I think thats about as far as any action would go. Why ruin a good thing that the current administration has set up? Politically there is a bi-partisan consensus for drone use
The hotter the heat, the harder the steel, no pressure no diamonds, we compete, we win
We are the next decade of the Washington Redskins
Last edited by Prosperity; October-8th-2012 at 01:36 PM.
Formerly known as "Liberty"
1) implying that Iran is on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon. (Gee, where have I heard that tactic used before?)
2) Stating that if Iran gets said bomb, then it will use it against Israel, almost immediately.
3) Announcing that #1 is Obama's fault, for not preventing it.
4) Implying that there is some action (unspecified) that well, Obama hasn't taken, but I will, if I'm President, and I'll do it before they get this bomb.
That, you've been seeing, for years. (In fact, parts of it started before Obama was elected.)
Romney is going to kill his debate momentum if he keeps talking hawkish on the ME. I don't know a single person who wanted us to stay in Iraq any longer, and I don't know a single person who wants to even contemplate more war in the region. These have to be deeply unpopular positions he's claiming.
"John Wall will never be as good as Kyrie Irving was in his first week in the NBA" - David Falk, published February 14, 2013.
Well, now, Romney's doing what the Republicans have been doing at least since Obama got elected.
Obama withdraws troops from Iraq, and it's clearly a dumb decision. Yeah, it was mandated by Bush. But that doesn't mean we really meant it. Heck, Obama just surrendered a war we were winning. And he made the entire war a waste of lives, because he didn't get us a base, there. What, we've been saying ever since we went in that we didn't want a base there? You didn't think we meant it, did you?
There's a revolution in Egypt, and the people kicked out a dictator and elected a government? Relatively peacefully? Obama did a terrible job, because the Egyptions elected somebody we didn't like.
Obama intervenes in Libya, where a brutal dictator, with a decades-long history of sponsoring terrorism, is massacring his own citizens.
Insert the current version of why we had to invade Iraq here.Obama intervenes. Reluctantly. The intervention did not involve a single American (officially at least) setting foot in the country. It was over, successfully, in a matter of months, without a single American casualty.
And to hear the Republicans, it was an act of Treason, an unconstitutional use of executive power, without authorization from Congress.
In Syria, there's another revolution. A brutal dictator is massacring his own citizens. Obama does not intervene militarily.
Republican reaction? Every single person who is dying there is Obama's fault.
Romney isn't saying what he would do. (Well, other than, I suppose, his promise, to Israel, that he would recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital.)
All he's doing is looking around the world, for things to complain about.
Funny photo of Romney posing for photographs with students of Fairfield Elementary School. via AP
Last edited by visionary; October-8th-2012 at 07:55 PM.
Yahoo/AP: FACT CHECK: A one-sided story on trade, defense
The article actually has more on this point, and four more.WASHINGTON (AP) — Mitt Romney solely blamed President Barack Obama on Monday for potential defense cuts that Republicans in Congress worked out with the White House and Democrats and left the misimpression that Obama has ignored free trade initiatives.
A closer look at some of the Republican presidential nominee's statements in his foreign policy speech:
ROMNEY: "I will roll back President Obama's deep and arbitrary cuts to our national defense that would devastate our military."
THE FACTS: "Arbitrary" defense cuts do not belong to Obama alone but also to congressional Republicans, including his vice presidential running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan. The first round of cuts in projected defense spending is the result of a bipartisan deal in August 2011 between Congress and the White House to wrestle down the deficit. Unless a new budget deal is reached in time, additional spending cuts will begin in January across government, and the cost to the Pentagon would be $500 billion over a decade. Lawmakers are working to avoid that. . . .
Don't care whose you support this is damn funny and well done. NSFW
Last edited by HOF44; October-8th-2012 at 07:35 PM.
Found it on their site:
Last edited by visionary; October-8th-2012 at 09:02 PM.
edit: sorry about that. I hadn't really watched it all the way through.
The youtube link is here and it is NSFW: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTCRwi71_ns
Last edited by DjTj; October-8th-2012 at 11:38 PM.
What is it with the Polls this year all last month they were heavily overweighting for democrats now Pew at least has reversed itself and has over weighted Republicans. Really no telling who is up and really has been that way for two months.
WP"The Pew sample for this poll was 36 percent Republican, 31 percent Democratic and 30 percent independent. That’s a major shift from the organization’s September poll which was 29 percent Republican, 39 percent Democratic and 30 percent independent. In the 2010 election, the electorate was 36 percent Republican, 36 percent Democratic and 27 percent independent, according to exit polling. "
Last edited by nonniey; October-8th-2012 at 10:28 PM.
The only "weighting" is done for demographics.
"The Internet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea: massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it" - I wish I had said this.
It's funny how now that the polls are showing Romney with a favorable bounce, there's not a single Republican in the world who's complaining out the polls being overweighted.
I guess all that public scrutiny of the problem that wasn't a problem was magically solved in a two week span.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)