
So if a person has foreign policy experience they are more likely to start a war. You are making a case to vote for Romney.
Now now, stop with the logic and critical thinking nonsense.
Quote from: guido911 on September 14, 2012, 06:53:51 PM
Pretty sure the families of the four killed in Libya this week won't be forgetting about it any time soon.
I only meant it in regards to how we forget the actions of our so called non-war mongering leaders. I don't doubt anyone with a actual steak in the matter will ever forget.
Quote from: erfalf on September 14, 2012, 07:00:51 PM
I only meant it in regards to how we forget the actions of our so called non-war mongering leaders. I don't doubt anyone with a actual steak in the matter will ever forget.
Depends, was it a fillet mignon or a sirloin? Sirloin is usually forgettable.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 17, 2012, 09:46:52 AM
Depends, was it a fillet mignon or a sirloin? Sirloin is usually forgettable.
I disagree! Sirloin has far more flavor than fillet, but you need to choose a well marbled sirloin, and that's the challenge.
Quote from: nathanm on August 21, 2012, 04:51:34 PM
Like some of The Onion's better work (http://www.theonion.com/articles/bush-our-long-national-nightmare-of-peace-and-pros,464/), good satire can be hard to distinguish from reality at times. ;)
That's called Poe's Law (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law) :
"
Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing"
Quote from: Gaspar on September 17, 2012, 09:55:45 AM
I disagree! Sirloin has far more flavor than fillet, but you need to choose a well marbled sirloin, and that's the challenge.
I'll put that buttery texture of the fillet up against a sirloin any time.
There again, neither beats a hanger steak which has been properly seasoned and grilled for flavor and texture.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 17, 2012, 11:20:17 AM
I'll put that buttery texture of the fillet up against a sirloin any time.
There again, neither beats a hanger steak which has been properly seasoned and grilled for flavor and texture.
They also call them "Butcher's Cut," because that's the cut that the butcher would take home! ;)
Hanger steak with sliced porcini mushrooms with a marsala cream sauce, garlic cauliflower mash on the side. :P
(http://www.philzone.org/discus/messages/439459/799693.jpg)
Romney's a draft dodger.....end of story. Now, go away...
Quote from: Gaspar on September 17, 2012, 12:27:06 PM
They also call them "Butcher's Cut," because that's the cut that the butcher would take home! ;)
Hanger steak with sliced porcini mushrooms with a marsala cream sauce, garlic cauliflower mash on the side. :P
Know anyone else who sells them other than Harvard Meats?
Quote from: Conan71 on September 17, 2012, 02:21:29 PM
Know anyone else who sells them other than Harvard Meats?
dead from the neck up....just like Mittens!
Quote from: Conan71 on September 17, 2012, 02:21:29 PM
Know anyone else who sells them other than Harvard Meats?
I've gotten them at Reasor's before. I've also gotten them from Perry's and Siegi's. Sometimes you will find a package labeled "skirt steak" that contains both the skirt and the hanger.
Lately, many of the butcher shops and grocery stores have had trouble getting many of the better cuts of meat because Walmart has gone out and booked most of the choice producers across the country. Reasor's has their own suppliers, so I would check there first.
You really hate the fact that this draft dodger, RMONEY, is your candidate... tfb. He's called in Bushiveks neo cons for foreign policy.
Do you fail too, Gaspar? Are you an ex draft dodger?
Quote from: guido911 on September 14, 2012, 06:53:51 PM
Pretty sure the families of the four killed in Libya this week won't be forgetting about it any time soon.
Just like the 4,000 + families of the kids killed in Iraq shouldn't forget how Baby Bush sent their kids off to die for his (and Daddy's) own self aggrandizement.
And how we should avoid a repeat.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 17, 2012, 09:55:45 AM
I disagree! Sirloin has far more flavor than fillet, but you need to choose a well marbled sirloin, and that's the challenge.
WHAT??? You of all people....
Sirloin is the steak for the great unwashed masses. The first entry level steak suitable for consumption is T-bone. The next step up is the rib-eye. Above that - at the top - is the Porterhouse (combination of the best of all worlds.) Filet is ok, but it really is just part of a larger, better steak.
I prefer a properly cooked ribeye to any other cut of steak. Generally I use T-Bone or sirloin for delicious steak and arugala sandwiches.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 17, 2012, 02:56:36 PM
Just like the 4,000 + families of the kids killed in Iraq shouldn't forget how Baby Bush sent their kids off to die for his (and Daddy's) own self aggrandizement.
And how we should avoid a repeat.
Still a one trick pony I see.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 17, 2012, 03:09:02 PM
Still a one trick pony I see.
I think it's fair to talk about given that one of the candidates seems to be in favor of going to war with Iran.
Quote from: nathanm on September 17, 2012, 03:10:35 PM
I think it's fair to talk about given that one of the candidates seems to be in favor of going to war with Iran.
I don't think anyone would have said anything had he been fair and said that it would be making the same mistake regardless of who we selected in regards to this single issue.
Anyone that thinks either one of these two would be more or less adverse to going to war is delusional. They may talk a good game, but...
At least Bush got permission from Congress (as he should have, regardless of the reasoning).
Quote from: nathanm on September 17, 2012, 03:10:35 PM
I think it's fair to talk about given that one of the candidates seems to be in favor of going to war with Iran.
So, are you against any candidate that would go to war with Iran?
Just a question. . .
Quote from: Gaspar on September 17, 2012, 03:40:57 PM
So, are you against any candidate that would go to war with Iran?
I believe that a ground war is not necessary to prevent Iran from threatening others with nuclear weapons. Even if they do get them, Israel has its own stockpile and they've proven very good at defending themselves over the years. I have no problem giving/selling them arms should Iran attack them, which I don't believe is likely.
Quote from: nathanm on September 17, 2012, 03:10:35 PM
I think it's fair to talk about given that one of the candidates seems to be in favor of going to war with Iran.
I was referring to the same stupid tripe of "Baby Bush" defending Daddy's honor. It's old. Really old.
Quote from: nathanm on September 17, 2012, 04:03:02 PM
I believe that a ground war is not necessary to prevent Iran from threatening others with nuclear weapons. Even if they do get them, Israel has its own stockpile and they've proven very good at defending themselves over the years. I have no problem giving/selling them arms should Iran attack them, which I don't believe is likely.
How do you feel about airstrikes, Hellfire, or our new upgraded tomahawks, or the new deep penetration missiles?
What if the USS Laboon just happened to be headed that way with shed-full?
Would you consider that a ground war or just a friendly volley?
I agree, Isreal is more than prepared to level Iran, but when that happens, what do you think our response should be?
Netanyahu keeps pleading with the president for a meeting next week, but with Letterman and the fundraisers, there's just no time.
If diplomacy is the answer to preventing war in the middle-east, don't you think that should start with the country that has pledged to attack first?
Isreal has vowed to strike, with or without our help, and our president is dismissing them. We are probably the only country that has the power to thwart a war, but instead we are more concerned about keeping our appointments with David Letterman and Jay Z. All Netanyahu wants is for the president to agree on a plan, and the president is afraid that no matter what he does, leading on this issue will put him in a positon where he has to follow through, so as on all foreign policy issues, he chooses to punt and see what happens. I think current events would dictate that's not been working so well.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_of9ue2vob2g/TJ-dFotYolI/AAAAAAAANHQ/ilpL8bDgtHo/s1600/OBAMA+PUNTER+IN+CHIEF.GIF)
Quote from: Gaspar on September 17, 2012, 04:24:41 PM
How do you feel about airstrikes, Hellfire, or our new upgraded tomahawks, or the new deep penetration missiles?
What if the USS Laboon just happened to be headed that way with shed-full?
Would you consider that a ground war or just a friendly volley?
I agree, Isreal is more than prepared to level Iran, but when that happens, what do you think our response should be?
Netanyahu keeps pleading with the president for a meeting next week, but with Letterman and the fundraisers, there's just no time.
If diplomacy is the answer to preventing war in the middle-east, don't you think that should start with the country that has pledged to attack first?
Isreal has vowed to strike, with or without our help, and our president is dismissing them. We are probably the only country that has the power to thwart a war, but instead we are more concerned about keeping our appointments with David Letterman and Jay Z. All Netanyahu wants is for the president to agree on a plan, and the president is afraid that no matter what he does, leading on this issue will put him in a positon where he has to follow through, so as on all foreign policy issues, he chooses to punt and see what happens. I think current events would dictate that's not been working so well.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_of9ue2vob2g/TJ-dFotYolI/AAAAAAAANHQ/ilpL8bDgtHo/s1600/OBAMA+PUNTER+IN+CHIEF.GIF)
Do I have to lesson you once again on Iran?
1) Persians are decent people. Their country is a theocracy with a little short pipsqueak for a mouth. He scares people who think he's really dangerous. The actual cleric who calls the shots has a committee. This group tends to believe in education and furthering the needs and desires of their people. They are not war mongers.
2) In 1980's war with Iraq cost to the Iranians was over a million lives. They wish never to return to such a situation. As a nation of historical and locational significance, their desire is to grow and learn. They are more civilized than any mid east country.
3) More than any other country in the middle east, Iranians come closest to what we have here in America with regard to stability. They have a right to self determination which means they do have a right to nuclear energy.
4) The world worries about the development of an Iranian nuclear weapon. The world has dealt with more devious countries who may have used the weapon for destruction were it not for containment. Iran, again, has no use for attacking another country.
Israel is a proxy for the zionists, AIPAC, big oil, weapons manufacturers, and a faction of their country we will recognize as extreme (Likud). The real enemy in the Middle east is Hezbollah and Syria. What is really happening in the middle east with dictators overthrown limits aggression, wars, and chaos in the long run. Who benefits from such things as war? They are the one's behind this panic.
My opinion of Beni has changed further in the last week. I think he's a POS to try to politicize a "red line"...no logic other than to disrupt and distort....a proven GOP/Teabag strategy that will fail. I trust Obama a lot more than Beni the Mouth.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 17, 2012, 03:09:02 PM
Still a one trick pony I see.
Reality's a batch, ain't it?
It's like all the plaintive repetitive bleats from FoxFantasyWorld Amusement Park about a $500 million Solyndra failure compared to a $1 trililon dollar, 4,000 kids dead, Iraq failure. Yeah...one trick pony and those are both comparable in scale...
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 17, 2012, 08:39:04 PM
Reality's a batch, ain't it?
It's like all the plaintive repetitive bleats from FoxFantasyWorld Amusement Park about a $500 million Solyndra failure compared to a $1 trililon dollar, 4,000 kids dead, Iraq failure. Yeah...one trick pony and those are both comparable in scale...
And, as it relates to Faux News, I found this incredibly humorous. Fox is so looking for Obama-turned-Romney supporters that last night they put this dude on:
...and obviously didn't research him or vet him. Maybe McCain advisors are working in the Fox Newsroom now! Bahahahahaha!
Quote from: Gaspar on September 17, 2012, 03:40:57 PM
So, are you against any candidate that would go to war with Iran?
Just a question. . .
I am against any candidate who would is too eager to go to war...and you know which one that actually is. Or one who would go to war based on the same kind of structure of lies that caused Colin Powell to consider his time in that administration as his biggest disgrace.
And no, lest one be tempted to try to twist what I am saying about Iran - I happen to agree that they likely will have to be hit. Soon.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 17, 2012, 08:50:19 PM
I am against any candidate who would is too eager to go to war...and you know which one that actually is. Or one who would go to war based on the same kind of structure of lies that caused Colin Powell to consider his time in that administration as his biggest disgrace.
And no, lest one be tempted to try to twist what I am saying about Iran - I happen to agree that they likely will have to be hit. Soon.
You know, I remember as a kid how much our family hated Jane Fonda, and how much we hated the Vietnam War protesters and how vets were treated after they got home... it's just amazing how we've gone from wanting a "strong defense" to the "world's policeman."
When I seriously considered voting for the GOP for prez, I watched the South Carolina debate in 2000, and figured if McCain got the nomination, I'd likely vote for him over Al Gore... every four years after that, I've made a point of watching the South Carolina primary debates in 2004, 2008 and 2012....
Just seems like it's become a game of
"Who wants to be the biggest warmonger?" played out by neoconservatives who never served...
Quote from: TulsaRufnex on September 17, 2012, 09:02:49 PM
You know, I remember as a kid how much our family hated Jane Fonda, and how much we hated the Vietnam War protesters and how vets were treated after they got home... it's just amazing how we've gone from wanting a "strong defense" to the "world's policeman."
When I seriously considered voting for the GOP for prez, I watched the South Carolina debate in 2000, and figured if McCain got the nomination, I'd likely vote for him over Al Gore... every four years after that, I've made a point of watching the South Carolina primary debates in 2004, 2008 and 2012....
Just seems like it's become a game of "Who wants to be the biggest warmonger?" played out by neoconservatives who never served...
You have to understand who is working behind the scenes and what the agenda is. In this case, there are mroe than one. First, the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned about lo, these many years ago. He was a brilliant strategist, who understand what the industrial powers wanted and were working for.
Second, there is a very strong fundamentalist movement that wants very much for the fulfillment of prophecy along the lines of what could happen with Israel, the mid-east, and Armageddon. (Personally, I think it is presumptuous to try to "help" God along with His final days like that.)
Money and religious fanaticism. Sounds like the "demons" on the other side, huh? Wacko's on both sides causing the rest of us a whole lotta grief.
Quote from: Teatownclown on September 17, 2012, 05:03:11 PM
Do I have to lesson you once again on Iran?
1) Persians are decent people. Their country is a theocracy with a little short pipsqueak for a mouth. He scares people who think he's really dangerous. The actual cleric who calls the shots has a committee. This group tends to believe in education and furthering the needs and desires of their people. They are not war mongers.
2) In 1980's war with Iraq cost to the Iranians was over a million lives. They wish never to return to such a situation. As a nation of historical and locational significance, their desire is to grow and learn. They are more civilized than any mid east country.
3) More than any other country in the middle east, Iranians come closest to what we have here in America with regard to stability. They have a right to self determination which means they do have a right to nuclear energy.
4) The world worries about the development of an Iranian nuclear weapon. The world has dealt with more devious countries who may have used the weapon for destruction were it not for containment. Iran, again, has no use for attacking another country.
Israel is a proxy for the zionists, AIPAC, big oil, weapons manufacturers, and a faction of their country we will recognize as extreme (Likud). The real enemy in the Middle east is Hezbollah and Syria. What is really happening in the middle east with dictators overthrown limits aggression, wars, and chaos in the long run. Who benefits from such things as war? They are the one's behind this panic.
My opinion of Beni has changed further in the last week. I think he's a POS to try to politicize a "red line"...no logic other than to disrupt and distort....a proven GOP/Teabag strategy that will fail. I trust Obama a lot more than Beni the Mouth.
That's not related to my questions.
My questions to Nate were related to his support for President Obama, and if he would continue to support him if he were to engage in a war with Iran.
I'll pose the same question to you.
Actually, I'll go ahead and follow up on that since I am already aware that neither you or Nate will be capable of a satisfactory response. . .
President Obama has the opportunity, no actually the invitation, to sit down with Netanyahu and possibly thwart a war. Do you think he should?
OR, are his appearances with Lettermand and Jay-Z simply too important to reschedule, as he implies?
Gaspar, I strongly suggest you stop listening to Alex Jones' paranoid rants. There is this thing that Bush never understood but Obama and his State Department has thus far proven very good at: diplomacy. If he and his team think that letting Netanyahu stew for a while is the best way to advance the interests of our nation (not Israel, not Iran, not Canada, Japan, or anyone else, our nation) I'm willing to let out the leash a bit. Not because I have some raging hard on for Obama, but because he's proven himself in this area.
Quote from: nathanm on September 18, 2012, 08:31:06 AM
. . . but because he's proven himself in this area.
Egypt
Syria
Afganistan
Pakistan
Russia
Libya
I guess I don't see it. Of course we look at things through different lenses.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 18, 2012, 07:36:49 AM
I am already aware that neither you or Nate will be capable of a satisfactory response. . .
Implementing the same logic used by birthers is unbecoming.
Quote from: Teatownclown on September 17, 2012, 05:03:11 PM
Do I have to lesson you once again on Iran?
1) Persians are decent people. Their country is a theocracy with a little short pipsqueak for a mouth. He scares people who think he's really dangerous. The actual cleric who calls the shots has a committee. This group tends to believe in education and furthering the needs and desires of their people. They are not war mongers.
2) In 1980's war with Iraq cost to the Iranians was over a million lives. They wish never to return to such a situation. As a nation of historical and locational significance, their desire is to grow and learn. They are more civilized than any mid east country.
3) More than any other country in the middle east, Iranians come closest to what we have here in America with regard to stability. They have a right to self determination which means they do have a right to nuclear energy.
4) The world worries about the development of an Iranian nuclear weapon. The world has dealt with more devious countries who may have used the weapon for destruction were it not for containment. Iran, again, has no use for attacking another country.
Israel is a proxy for the zionists, AIPAC, big oil, weapons manufacturers, and a faction of their country we will recognize as extreme (Likud). The real enemy in the Middle east is Hezbollah and Syria. What is really happening in the middle east with dictators overthrown limits aggression, wars, and chaos in the long run. Who benefits from such things as war? They are the one's behind this panic.
My opinion of Beni has changed further in the last week. I think he's a POS to try to politicize a "red line"...no logic other than to disrupt and distort....a proven GOP/Teabag strategy that will fail. I trust Obama a lot more than Beni the Mouth.
If the clerics are truly interested in peace, why do they allow this bellicose little pipsqueak to do their bidding for them? You would think they would craft a different message or find a different "mouth" if their true intention was peace.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 18, 2012, 11:27:35 AM
If the clerics are truly interested in peace, why do they allow this bellicose little pipsqueak to do their bidding for them? You would think they would craft a different message or find a different "mouth" if their true intention was peace.
The rabble-rousing is what keeps them in power. If you recall, last time they loosened their grip and let less of a mouthpiece President get elected they had mass demonstrations against them.
Quote from: nathanm on September 18, 2012, 11:43:18 AM
The rabble-rousing is what keeps them in power. If you recall, last time they loosened their grip and let less of a mouthpiece President get elected they had mass demonstrations against them.
So the idea is, the threat of nuclear obliteration is keeping the minions in line?
Quote from: Conan71 on September 18, 2012, 12:27:11 PM
So the idea is, the threat of nuclear obliteration is keeping the minions in line?
It's worked here for 67 years.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 18, 2012, 12:27:11 PM
So the idea is, the threat of nuclear obliteration is keeping the minions in line?
Never read
1984, I take it? When they're not focused on external "enemies," the Iranian people hate the Ayatollahs and hate the hard liners. But, as with most people, including people here, they can be convinced to support authoritarianism when they feel threatened by outsiders. What do you think makes
us tolerate strip search machines at airports and the government listening to all their phone calls?
The nuclear threats and all the threats before it are largely about goading Israel into saber rattling enough to enable the existing power structure in Iran to remain. It's not dissimilar from the tactics al Qaeda uses against us. They blow up bombs to goad us into pissing more Muslims off and pushing the ridiculous security theater even farther.
Quote from: nathanm on September 18, 2012, 12:45:56 PM
Never read 1984, I take it? When they're not focused on external "enemies," the Iranian people hate the Ayatollahs and hate the hard liners. But, as with most people, including people here, they can be convinced to support authoritarianism when they feel threatened by outsiders. What do you think makes us tolerate strip search machines at airports and the government listening to all their phone calls?
The nuclear threats and all the threats before it are largely about goading Israel into saber rattling enough to enable the existing power structure in Iran to remain. It's not dissimilar from the tactics al Qaeda uses against us. They blow up bombs to goad us into pissing more Muslims off and pushing the ridiculous security theater even farther.
I lucked out. I started the HS I graduated from as a sophomore. It was the first reading assignment of freshmen.
I suppose not reading it has made me far less paranoid than some of my peers :P
(http://assets.amuniversal.com/7cc3e090ef36012ff14d001dd8b71c47)
Wow....to think so many US citizens would line up behind a liar, cheat, and dodger amazes me.
Quote from: Teatownclown on October 08, 2012, 11:48:12 AM
(http://assets.amuniversal.com/7cc3e090ef36012ff14d001dd8b71c47)
Wow....to think so many US citizens would line up behind a liar, cheat, and dodger amazes me.
You lined up behind Clinton in '92 and '96 I bet.
I finally realize what is wrong with half of our electorate!!!
They think Gary Trudeau, Bill Maher, and Michael Moore are credible sources when it comes to politics.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 08, 2012, 03:04:41 PM
You lined up behind Clinton in '92 and '96 I bet.
I finally realize what is wrong with half of our electorate!!!
They think Gary Trudeau, Bill Maher, and Michael Moore are credible sources when it comes to politics.
Just as the other half think Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck do...
Did Clinton have a father in the government? Was he affiliated with some cult? Gee, this is all new to me Conan. Please explain the parallel....
Quote from: Teatownclown on October 08, 2012, 03:13:35 PM
Did Clinton have a father in the government? Was he affiliated with some cult? Gee, this is all new to me Conan. Please explain the parallel....
Bill Clinton = liar, cheater, draft dodger
Proven on all fronts.
You aren't
(http://www.theesportsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/backpedaling34.jpg)
Are you?
Quote from: Conan71 on October 08, 2012, 03:49:06 PM
Bill Clinton = liar, cheater, draft dodger
Proven on all fronts.
You aren't
(http://www.theesportsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/backpedaling34.jpg)
Are you?
Clinton got a student deferment first, and then took advantage of several loopholes to maintain it while he was a Rhodes Scholar. He also had a very high draft number, so he was unlikely to ever be called up (as, in fact, he was not). He did some things that might well have been unethical, but nothing specifically illegal -- a pattern some say he continued throughout his career.
Romney supported the Vietnam War, but did not enlist. He heckled war protesters.
Quote from: Teatownclown on October 08, 2012, 03:55:37 PM
Clinton got a student deferment first, and then took advantage of several loopholes to maintain it while he was a Rhodes Scholar. He also had a very high draft number, so he was unlikely to ever be called up (as, in fact, he was not). He did some things that might well have been unethical, but nothing specifically illegal -- a pattern some say he continued throughout his career.
Romney supported the Vietnam War, but did not enlist. He heckled war protesters.
Clinton did not support the Viet Nam war. He didn't enlist and he dodged the draft via all sorts of chicanery.
He's also a convicted perjurer and cheater.
Booo hooo hooo to Mitt Romney...he was for the war while not willing to serve.
Obama is running against RMoney....Thanks for proving once again another one of your false equivocations.
I think Clinton's law license was suspended in one jurisdiction and he was disbarred before the S.C...
Quote from: guido911 on October 08, 2012, 04:12:04 PM
I think Clinton's law license was suspended in one jurisdiction and he was disbarred before the S.C...
. . .but at least he was a skilled leader, and could hold his own in a debate.
I never once heard Clinton blame another person for his failures. He frequently tried to re-define them, but always ultimately took credit for his actions. In his speeches, he was conversational. Like Reagan, he talked WITH the American people rather than AT them. He preferred his legal notepad to a teleprompter and even then, almost never relied on his notes. The world loved him, and though I didn't agree with some of his relaxed foreign policy, he never skipped a security briefing, or ignored a foreign dignitary. In fact it is widely accepted that he would actually entertain phone calls from world leaders while "entertaining" guests in the Oral office. Like George Bush, Clinton was prone to cancel election fundraising engagements when the duties of the presidency interfered. He never once sent a surrogate to lie for him, he was quite capable of doing that for himself, and suffering the consequences. He fought against a Republican Congress constantly but frequently found common ground passing a balanced budget that led to a budget surplus.
I would say that any comparison of Clinton to the current president would be apples and oranges.
Wow, were you even paying the least bit of attention in the 90s? You have a very active imagination.
Quote from: nathanm on October 09, 2012, 03:37:02 PM
Wow, were you even paying the least bit of attention in the 90s? You have a very active imagination.
What part of that mischaracterizes Bill Clinton as president?
That's pretty much the way everyone else remembers his presidency except those who deny there was ever a surplus or anything approaching a balanced budget.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 09, 2012, 03:41:49 PM
What part of that mischaracterizes Bill Clinton as president?
Giving the Republicans credit for the budget situation when they were cowed into submission after petulantly shutting down the government, pissing off the vast majority of the electorate, for one. It wasn't their budget plan that got enacted.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 09, 2012, 03:41:49 PM
What part of that mischaracterizes Bill Clinton as president?
That's pretty much the way everyone else remembers his presidency except those who deny there was ever a surplus or anything approaching a balanced budget.
Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.
(http://assets.amuniversal.com/80e8bc90ef36012ff14d001dd8b71c47)