Every one of us should watch it. It is must see TV.
I'm looking forward to it. I hope he was taking notes during Clinton's speach.
I'll watch it and I think MC and I will play a drinking game. One shot for every time he says "I".
I've got 911 on speed dial in the event of alcohol poisoning. ;D
You just used "I" five times in two sentences.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 06, 2012, 09:00:07 AM
You just used "I" five times in two sentences.
Three times. I'll and I've don't count. Do I have to take three shots now?
Damn it, make that four....
On a serious note, I'm interested to hear if he's going to lay out any specifics of what he intends to do the next four years or if this will be more of a "unicorns and chocolate bars for everyone" speech.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 06, 2012, 09:03:30 AM
Three times. I'll and I've don't count. Do I have to take three shots now?
Damn it, make that four....
On a serious note, I'm interested to hear if he's going to lay out any specifics of what he intends to do the next four years or if this will be more of a "unicorns and chocolate bars for everyone" speech.
I'll take my unicorn inside of my chocolate bar please.
Well, at least we know when he's being untruthful.
He always says "Let me be clear" before he says something he has no intension of doing.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 06, 2012, 10:12:02 AM
Well, at least we know when he's being untruthful.
He always says "Let me be clear" before he says something he has no intension of doing.
Its a lot easier to tell when R&R are lying or posturing for votes. Their lips move and they put their arms around each other's shoulders to hide their crossed fingers.
Dark chocolate for me, please, because it's better for the heart. And would the unicorn be the free-range, low fat version? I'm thinkin' barbecue.
Seriously, I'm looking forward to the speech too. He needs a rabble rouser to engage the base and turn out those who've seen the last two years as fairly lack luster...except for the health care law...and Bin Laden...and getting out of Iraq....and the Dream Act. There's probably more.
One thing I'd like - and it'll never happen - would be to see Cheney and Rumsfeld behind bars for their part in taking us to war based on false pretenses.
Quote from: Ed W on September 06, 2012, 05:17:42 PM
One thing I'd like - and it'll never happen - would be to see Cheney and Rumsfeld behind bars for their part in taking us to war based on false pretenses.
Slippery slope. Ordering drone strikes which kill innocent civilians can be considered war crimes as well.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 06, 2012, 06:11:46 PM
Slippery slope. Ordering drone strikes which kill innocent civilians can be considered war crimes as well.
Good point. Where does the Constitution give any federal official the power to act as judge, jury, and executioner, depriving an American citizen of his life without due process?
Quote from: Conan71 on September 06, 2012, 06:11:46 PM
Slippery slope. Ordering drone strikes which kill innocent civilians can be considered war crimes as well.
Only if you lose or
retreat pull out without a complete win.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 06, 2012, 09:03:30 AM
Three times. I'll and I've don't count. Do I have to take three shots now?
Damn it, make that four....
On a serious note, I'm interested to hear if he's going to lay out any specifics of what he intends to do the next four years or if this will be more of a "unicorns and chocolate bars for everyone" speech.
I guess you got your answer. He was very specific on the attack, but offered no new specifics or plans as to how he would tackle any of the issues. Even on the attack, his speech was pale in comparison with the "talk" that Clinton gave. As my wife, the Democrat, said about 1/4 the way into the speech "do we have to watch this? It's the same crap he always says." Then left to watch Horders in the other room.
I must say, I thought he did very well on the attack though. It seems he did pick up some pointers from Clinton, but without the ability to offer any real alternative besides "Forward." I think it will do little to sway the uncertainty in the minds of independent voters. I think the campaign was wise not to anticipate a bump from this convention. In comparison with past conventions this one was a bit flat. Michelle Obama's speech was the most memorable moment.
Unlike Romney, Obama and his campaign have long had specific plans that have received much press. That was a nice use of the "accuse the opponent of having our guy's weakness" gambit, though. You're definitely bringing your A game today.
Quote from: nathanm on September 07, 2012, 07:41:34 AM
Unlike Romney, Obama and his campaign have long had specific plans that have received much press.
How so?
They aren't available on the Obama campaign website.
Though the media said he was going to go into some detail last night, he didn't.
Every bugget "speech" and proposal he has offered has ended up as a "framework" that even the CBO complains about, and his own party won't accept.
His foreign policy is always reactive, giving people the impression that he "leads from behind."
I like that he seeks the advice of experts, but he refuses to take it.
To tell the truth, beyond the few paragraphs on his website under "issues" that echo the same emotionocentric babble as 4 years ago, there's not a shred of real policy.
The one policy he has taken up with a fury is his personal drone war, but he wont' toute that.
As far as the economy is concerned he's skated on old Bush policy for the past three years, popping up every now and then to cry for higher taxes on the rich, but not following through with it.
He has continued to offer vague plans to cut spending and reduce the debt, but his actions have been exactly the opposite.
His intensions have no detail, and his results are non-existant.
He has become an excellent golfer, but remains a poor leader.
I could only muster through about 10-15 minutes. The amount of straw men and future broken promises in that span was enough for me to conclude it was going to be nothing new.
On the specifics thing, I was watching Morning Joe this morning and the Mayor of Charlotte was on there exclaiming how excited he was that Obama was big on the specifics in his speech, where Romney wasn't. He didn't just say he was going to create xx amount of jobs. Joe, says "How". "He's going to create 1 million manufacturing jobs". "How". He's going to invest in education". "How". "Well ....". Maybe he wasn't as specific as they would like to portray him as. Unlikely anyone will question anyone else about it though.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 07, 2012, 07:56:44 AM
How so?
They aren't available on the Obama campaign website.
They're available as bills sitting in Congress and budgets on the White House website.
Quote
Every bugget "speech" and proposal he has offered has ended up as a "framework" that even the CBO complains about, and his own party won't accept.
I see you haven't let go of the redirection gambit. Excellent!
Quote
His foreign policy is always reactive, giving people the impression that he "leads from behind."
This is an outright fabrication. You may have some of the brass Clinton spoke about, though.
Quote
I like that he seeks the advice of experts, but he refuses to take it.
The part after the comma is an outright fabrication. His speech last night specifically mentioned the Simpson-Bowles plan, which I'll remind you once again Paul Ryan voted against.
Quote
The one A policy he has taken up with a fury is his personal drone war, but he wont' toute that.
This is accurate.
Quote
As far as the economy is concerned he's skated on old Bush policy for the past three years
This is an outright fabrication, and quite the doozy.
Quote
He has continued to offer vague plans to cut spending and reduce the debt, but his actions have been exactly the opposite.
This is also an outright fabrication.
Quote
His intensions have no detail, and his results are non-existant.
The first part of this is a complete fabrication, and the second is an opinion which flies in the face of reason. When Obama took office, we were losing what, 850,000 jobs a month? When Obama took office, we still had hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq. When Obama took office, gays couldn't serve openly in the military. When Obama took office, health insurance companies were spending less than 80% of your premium dollar on health care. When Obama took office, Medicare was projected to run out of money in the Hospital Insurance trust fund in 2019 (or 2016, if you take the May 2009 report), and thanks to the health care law you complain about so bitterly, it now will last until 2024 without further action.
Results don't vanish just because you happen to not agree with the policy.
To date, I'm not sure if any of Obama's budgets have received a single vote yet. At least the ones brought up to vote by a friendly Senate Majority leader that is. I'm not sure how you can say with a straight face that this President is serious about any of his proposals (To be clear I am saying the President not all Democrats in general). Even the healthcare bill was largely hashed out in the House and Senate, with little input by the President. I recall even thinking that I thought this was going to be Obama's thing, but he seemed to not want to get his hands dirty. This is where the "lead from behind" meme started.
To this day, I still don't know why Democrats are voting against these budgets. If Obama was playing politics (when is he not), he would want to paint the Republicans as obstructionist, but in this case, nobody is voting for it. It has been one of the very few things that there is bipartisan support against.
Funny how Bush wasn't leading from behind on Part D.
Quote from: nathanm on September 07, 2012, 08:40:13 AM
Funny how Bush wasn't leading from behind on Part D.
Just because Bush may or may not have "lead from behind" has no bearing on what Obama is or isn't doing. Don't criticize Gas for redirecting and then follow it up by doing the same.
Quote from: erfalf on September 07, 2012, 08:42:59 AM
Just because Bush may or may not have "lead from behind" has no bearing on what Obama is or isn't doing. Don't criticize Gas for redirecting and then follow it up by doing the same.
Sounds like we have a slumber party in the making.
Sorry, I was channeling my inner Gweed there...
Quote from: erfalf on September 07, 2012, 08:42:59 AM
Just because Bush may or may not have "lead from behind" has no bearing on what Obama is or isn't doing. Don't criticize Gas for redirecting and then follow it up by doing the same.
It's not redirecting to call into question the double standard being applied. Beyond that, it's still not a reasonable assertion given the number of town hall events Obama had, speeches he gave, and arms he twisted to get it done. Yeah, he let Congress hash out the details, but that looks more like keeping some respect for the separation of powers than anything else to me, although the argument could be made that it was left up to Congress for political reasons. Either way, that doesn't change the amount of involvement he did have. It was enough that some complained about him focusing on health care to the exclusion of other issues.
He was definitely on his "A" game with delivery last night, but I found it curious how many of the pundits were saying last night and this morning that he had a tough act to follow with Clinton's speech the night before and even some saying his speech paled in comparison- usual suspects who gush over Obama not the Faux talking heads. Sounds like Clinton is going to go out a stump for him over the next couple of months. People need to remember though that Clinton isn't running, Obama's economic policies are less than Clintonian, and that Clinton had the privilege to preside over an unprecedented tech bubble.
He continues to demonize the wealthy. I'd hope that's starting to ring hollow with his followers since he's continued the tax policies of Bush II and had the opportunity to let the Bush era tax cuts expire when the Dems had the House and Senate. Perhaps I'm too cynical but I still hear in his speeches that one person's failure is begat by someone else's success.
I wish him much luck in the election. He's a likable guy and good speaker, but he's simply not a natural leader. I expect he will have a great career on the speaking circuit when he leaves office.
Ok Nate,
Here's the challenge. Pick an issue, and present President Obama's detailed plan. Don't give me the regular Obama one liner BS, like "I'm going to put 100,000 firemen and teachers to work." I want to understand HOW he is going to do things. That seems to be his weakness, the HOW. He has plenty of wonderful intensions but no plans.
Economy
Unemployment
Energy
Medicare
Reduce The Debt
Tax Code
Middle East
Quote from: Conan71 on September 07, 2012, 09:07:33 AM
He was definitely on his "A" game with delivery last night, but I found it curious how many of the pundits were saying last night and this morning that he had a tough act to follow with Clinton's speech the night before and even some saying his speech paled in comparison- usual suspects who gush over Obama not the Faux talking heads. Sounds like Clinton is going to go out a stump for him over the next couple of months. People need to remember though that Clinton isn't running, Obama's economic policies are less than Clintonian, and that Clinton had the privilege to preside over an unprecedented tech bubble.
He continues to demonize the wealthy. I'd hope that's starting to ring hollow with his followers since he's continued the tax policies of Bush II and had the opportunity to let the Bush era tax cuts expire when the Dems had the House and Senate. Perhaps I'm too cynical but I still hear in his speeches that one person's failure is begat by someone else's success.
I wish him much luck in the election. He's a likable guy and good speaker, but he's simply not a natural leader. I expect he will have a great career on the speaking circuit when he leaves office.
He could have given the same speech in 2008. In fact, I think he did!
Nothing new. Nothing exciting.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 07, 2012, 09:07:33 AM
He continues to demonize the wealthy.
Please show what part of his speech "demonizes" the wealthy.
Here is a transcript.
http://www.npr.org/2012/09/06/160713941/transcript-president-obamas-convention-speech?ft=1&f=1014
Quote from: Gaspar on September 07, 2012, 09:13:20 AM
He could have given the same speech in 2008. In fact, I think he did!
Nothing new. Nothing exciting.
You really should get your hearing fixed.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 07, 2012, 09:07:33 AM
People need to remember though that Clinton isn't running, Obama's economic policies are less than Clintonian, and that Clinton had the privilege to preside over an unprecedented tech bubble.
True, not really true, also true, but fails to capture the broad range of the expansion. Sorry, I'm just Mr. Truthometer this morning.
Gaspar, it is not my responsibility to inform you. You, as a voter, have a responsibility to inform yourself. However, you should know just from reading the news that there is legislation before Congress, proposed by the administration, covering much--if not all--of your list.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 07, 2012, 09:16:08 AM
Please show what part of his speech "demonizes" the wealthy.
Here is a transcript.
http://www.npr.org/2012/09/06/160713941/transcript-president-obamas-convention-speech?ft=1&f=1014
QuoteBut when Governor Romney and his friends in Congress tell us we can somehow lower our deficits by spending trillions more on new tax breaks for the wealthy, well — (boos) — what'd Bill Clinton call it? You do the arithmetic. (Laughter, cheers, applause.) You do the math.
I refuse to go along with that, and as long as I'm president, I never will. (Cheers, applause.) I refuse to ask middle-class families to give up their deductions for owning a home or raising their kids just to pay for another millionaire's tax cut.
You really think that saying that millionaires shouldn't get a tax cut paid for largely by a tax increase on the middle class, as any Romney plan that fulfills the criteria Romney himself has laid out would do, is "demonizing the wealthy?" It's not as if there's not a serious proposal from his opponent that would do exactly that.
Quote from: nathanm on September 07, 2012, 09:35:01 AM
You really think that saying that millionaires shouldn't get a tax cut paid for largely by a tax increase on the middle class, as any Romney plan that fulfills the criteria Romney himself has laid out would do, is "demonizing the wealthy?" It's not as if there's not a serious proposal from his opponent that would do exactly that.
It's the way he pits one against the other. As if a tax cut for wealthy (who are also Americans by the way) would somehow harm middle-income earners.
Quote from: erfalf on September 07, 2012, 09:37:15 AM
It's the way he pits one against the other. As if a tax cut for wealthy (who are also Americans by the way) would somehow harm middle-income earners.
Once again, Romney's proposal would have to increase taxes on the middle class for the numbers he has stated to work. He is free to change the parameters of his proposal at any time to make it so that tax cuts for the wealthy would indeed not harm middle-income earners. Someone has to pay the bill; government isn't free, as Gaspar so likes to remind us.
Quote from: nathanm on September 07, 2012, 09:39:17 AM
Once again, Romney's proposal would have to increase taxes on the middle class for the numbers he has stated to work. He is free to change the parameters of his proposal at any time to make it so that tax cuts for the wealthy would indeed not harm middle-income earners. Someone has to pay the bill; government isn't free, as Gaspar so likes to remind us.
All I'm saying is, why does he have to pit one against the other. We don't need boogie men.
Quote from: erfalf on September 07, 2012, 09:43:44 AM
All I'm saying is, why does he have to pit one against the other. We don't need boogie men.
He isn't. Arithmetic (and Romney's plan) is.
You're on your game this morning Nathan. It especially helps when you don't take the bait the pirate offers up. Advantage Obama.
This race is not going to be as close as I once thought. R&R's lack of foreign policy experience and insight is hanging out like the bull sack hanging off a 4wd truck. Their failure to acknowledge veterans and current military engagements is telling. They don't have the staff or the ability to be identified with the average American and when it comes to leadership, no matter how hard the right tries, they cannot erase his bonafides and they can't make this a wealth war. Add in the quietly emerging positive economy and it becomes obvious.
Good pep rally and I expect it to produce. R&R's only hope is a fantastic debate showing.
Quote from: AquaMan on September 07, 2012, 09:53:00 AM
You're on your game this morning Nathan. It especially helps when you don't take the bait the pirate offers up. Advantage Obama.
This race is not going to be as close as I once thought. R&R's lack of foreign policy experience and insight is hanging out like the bull sack hanging off a 4wd truck. Their failure to acknowledge veterans and current military engagements is telling. They don't have the staff or the ability to be identified with the average American and when it comes to leadership, no matter how hard the right tries, they cannot erase his bonafides and they can't make this a wealth war. Add in the quietly emerging positive economy and it becomes obvious.
Good pep rally and I expect it to produce. R&R's only hope is a fantastic debate showing.
Romney's foreign policy experience is on par with Obama's prior to his election. Does it really make a difference?
Quote from: erfalf on September 07, 2012, 09:56:20 AM
Romney's foreign policy experience is on par with Obama's prior to his election. Does it really make a difference?
Yep, especially when he's calling Russia our greatest enemy.
Hello, Al Qaeda?
EDIT to add...I guess foreign policy experience ONLY matters when it's the Democrat in question. Right? ::)
Quote from: erfalf on September 07, 2012, 09:56:20 AM
Romney's foreign policy experience is on par with Obama's prior to his election. Does it really make a difference?
If you can't see the difference you need to remove the blinders. The nature and quality of the experience matters. The ability to converse, compromise and understand different cultures, matters. It matters to Romney, since he spent a fair amount of time trying to build cred in the area.
Only die hard Republicans from the 90's thought that we need not deal with the rest of the world. Most didn't even have passports. That time is over.
For most of us, anyway.
Quote from: erfalf on September 07, 2012, 09:49:55 AM
Opinion.
Arithmetic is not opinion. Romney is the one that stated the parameters.
Quote from: nathanm on September 07, 2012, 10:03:58 AM
Arithmetic is not opinion. Romney is the one that stated the parameters.
When Romney goes out and says things like Obama does, maybe you'll have a leg to stand on. Pitting one against the other. Offering policy that favors one over the other is not class warfare, it's just policy. Saying the rich don't deserve this or that, and you do is class warfare.
Quote from: erfalf on September 07, 2012, 10:06:36 AM
When Romney goes out and says things like Obama does, maybe you'll have a leg to stand on. Pitting one against the other. Offering policy that favors one over the other is not class warfare, it's just policy. Saying the rich don't deserve this or that, and you do is class warfare.
wow. Such logic is dangerous. Policy used as a tool for class warfare is not as bad as uttering what is perceived as class warfare?
Thanks to RM for posting the transcript.
Here's the parts I liked or agreed with. Whether or not I believe he's really got plan or will follow through is quite another issue. His at times self-deprecating humor is very good.
QuoteTrivial things become big distractions. Serious issues become sound bites. The truth gets buried under an avalanche of money and advertising. And if you're sick of hearing me approve this message, believe me, so am I. (Laughter, cheers, applause.)
That really distills the sick condition of our partisan politics. Of course, I consider the Romney tax returns to be an example of a trivial distraction from the real issues.
QuoteAnd I ran for president because I saw that basic bargain slipping away. I began my career helping people in the shadow of a shuttered steel mill at a time when too many good jobs were starting to move overseas. And by 2008 we had seen nearly a decade in which families struggled with costs that kept rising but paychecks that didn't, folks racking up more and more debt just to make the mortgage or pay tuition, put gas in the car or food on the table. And when the house of cards collapsed in the Great Recession, millions of innocent Americans lost their jobs, their homes, their life savings, a tragedy from which we're still fighting to recover.
Of course the real irony here is the middle class is worse off since the recovery started. Sorry I meant to keep this all positive but that paragraph keeps jumping out at me. Back to positives:
Quoteor we can start rewarding companies that open new plants and train new workers and create new jobs here in the United States of America. (Cheers, applause.) We can help big factories and small businesses double their exports. And if we choose this path, we can create a million new manufacturing jobs in the next four years. You can make that happen. (Cheers, applause.) You can choose that future.
I'm a huge proponent of the idea that we should reward companies for creating jobs in the US and create disincentives to ship them overseas. I'd like to know specifically what he would consider to be a reward or incentive for companies that would not be considered corporate welfare, since that is a powerful meme the dems like to use. I don't have a problem with it when it directly creates jobs. Is that a payroll tax break, or is that giving free land to a company or no interest loans? Do you lower the corporate tax rate? What exactly does he have in mind?
QuoteIn the last year alone, we cut oil imports by 1 million barrels a day, more than any administration in recent history. (Cheers, applause.) And today the United States of America is less dependent on foreign oil than at any time in the last two decades. (Cheers, applause.)
So now you have a choice between a strategy that reverses this progress or one that builds on it.
We've opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration in the last three years, and we'll open more. But unlike my opponent, I will not let oil companies write this country's energy plan or endanger our coastlines or collect another $4 billion in corporate welfare from our taxpayers. (Cheers, applause.) We're offering a better path.
Damn, there's the corporate welfare meme not but a few paragraphs later. I'm ecstatic we are curtailing our need for imported oil. I was previously unaware we had decreased imports by 1 million bbl/day. Also curious with all the new domestic production though why oil and gas prices are has high as they are right now.
QuoteFor the first time in a generation, nearly every state has answered our call to raise their standards for teaching and learning. (Cheers, applause.) Some of the worst schools in the country have made real gains in math and reading. Millions of students are paying less for college today because we finally took on a system that wasted billions of taxpayer dollars on banks and lenders...No family should have to set aside a college acceptance letter because they don't have the money. (Cheers, applause.) No company should have to look for workers overseas because they couldn't find any with the right skills here at home. (Cheers, applause.) That's not our future. That is not our future. (Cheers, applause.)
I don't think anyone can complain about better education, however I've not seen a metric which purports to show a cut in college tuition costs. I know they have not dropped for my kids, they still go up each year. I believe giving everyone an affordable and good opportunity at higher education benefits us all.
QuoteA government has a role in this. But teachers must inspire. Principals must lead. Parents must instill a thirst for learning. And students, you've got to do the work. (Cheers, applause.) And together, I promise you we can outeducate and outcompete any nation on earth. (Cheers, applause.)
I like that he stresses the individual role everyone can play in this. Going one step further though, a child won't prioritize their education if their family doesn't see it as a priority. I know not Obama's fault, but I don't think society can stress enough how much the family must support the student.
QuoteHelp us work with colleges and universities to cut in half the growth of tuition costs over the next 10 years.
How do we do that? If you hire more instructors and build more facilities to educate students, how do you lower the costs? There's a good example of unicorns and chocolate bars for everyone. I'd simply like to know the proposed mechanism by which this would happen.
QuoteBut for all the progress that we've made, challenges remain. Terrorist plots must be disrupted. Europe's crisis must be contained. Our commitment to Israel's security must not waver, and neither must our pursuit of peace. (Cheers, applause.) The Iranian government must face a world that stays united against its nuclear ambitions. The historic change sweeping across the Arab world must be defined not by the iron fist of a dictator or the hate of extremists, but by the hopes and aspirations of ordinary people who are reaching for the same rights that we celebrate here today.
I'll give him an B to an B+ on foreign policy. I also note though that he takes credit for ending the Iraq war when it wound down essentially on the timeline President Bush had set for it. Personally, I think Hillary has been a very good Secretary of State and believe she's got far more to do with our current foreign policy than the president or VP.
QuoteAnd last summer I worked with Republicans in Congress to cut a billion dollars in spending, because those of us who believe government can be a force for good should work harder than anyone to reform it so that it's leaner and more efficient and more responsive to the American people
I really don't consider cutting $1 billion a major accomplishment but I admire his willingness to throw a bone to those of us who would like to see a leaner government. However there's contradictions elsewhere in his speech about cutting spending which look more like shifting the spending points like cutting the military while building more infrastructure. I have no problem cutting our military exploits overseas and getting our own house in order, except that politicians have a real knack for making sure those spending projects go to the best donors not the best purposes.
QuoteNow, I'm still eager to reach an agreement based on the principles of my bipartisan debt commission. No party has a monopoly on wisdom. No democracy works without compromise. I want to get this done, and we can get it done.
Great I'm waiting with baited breath. How much though is "based on the principals" and how much is following direct recommendations? One area I still see he's failed to grasp as a leader is he's got a knack for inserting totally unacceptable conditions to his opposition when it comes to compromising with the GOP. Great leadership understands you have to be willing to accept criticism from within your own party for doing what works best for the citizens (Boehner could use a lesson in that as well).
QuoteBut when Governor Romney and his friends in Congress tell us we can somehow lower our deficits by spending trillions more on new tax breaks for the wealthy, well — (boos) — what'd Bill Clinton call it? You do the arithmetic. (Laughter, cheers, applause.) You do the math.
Okay, that one is a real whopper... I hate to depart from positives but I can't let him get away with that one.
QuoteWe insist on personal responsibility, and we celebrate individual initiative. We're not entitled to success. We have to earn it. We honor the strivers, the dreamers, the risk- takers, the entrepreneurs who have always been the driving force behind our free enterprise system, the greatest engine of growth and prosperity that the world's ever known....
...We know that churches and charities can often make more of a difference than a poverty program alone. We don't want handouts for people who refuse to help themselves, and we certainly don't want bailouts for banks that break the rules
Sounds almost like a libertarian here. ;D
The rest is pretty much a chicken in every pot hyperbole. I truly believe President Obama has a vision of how he would like America to be. I can't think of anyone who would truly wish for failure. I simply don't see that he really has a workable pathway to get us in the direction he says he wants to. I suspect the debates, town halls, and stump speeches will tell us more about a specific road map in the next 60 days. That's all he's got to make his case for why he deserves another four years.
Quote from: AquaMan on September 07, 2012, 10:03:03 AM
If you can't see the difference you need to remove the blinders. The nature and quality of the experience matters. The ability to converse, compromise and understand different cultures, matters. It matters to Romney, since he spent a fair amount of time trying to build cred in the area.
Only die hard Republicans from the 90's thought that we need not deal with the rest of the world. Most didn't even have passports. That time is over.
For most of us, anyway.
What vast amounts of foreign policy experience did Obama have in 2008, besides living overseas? I would guess that Romney probably has been in the game longer than Obama (prior to his election) considering his families political background. He has worked with companies overseas, while Obama was busy getting high (by his own admission). and penning his autobiography (at 30 years old mind you). Please enlighten me how Obama's prior experience is more impressive than Romney's?
Quote from: AquaMan on September 07, 2012, 10:10:25 AM
wow. Such logic is dangerous. Policy used as a tool for class warfare is not as bad as uttering what is perceived as class warfare?
Policy is not inherently class warfare. If you can write legislation that effects every single American equally, then I might let you get away with what you just said.
Quote from: erfalf on September 07, 2012, 10:06:36 AM
When Romney goes out and says things like Obama does, maybe you'll have a leg to stand on. Pitting one against the other. Offering policy that favors one over the other is not class warfare, it's just policy. Saying the rich don't deserve this or that, and you do is class warfare.
I could not find the word "deserve" in Obama's speech. Also, saying that policy can't be class warfare is patently ridiculous. Action is everything. Words are just words.
Quote from: nathanm on September 07, 2012, 10:17:29 AM
I could not find the word "deserve" in Obama's speech. Also, saying that policy can't be class warfare is patently ridiculous. Action is everything. Words are just words.
Tell me you don't believe words are just words. You know as well as I that Obama benefited greatly from his "words" in 2008. You know too, that becoming President is far more than policy ideas, it is the feeling one has about the person. That is why Obama was so incredibly successful in 2008 (that and a pair of happless Repubs running against him). He had the culture of cool or whatever working for him. Words are so much more than words. Why else do you care so much about what Romney says in his policy statements. Right now they are just words. He hasn't done anything in the federal government.
It has been said that Obama was told before he took the podium last night. 96,000 jobs were added and 368,000 had left the job force. The lowest level in 31 years.
Wonderful promises without foundations.
Mix-up from last night, SOTUs and 2008 Campaign (http://images.redstate.com/Obamaretread.mp3)
Quote from: Gaspar on September 07, 2012, 10:35:01 AM
Wonderful promises without foundations.
Mix-up from last night, SOTUs and 2008 Campaign (http://images.redstate.com/Obamaretread.mp3)
His whole campaign in 2008 was about being the anti-Bush. What is he going to do now, be the anti-Obama.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 07, 2012, 10:12:13 AM
I don't think anyone can complain about better education, however I've not seen a metric which purports to show a cut in college tuition costs. I know they have not dropped for my kids, they still go up each year. I believe giving everyone an affordable and good opportunity at higher education benefits us all.
I believe he's talking about interest in this passage. The overall cost is lower because student loan rates were not allowed to rise and banks who had previously been acting as middlemen and marking up the rate the government was charging are no longer acting as middlemen.
Quote
Okay, that one is a real whopper... I hate to depart from positives but I can't let him get away with that one.
Romney and Ryan are the ones that decided they had to have so much tax cutting in their plans that there's not any reasonable way to make it up with budget cuts without big middle class tax increases. Romney's plan is even worse than Ryan's in this respect because of his excessive allocation to defense spending. And Ryan's plan doesn't balance the budget until something ridiculous like 2050. Seriously, it may not be exactly 2050, but it's not far from that.
Quote
Words are so much more than words. Why else do you care so much about what Romney says in his policy statements. Right now they are just words. He hasn't done anything in the federal government.
Romney proposes action, surely you get that. So does Obama. If one is class warfare, surely so is the other. I'm not the one that's making the case for class warfare, though. I just think Romney's proposals are bad policy.
But Nate,
You can criticize Romney and Ryan's plans all you want. You can say that "they don't balance the budget until XXXX" or "Romney is going to end Medicare as we know it."
The president spent a significant part of his speech doing just that, and Clinton did an even better job of it, but it doen't change the fact that President Obama doesn't offer a plan to do anything.
He's running on 2008 promises never fulfilled. Recycled love-songs that used to swoon, but are now so cliché and flat that not a single person is fainting. Plans without numbers, and intentions without strategies. He held up Simpson-Bowles like it was gospel but failed to mention that he sidelined it. He's golfed his way through his first term, riding on his speeches and constantly blaming others for his lack of results. It's worn thin.
He has been a charlatan, a hoax, an empty suit. Democrats are trying so hard to pretend that there is something there, but I'm afraid there is not.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 07, 2012, 11:02:09 AM
it doen't change the fact that President Obama doesn't offer a plan to do anything.
Since this was covered before, this now escalates to an outright lie. Not only are there plans in the form of legislation pending before Congress, but there are also the previous promises already legislated. Romney has no real plan, just a broad framework, which is precisely what you're attempting to criticize Obama for.
Quote
He held up Simpson-Bowles like it was gospel but failed to mention that he sidelined it.
He sidelined it? Check his 2013 budget which contains many elements of the commission's plan, the very plan that Paul Ryan voted against.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 07, 2012, 11:02:09 AM
But Nate,
You can criticize Romney and Ryan's plans all you want. You can say that "they don't balance the budget until XXXX" or "Romney is going to end Medicare as we know it."
The president spent a significant part of his speech doing just that, and Clinton did an even better job of it, but it doen't change the fact that President Obama doesn't offer a plan to do anything.
He's running on 2008 promises never fulfilled. Recycled love-songs that used to swoon, but are now so cliché and flat that not a single person is fainting. Plans without numbers, and intentions without strategies. He held up Simpson-Bowles like it was gospel but failed to mention that he sidelined it. He's golfed his way through his first term, riding on his speeches and constantly blaming others for his lack of results. It's worn thin.
He has been a charlatan, a hoax, an empty suit. Democrats are trying so hard to pretend that there is something there, but I'm afraid there is not.
Nobody fainted, but there were some tear-stained cheeks the cameras caught last night. Almost as if the producers knew exactly where they would be seated. Pass the mentholatum?
Quote from: erfalf on September 07, 2012, 10:12:17 AM
What vast amounts of foreign policy experience did Obama have in 2008, besides living overseas? I would guess that Romney probably has been in the game longer than Obama (prior to his election) considering his families political background. He has worked with companies overseas, while Obama was busy getting high (by his own admission). and penning his autobiography (at 30 years old mind you). Please enlighten me how Obama's prior experience is more impressive than Romney's?
Why bother? It would bounce off of you like most of the other attempts to enlighten you.
BTW, this is not 2008. This is 2012. Obama now has vastly more experience than the Mormon doing his sabbatical. And, once again since you don't pay attention, its the quality of the experience. Experience in outsourcing jobs and hiding money in offshore accounts doesn't count and offending our allies on his pr trip does count.
Quote from: AquaMan on September 07, 2012, 01:45:41 PM
Why bother? It would bounce off of you like most of the other attempts to enlighten you.
BTW, this is not 2008. This is 2012. Obama now has vastly more experience than the Mormon doing his sabbatical. And, once again since you don't pay attention, its the quality of the experience. Experience in outsourcing jobs and hiding money in offshore accounts doesn't count and offending our allies on his pr trip does count.
Obama's foreign policy gaffes are legion.
QuoteWASHINGTON (AP) — The White House said President Barack Obama misspoke on Tuesday when he referred to a "Polish death camp" while honoring a Polish war hero.
The president's remark had drawn immediate complaints from Poles who said Obama should have called it a "German death camp in Nazi-occupied Poland," to distinguish the perpetrators from the location. Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski called it a matter of "ignorance and incompetence."
http://www.timesofisrael.com/obama-offends-poles-in-death-camp-slip-up/
QuoteNicolas Sarkozy branded the Israeli prime minister 'a liar' while Obama retorted: 'You're fed up with him - I have to deal with him every day!'
...Israeli politician Danny Danon said that President Obama revealed his feelings toward Israel with the remarks to Sarkozy.
Mr Danon told the Jerusalem Post: 'Obama's true face was revealed, as are his cold and disrespectful policies toward Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu.'
He added: 'Anyone who had doubts about the way Obama treats Israel doesn't have them anymore. Obama is bad for Israel.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2059206/Obama-facing-Jewish-backlash-Israeli-PM-Benjamin-Netanyahu-remark-Sarkozy.html#ixzz25oQ1pfhI
For brevity of space you can visit the top ten insults to Israel here:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100036389/barack-obama's-top-ten-insults-against-israel/
Quote from: AquaMan on September 07, 2012, 01:45:41 PM
Why bother? It would bounce off of you like most of the other attempts to enlighten you.
BTW, this is not 2008. This is 2012. Obama now has vastly more experience than the Mormon doing his sabbatical. And, once again since you don't pay attention, its the quality of the experience. Experience in outsourcing jobs and hiding money in offshore accounts doesn't count and offending our allies on his pr trip does count.
+1 but I'd watch out for that Moron hate.... ::)
Quote from: Conan71 on September 07, 2012, 02:08:25 PM
Obama's foreign policy gaffes are legion.
For brevity of space you can visit the top ten insults to Israel here:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100036389/barack-obama's-top-ten-insults-against-israel/
FYI Crownan, AIPAC needs to stay out of our business.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 07, 2012, 11:02:09 AM
He has been a charlatan, a hoax, an empty suit. Democrats are trying so hard to pretend that there is something there, but I'm afraid there is not.
::)
(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/482045_460243567339435_29154231_n.jpg)
Quote from: Teatownclown on September 07, 2012, 03:44:35 PM
+1 but I'd watch out for that Moron hate.... ::)
I don't hate Mormons. Or any religion really. Unlike most people on this forum, judging by their remarks, I actually have a good friend I grew up with who is a former Mormon. Who actually went out knocking on peoples doors asking for money and pushing the Mormon religion. That friend now has little respect for the church.
What I hate is that folks tend to confuse religion, and spirituality with the business of religion and spirituality.
Quote from: nathanm on September 07, 2012, 11:23:32 AM
Since this was covered before, this now escalates to an outright lie. Not only are there plans in the form of legislation pending before Congress, but there are also the previous promises already legislated. Romney has no real plan, just a broad framework, which is precisely what you're attempting to criticize Obama for.
He sidelined it? Check his 2013 budget which contains many elements of the commission's plan, the very plan that Paul Ryan voted against.
When Obama's budget gets a vote, then you can talk about Obama's "real" plans. Until then, it is just make believe.
Quote from: erfalf on September 07, 2012, 08:18:37 PM
When Obama's budget gets a vote, then you can talk about Obama's "real" plans. Until then, it is just make believe.
When the republicans allow it to come to the floor, we'll talk.
Quote from: AquaMan on September 07, 2012, 01:45:41 PM
Why bother? It would bounce off of you like most of the other attempts to enlighten you.
BTW, this is not 2008. This is 2012. Obama now has vastly more experience than the Mormon doing his sabbatical. And, once again since you don't pay attention, its the quality of the experience. Experience in outsourcing jobs and hiding money in offshore accounts doesn't count and offending our allies on his pr trip does count.
That or there is nothing to refute my assertion that Obama had no more (if not less) foreign policy experience than Romney has now. And even if we compare the two now, what is Romney looking up to, letting the middle East hash it out on their own? Completely ignoring any western allies in the area? Sounds like his policy is to not have a policy.
And don't even bring up the OBL thing, you and I both know that anyone would have done the same, well except Clinton maybe.
Quote from: Hoss on September 07, 2012, 08:19:33 PM
When the republicans allow it to come to the floor, we'll talk.
To date, the Senate has brought up Obama's budget several times and nary a vote was cast in its direction. Now we can talk.
Quote from: erfalf on September 07, 2012, 08:25:37 PM
To date, the Senate has brought up Obama's budget several times and nary a vote was cast in its direction. Now we can talk.
Remember who holds the purse strings? The House? Did you take civics in Middle School?
Quote from: Hoss on September 07, 2012, 08:53:44 PM
Remember who holds the purse strings? The House? Did you take civics in Middle School?
How many votes did his budgets get in the House then?
Quote from: AquaMan on September 07, 2012, 08:10:16 PM
I actually have a good friend I grew up with who is a former Mormon.
That sounds a lot like "I have some black friends". I don't expect you intended it that way but in this politically correct world, be careful.
Quote from: Hoss on September 07, 2012, 08:19:33 PM
When the republicans allow it to come to the floor, we'll talk.
Uh, seems to me that Harry Reid has not allowed a bunch of legislation to not come before the Senate.
Quote from: erfalf on September 07, 2012, 08:18:37 PM
Until then, it is just make believe.
Make believe with actual numbers, unlike Romney's plan.
Quote from: erfalf on September 07, 2012, 08:25:05 PM
That or there is nothing to refute my assertion that Obama had no more (if not less) foreign policy experience than Romney has now. And even if we compare the two now, what is Romney looking up to, letting the middle East hash it out on their own? Completely ignoring any western allies in the area? Sounds like his policy is to not have a policy.
And don't even bring up the OBL thing, you and I both know that anyone would have done the same, well except Clinton maybe.
Well, you have it all covered. Why bother to even post? If you want to run Obama from 2008 against R&R in 2012, its your world. Make it happen capn.
When you start with a construct that you feel is bulletproof, no doubt you'll never find any flaw in it. Ruins conversations though and limits your scope of the world.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 07, 2012, 09:23:16 PM
That sounds a lot like "I have some black friends". I don't expect you intended it that way but in this politically correct world, be careful.
Its a life long friend. A friend when I didn't know or care about religion. One who was a Mormon and isn't now. Those are the facts. I didn't pretend to understand, to relate, or have intimate knowledge about the religion. Just noting that it was a negative part of that friends life that a parent forced them into. My friend is now shunned by the rest of the family.
In my employment, I am immersed in a culture of minorities. The strangest place I've ever worked because of its extremely diverse age, race and religious population. Fundamentalist Christianity is their common denominator with poor education and poverty close behind.
The upshot is that they are all conflicted with this election. They no longer can decide simply on race, religion, business, or party. If any discussion occurs at all its usually centered on the depressing, dismal condition of the world and the incompetence of their company. Eh, they probably won't even vote.
Quote from: AquaMan on September 08, 2012, 08:45:32 AM
Its a life long friend. A friend when I didn't know or care about religion. One who was a Mormon and isn't now. Those are the facts. I didn't pretend to understand, to relate, or have intimate knowledge about the religion. Just noting that it was a negative part of that friends life that a parent forced them into. My friend is now shunned by the rest of the family.
In my employment, I am immersed in a culture of minorities. The strangest place I've ever worked because of its extremely diverse age, race and religious population. Fundamentalist Christianity is their common denominator with poor education and poverty close behind.
The upshot is that they are all conflicted with this election. They no longer can decide simply on race, religion, business, or party. If any discussion occurs at all its usually centered on the depressing, dismal condition of the world and the incompetence of their company. Eh, they probably won't even vote.
This "confliction" you describe is a direct result of their environment. Work place attitude, church attitude, and political attitude all look at the glass half full despite living in a great country with lots of new potential. Oklahomans seem more miserable than most and global warming may be part of the problem. The gap between "have" and "have not" in the State is huge. %40 live paycheck to paycheck. The education situation is a direct result of parenting. Parents have to work two jobs. And when they aren't working, then they are generally attending church where everyone waits for salvation or they attend to home and family or they submerse themselves in self medication. The scapegoat for most their problems is government and the politics behind its incompetence.
I look around Tulsa and things seem pretty good compared to 5 years ago. Life is not easy. Forward.
Quote from: AquaMan on September 08, 2012, 08:30:31 AM
Well, you have it all covered. Why bother to even post? If you want to run Obama from 2008 against R&R in 2012, its your world. Make it happen capn.
When you start with a construct that you feel is bulletproof, no doubt you'll never find any flaw in it. Ruins conversations though and limits your scope of the world.
I believe I discussed Obama's current foreign policy experience.
Quote from: nathanm on September 07, 2012, 09:40:26 PM
Make believe with actual numbers, unlike Romney's plan.
I will be there criticizing Romney if he has done the same after nearly four years.
Quote from: erfalf on September 08, 2012, 04:18:07 PM
I believe I discussed Obama's current foreign policy experience.
Well then that's a settled subject. You are probably one of an infinitessimally small group of people who profess to not care about foreign policy experience and yet are also sure that R&R have plenty of it.
Very few people have the foreign policy experience of a past or sitting president or secretary of state.
Quote from: AquaMan on September 08, 2012, 07:47:53 PM
Well then that's a settled subject. You are probably one of an infinitessimally small group of people who profess to not care about foreign policy experience and yet are also sure that R&R have plenty of it.
Very few people have the foreign policy experience of a past or sitting president or secretary of state.
Kinda like talking to a board.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus
Quote from: erfalf on September 08, 2012, 04:19:17 PM
I will be there criticizing Romney if he has done the same after nearly four years.
You keep claiming that Obama lacks detailed plans, but as shown earlier, that's a complete fabrication. I guess you can keep ignoring reality if you want to. Seems like there should be some complaints that are grounded in reality, though, given how he's talked about by the right.
Quote from: nathanm on September 08, 2012, 10:57:30 PM
You keep claiming that Obama lacks detailed plans, but as shown earlier,
?
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 08, 2012, 11:19:44 PM
?
It wasn't very long ago we were talking about the 2013 budget. Like it or not, it's a plan with real numbers and fully fleshed out policy proposals.
Quote from: AquaMan on September 08, 2012, 07:47:53 PM
Very few people have the foreign policy experience of a past or sitting president or secretary of state.
That doesn't necessarily qualify it as good experience.
Quote from: nathanm on September 08, 2012, 11:25:08 PM
It wasn't very long ago we were talking about the 2013 budget. Like it or not, it's a plan with real numbers and fully fleshed out policy proposals.
When was the last time an actual budget was passed?
Quote from: Teatownclown on September 08, 2012, 03:46:10 PM
Oklahomans seem more miserable than most and global warming may be part of the problem.
Oklahomans' brains were fried long before the present Global Warming campaign.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 08, 2012, 11:26:26 PM
When was the last time an actual budget was passed?
That's not relevant to the question of whether or not Obama has put forth detailed policy proposals.
Quote from: nathanm on September 08, 2012, 10:57:30 PM
You keep claiming that Obama lacks detailed plans, but as shown earlier, that's a complete fabrication. I guess you can keep ignoring reality if you want to. Seems like there should be some complaints that are grounded in reality, though, given how he's talked about by the right.
Ok, I will give up on that point, he has "plans". they are just so bad that he can hardly get anyone else to go along with them. ;D Can't argue with that point.
Quote from: erfalf on September 09, 2012, 12:20:13 PM
Ok, I will give up on that point, he has "plans". they are just so bad that he can hardly get anyone else to go along with them. ;D Can't argue with that point.
I'd concede the point if the American Jobs Act hadn't garnered 50 votes in favor in the Senate. It is true that the 2012 budget was never brought to a vote. It's a little amusing how you claim with one breath that Obama is ruining America and then with the next claim that nobody has ever supported anything he's done. Were that true, the stimulus, the equal pay act, ACA, Dodd-Frank, and many other bills that the President proposed in one form or another wouldn't be current law.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 08, 2012, 11:25:41 PM
That doesn't necessarily qualify it as good experience.
Erfalf wouldn't accept that comment when I made it.
Nonetheless, 4 years of sitting presidential foreign policy experience, even if half of it was bad, is more than R&R.
Quote from: AquaMan on September 09, 2012, 06:07:24 PM
Erfalf wouldn't accept that comment when I made it.
Nonetheless, 4 years of sitting presidential foreign policy experience, even if half of it was bad, is more than R&R.
Is it really that big of a deal then? It's like saying Obama deserves to be President because he has more experience being President. Of course he does.
Quote from: AquaMan on September 09, 2012, 06:07:24 PM
Nonetheless, 4 years of sitting presidential foreign policy experience, even if half of it was bad, is more than R&R.
Please refresh my memory, how much direct foreign policy experience did our sitting President have 4 years ago?
Quote from: nathanm on September 09, 2012, 12:43:29 AM
That's not relevant to the question of whether or not Obama has put forth detailed policy proposals.
When Obama says he will create X number of jobs but gives no details on
how he will do it, I consider that no details. Neither candidate is really giving much in the way of details at the moment. Maybe as the election gets closer we will see some.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 09, 2012, 06:52:26 PM
When Obama says he will create X number of jobs but gives no details on how he will do it, I consider that no details.
Uh, the bills before Congress and previously passed legislation have the detail. Nobody expects a significant amount of detail in the actual stump speeches. To be fair, Romney needs little detail with regard to job creation. The number he has claimed he'll create over four years just happens to be right about the typical neutral economy job creation rate.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 09, 2012, 06:49:25 PM
Please refresh my memory, how much direct foreign policy experience did our sitting President have 4 years ago?
Why is this so hard to understand for you guys? He is not running against Obama 4 years ago. And there is no correlation that Obama's lack of experience, yet, in my estimation, success with foreign policy...would indicate that R&R would have the same success. That is a non sequitur.
Look at it this way. If you think Obama had very little experience in 2008 so it is okay that R&R do not have much experience then look at the outcome. You don't think much of Obama's foreign policy successes in office. It would follow then that you are willing to make the same mistake by electing more foreign policy novices.
But I guess it doesn't matter. Erfalf is losing the argument so he gives up on the value of foreign policy anyway. Who cares if the rest of the world finds that arrogant. It worked for Bush//Cheney didn't it?
Quote from: AquaMan on September 09, 2012, 07:25:58 PM
Why is this so hard to understand for you guys? He is not running against Obama 4 years ago. And there is no correlation that Obama's lack of experience, yet, in my estimation, success with foreign policy...would indicate that R&R would have the same success.
I see nothing that would indicate that R&R would NOT have the same or better success. What is so hard to understand about that. Obama started with essentially no foreign policy experience. He is not running against himself of 4 years ago. If Obama's experience of 4 years ago is essentially the same as R&R now, why would R&R not be as successful as Obama? Your evaluation obviously differs. What did you think in the 2004 election?
Romney has announced his foreign policy team. 17 of the 24 members served in the Bush administration.
Great.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 09, 2012, 08:25:36 PM
Romney has announced his foreign policy team. 17 of the 24 members served in the Bush administration.
Great.
Ugh, are the other 7 Mor
mons by chance?
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 09, 2012, 08:13:07 PM
I see nothing that would indicate that R&R would NOT have the same or better success. What is so hard to understand about that. Obama started with essentially no foreign policy experience. He is not running against himself of 4 years ago. If Obama's experience of 4 years ago is essentially the same as R&R now, why would R&R not be as successful as Obama? Your evaluation obviously differs. What did you think in the 2004 election?
I'm sorry Red. Its not an evaluation. What you're saying is just not logical. You're asking for a conclusion not based on the premise. I also have essentially no foreign policy experience (I speak a little French and read political forums ;) ). There is nothing to indicate that, like R&R, I would not have the same or better success as Obama. Yet, that is preposterous on its face. Hard to prove a negative assumption. In fact there is no correlation whatsoever. But even if there was, why would you want to make the same mistake again?
The 2004 election? I thought Bush was a lightweight but had heavyweights surrounding him. I don't see any heavyweights around R&R. Before you jump to any conclusion that those 17 were heavyweights, I don't see Rumsfeld or Cheney coming to serve with R&R.
Quote from: AquaMan on September 09, 2012, 08:45:36 PM
I'm sorry Red. Its not an evaluation. What you're saying is just not logical. You're asking for a conclusion not based on the premise.
What is your premise? That Obama can enter the Presidency and make good foreign policy decisions without previous experience but that a Republican cannot? We will have to disagree.
Quote
But even if there was, why would you want to make the same mistake again?
So you are saying that electing Obama was a mistake? I would have to agree on that.
I see the word-parser (erfalf) is at it again...LOL.
Edited to remove ego from a certain poster on here.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 09, 2012, 08:53:30 PM
What is your premise? That Obama can enter the Presidency and make good foreign policy decisions without previous experience but that a Republican cannot? We will have to disagree.
So you are saying that electing Obama was a mistake? I would have to agree on that.
Sometimes you're just wrong Red. Spinning planes? You're golden. But there is no logic I know of that would predict a candidate having success in office with lack of experience based on another's success with lack of experience. And the converse of that is killer for Erfalfs argument. If it was a mistake to elect a man with little experience, then why repeat the mistake?
It is not disagreement. Its just logic. I don't care if he's Republican or Independent or whatever. R&R's lack of foreign policy experience is not a predictor of success should he win.
That said, its the lifers in government and aides that do the heavy lifting for the head of state. It would be interesting to see who Romney prefers as Secretary of State.
Quote from: AquaMan on September 09, 2012, 09:05:08 PM
Sometimes you're just wrong Red. Spinning planes? You're golden. But there is no logic I know of that would predict a candidate having success in office with lack of experience based on another's success with lack of experience. And the converse of that is killer for Erfalfs argument. If it was a mistake to elect a man with little experience, then why repeat the mistake?
It is not disagreement. Its just logic. I don't care if he's Republican or Independent or whatever. R&R's lack of foreign policy experience is not a predictor of success should he win.
That said, its the lifers in government and aides that do the heavy lifting for the head of state. It would be interesting to see who Romney prefers as Secretary of State.
It might be Clint Eastwood...oops, did I say that out loud?
Quote from: AquaMan on September 09, 2012, 09:05:08 PM
Sometimes you're just wrong Red.
I agree, you are wrong.
Good night cap'n. We live to fight another day!
Quote from: Hoss on September 09, 2012, 09:03:23 PM
I see the word-parser is at it again...LOL.
You promised you wouldn't respond to any more of my posts. Cheez, what a Democrat you are.
Quote from: AquaMan on September 09, 2012, 09:05:08 PM
But there is no logic I know of that would predict a candidate having success in office with lack of experience based on another's success with lack of experience.
I know of no logic that would
prohibit a candidate having success in office with lack of experience based on another's success with lack of experience. Well, other than your personal opinion.
Quote from: AquaMan on September 09, 2012, 09:05:08 PM
Sometimes you're just wrong Red. Spinning planes? You're golden.
OK, so I'm not so good at metaphors. Give me a break, I'm an engineer, not an English Language degree holder looking for meaningful employment.
Amazing the ego of some people on here to think I was responding to them....Cheez.
Quote from: Hoss on September 09, 2012, 09:03:23 PM
I see the word-parser (erfalf) is at it again...LOL.
Edited to remove ego from a certain poster on here.
More like edited to save face by removing ambiguity.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 09, 2012, 08:25:36 PM
Romney has announced his foreign policy team. 17 of the 24 members served in the Bush administration.
Oof. Do we really need neocons in charge of foreign policy again? I guess Romney would be good for the economy after all. War is pretty good as stimulus, as long as it doesn't involve people blowing stuff up here at home.
Quote from: nathanm on September 09, 2012, 10:49:35 PM
War is pretty good as stimulus, as long as it doesn't involve people blowing stuff up here at home.
It worked pretty good for Roosevelt and Kennedy/Johnson. To some extent, it even worked for Bush II if you only look until 2007ish.
A lot of whether war is worth it or not appears to depend on if your generation is the one doing the fighting.
Quote from: nathanm on September 09, 2012, 07:11:39 PM
Uh, the bills before Congress and previously passed legislation have the detail. Nobody expects a significant amount of detail in the actual stump speeches. To be fair, Romney needs little detail with regard to job creation. The number he has claimed he'll create over four years just happens to be right about the typical neutral economy job creation rate.
Yet you attribute the turnaround to Obama and his policies. And we would have been lost without him?
I am not saying that the two (Obama/Romney) have the same foreign policy experience. I am also not saying that the two had the same prior experience. Nor am I saying it is any kind of indication. I am saying that there is not hardly any role one could have that would have prior to actually being president that would be good experience in this realm. And that being said, Obama had zilch foreign policy experience and it has shown at times. Romney has little if any experience and who's to say if he will be better worse. I am saying this is really a non-issue in most people's minds (unless you are trying to get Obama elected, then it makes a huge difference).
Quote from: erfalf on September 10, 2012, 01:30:48 PM
I am saying that there is not hardly any role one could have that would have prior to actually being president that would be good experience in this realm.
Other than Secretary Of State ;D
Quote from: erfalf on September 10, 2012, 01:25:11 PM
Yet you attribute the turnaround to Obama and his policies.
Yeah, he was getting what he asked for (plus a bunch of pork and the usual Congressional idiocy) at the very beginning. The stimulus passed, it stabilized things. Since then, not so much.
Quote
And we would have been lost without him?
Lost? No. In worse economic shape, probably. McCain and Congress probably would have done similar things at the outset, but had the Republicans still taken the house in 2010, I suspect we'd be much worse off. We've already been pursing a policy of austerity by default, and it's been dragging us down. I can only imagine how much worse it would be if we were actively pursing austerity. Well, I don't have to imagine, there are plenty of examples of the failure of that policy in Europe.
Interestingly, Clinton is the only Democrat President to have won 2 elections since FDR. Wouldn't have guessed.
Democrats:
Truman - Took over for Roosevelt. Won one election. Did not run again, corruption issues
Johnson - Took over for Kennedy, Won one election. Did not run again
Carter - Lost 2nd election
Clinton - 2 Terms
Republicans:
Ford - Took over for Nixon, lost to Carter (all I can say is thank you to Ford for beating Reagan in the primary. I would guess that it would have been unlikely for anyone in the Republican party to win so close to Nixon).
Bush Sr - 1 Term. Lost to Clinton.
Eisenhower - 2 Terms
Nixon - 2 Terms, impeached
Reagan - 2 Terms
Bush Jr - 2 Terms
Quote from: Conan71 on September 10, 2012, 01:34:36 PM
Other than Secretary Of State ;D
Not hardly any. But how many living Secretary of States do we have? And what are the odds of them running for President?
Of course I say that and I would say the odds of one running is about 100% (Clinton). But generally speaking, I would say the odds would be low. So I looked it up and I think 10 former Secretary of State's are still alive. Most than there are of living former Presidents I guess.
Quote from: nathanm on September 10, 2012, 01:34:48 PM
Yeah, he was getting what he asked for (plus a bunch of pork and the usual Congressional idiocy) at the very beginning. The stimulus passed, it stabilized things. Since then, not so much.
Lost? No. In worse economic shape, probably. McCain and Congress probably would have done similar things at the outset, but had the Republicans still taken the house in 2010, I suspect we'd be much worse off. We've already been pursing a policy of austerity by default, and it's been dragging us down. I can only imagine how much worse it would be if we were actively pursing austerity. Well, I don't have to imagine, there are plenty of examples of the failure of that policy in Europe.
I understand it is a point of view. There are no facts in hypotheticals. But, my opinion is that had we gotten McCain (ugh) things would be virtually the same. The stimulus was already in the works before the election. The auto bailouts and AIG stuff already happened. What would have been significantly different besides the name plate on the desk. You think the Dems would have extended the Bush tax cuts with a Republican in the White House?
Quote from: erfalf on September 10, 2012, 01:44:23 PM
Not hardly any. But how many living Secretary of States do we have? And what are the odds of them running for President?
Of course I say that and I would say the odds of one running is about 100% (Clinton). But generally speaking, I would say the odds would be low. So I looked it up and I think 10 former Secretary of State's are still alive. Most than there are of living former Presidents I guess.
I'm curious if Hillarity really wants to run in 2016. I'd think she'd be ready to retire and kick her feet up after this gig is over.
The whole argument about Romney being a foreign policy neophyte is just another straw man like his tax returns. Something else to try and divert from the fact that there's 23 million unemployed or under-employed, gas is nearly $4.00 a gallon, we are $6 trillion further in debt, etc.
Quote from: erfalf on September 10, 2012, 01:46:42 PM
What would have been significantly different besides the name plate on the desk. You think the Dems would have extended the Bush tax cuts with a Republican in the White House?
There would have been little difference until Republicans took the House, IMO. I do think the Dems would have approved an extension of the Bush cuts if McCain vetoed a bill to extend the cuts only for people making less than $250,000 a year and promised to keep doing it. After 2010, I would suspect that the Republicans would have passed some rather draconian budget cuts, though, and I don't think McCain would have had the stones to veto such irresponsibility. Maybe earlier in his career when he still had a modicum of integrity, but not at this late stage.
Even Paul Ryan agrees that government spending creates jobs, even though he constantly argues the opposite. However, when it's military spending, any cuts will cost tens of thousands of jobs, says he. Very peculiar, that man. Ryan's peculiarity aside, the House having its way with the budget would undoubtedly have pushed us back into recession, at least if they did what they claim to want to do.
Conan, the debt will only get worse as long as this downturn is allowed to persist. Complain to Congress. Obama has been demanding action on that point for years, and has gotten little to nothing. Not that the debt actually matters, we owe the vast majority of it to ourselves. For all the talk, China owns less than 10% of it.
Quote from: erfalf on September 10, 2012, 01:30:48 PM
I am not saying that the two (Obama/Romney) have the same foreign policy experience. I am also not saying that the two had the same prior experience. Nor am I saying it is any kind of indication. I am saying that there is not hardly any role one could have that would have prior to actually being president that would be good experience in this realm. And that being said, Obama had zilch foreign policy experience and it has shown at times. Romney has little if any experience and who's to say if he will be better worse. I am saying this is really a non-issue in most people's minds (unless you are trying to get Obama elected, then it makes a huge difference).
How long did it take you to think up that bit of waffling? Your position has "evolved" from -Romney has more experience, to it really doesn't matter, to Obama didn't have any experience, to Obama had experience but it was bad experience, back to it doesn't matter, then a long silence as you ignored my questioning the logic of your posts. Now, Obama had no experience (un-informed at best), no one could obtain such experience without being president, and its a non issue anyway because your candidate has no experience. That's quite a roller coaster.
I'd take a Secretary of State, a Secretary of Commerce, a former vice president, a president of a company that has operations in different countries (like Schlumberget) or has at least visited more than Israel, England and France. I would consider someone with diplomatic corps experience, military experience in overseas operations, a Senator who actually has possessed and used a Visa or a member of one of the intelligence agencies. Romney could have chosen any of those categories, but he decided to go with an economic idealogue. He indicates he'll use old Bushies for his foreign policy brain trust.
Oh, well.
Quote from: AquaMan on September 10, 2012, 01:56:52 PM
How long did it take you to think up that bit of waffling? Your position has "evolved" from -Romney has more experience, to it really doesn't matter, to Obama didn't have any experience, to Obama had experience but it was bad experience, back to it doesn't matter, then a long silence as you ignored my questioning the logic of your posts. Now, Obama had no experience (un-informed at best), no one could obtain such experience without being president, and its a non issue anyway because your candidate has no experience. That's quite a roller coaster.
I'd take a Secretary of State, a Secretary of Commerce, a former vice president, a president of a company that has operations in different countries (like Schlumberget) or has at least visited more than Israel, England and France. I would consider someone with diplomatic corps experience, military experience in overseas operations, a Senator who actually has possessed and used a Visa or a member of one of the intelligence agencies. Romney could have chosen any of those categories, but he decided to go with an economic idealogue. He indicates he'll use old Bushies for his foreign policy brain trust.
Oh, well.
It wouldn't be such a roller coaster if you would read all the posts.
Quote from: erfalf on September 07, 2012, 09:56:20 AM
Romney's foreign policy experience is on par with Obama's prior to his election. Does it really make a difference?
Quote from: erfalf on September 07, 2012, 10:12:17 AM
What vast amounts of foreign policy experience did Obama have in 2008, besides living overseas? I would guess that Romney probably has been in the game longer than Obama (prior to his election) considering his families political background. He has worked with companies overseas, while Obama was busy getting high (by his own admission). and penning his autobiography (at 30 years old mind you). Please enlighten me how Obama's prior experience is more impressive than Romney's?
Quote from: erfalf on September 07, 2012, 08:25:05 PM
That or there is nothing to refute my assertion that Obama had no more (if not less) foreign policy experience than Romney has now. And even if we compare the two now, what is Romney looking up to, letting the middle East hash it out on their own? Completely ignoring any western allies in the area? Sounds like his policy is to not have a policy.
And don't even bring up the OBL thing, you and I both know that anyone would have done the same, well except Clinton maybe.
Not once in there did I say that Romney has more experience, or that Obama had none. And you guys are playing me to be the one that doesn't read or understand. Just said Obama's experience wasn't very good (opinion) and that I'd take Romney's minimal experience over Obama's. In Obama there is a known quantity (although in 2008 it was unknown). Romney is unknown for the most part. I'll take my chances in this regard in particular.
I read just fine. I comprehend just fine. I also believe in the concept of GI/GO and am careful just what I swallow. Your posts aren't very palatable and you don't accept your own inconsistencies. Remember when you assured us all that Republicans have become more liberal since Reagan? Right on a par with your foreign policy statements. Indefensible but apparently unassailable.
Fine. Apparently you don't think foreign policy matters. You think Obama is just another GWB. You think Romney is badly treated by the press. You think his tax returns aren't germane. Whatever. It doesn't much matter in OK.
Quote from: AquaMan on September 11, 2012, 07:11:05 PM
I read just fine. I comprehend just fine. I also believe in the concept of GI/GO and am careful just what I swallow. Your posts aren't very palatable and you don't accept your own inconsistencies. Remember when you assured us all that Republicans have become more liberal since Reagan? Right on a par with your foreign policy statements. Indefensible but apparently unassailable.
Fine. Apparently you don't think foreign policy matters. You think Obama is just another GWB. You think Romney is badly treated by the press. You think his tax returns aren't germane. Whatever. It doesn't much matter in OK.
Maybe if you had a discussion with me and not what you think the caricature of me that you have created in your head would say, you wouldn't get so flustered about it.
The positions I have made are not indefensible. I am not saying they are absolutely correct, but it is a matter of opinion. Everything that you listed that I have made statements about are not facts one way or the other, even though the one about foreign policy you again are putting words in my mouth. I only said it was not important in my decision for President. It would be insane to think the opposite. But you know that. Stop putting words in my mouth and just stick to what me or someone else on this board says, not what you think we think.
Quote from: erfalf on September 11, 2012, 08:47:12 PM
Maybe if you had a discussion with me and not what you think the caricature of me that you have created in your head would say, you wouldn't get so flustered about it.
The positions I have made are not indefensible. I am not saying they are absolutely correct, but it is a matter of opinion. Everything that you listed that I have made statements about are not facts one way or the other, even though the one about foreign policy you again are putting words in my mouth. I only said it was not important in my decision for President. It would be insane to think the opposite. But you know that. Stop putting words in my mouth and just stick to what me or someone else on this board says, not what you think we think.
Good luck. With your construct OK can look forward to more Inhofe's, Kern's and Mullin's for another generation.
Quote from: AquaMan on September 12, 2012, 05:49:18 AM
Good luck. With your construct OK can look forward to more Inhofe's, Kern's and Mullin's for another generation.
And then the name calling...
Quote from: erfalf on September 12, 2012, 08:12:04 AM
And then the name calling...
He's a master of condescension as well.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 12, 2012, 08:44:27 AM
He's a master of condescension as well.
He's also good at 'x marks the spot'...wait, what?
Quote from: AquaMan on September 12, 2012, 05:49:18 AM
Good luck. With your construct OK can look forward to more Inhofe's, Kern's and Mullin's for another generation.
QuoteAnd then the name calling...
How is that name calling?
"You're an Inhofe" is a pretty good insult.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 12, 2012, 11:57:14 AM
"You're an Inhofe" is a pretty good insult.
I was starting to think I was the only one that thought that was an insult. :)