Foreign Policy Debate
-
I couldn't disagree with your synopsis more, but clearly Romney doesn't care about appealing to you at all because he knows you're voting for him anyway. That whole performance was crafted for women voters who by and large don't think like you or share the opinions you just listed.
But isn't that the same with you and Obama?
If a Republican candidate were pimping killing innocent people with indiscriminate drone strikes I think you might gripe.
But still Obama knows that you are in the tank so who cares?
And seriously, I thought we had once agreed on the futility of Afghanistan.
WSS
But isn't that the same with you and Obama?
If a Republican candidate were pimping killing innocent people with indiscriminate drone strikes I think you might gripe.
But still Obama knows that you are in the tank so who cares?
And seriously, I thought we had once agreed on the futility of Afghanistan.
WSS
Well, let's use words that don't make us sound like uninformed cranks. No one believes Obama's drone strikes are "indiscriminate", even his lefty critics. You're so over the top with your language. It's not that Obama doesn't care and is just lobbing drone missiles into villages. It's that no matter what you do you end up killing lots of innocent people and that has the effect of turning large amounts of people against you. (Killing children usually does that.) It's a constant calculation of whether you're doing more harm than good. It's also a calculation of doing that versus risking American lives by doing this on the ground. Whatever it is, it's certainly not Peace Prize material. But it's also not "indiscriminate." Those targets are picked carefully, and often by Obama himself.
I find it a bit disheartening that there wasn't even a discussion about this. And Romney's suggestion that the surge in Afghanistan worked was an eye opener. It most certainly has not worked. But these are the types of things we tell ourselves so we can leave.
But your whole first post is so off it's barely worthy of a response. It's like you wrote it when you were drunk. I'm just letting you know that you and Hannity and lots of other conservatives are disappointed because Romney wasn't talking to you. Also because he doesn't like you or share your views anyway. He's trying to close a gender gap and having some success doing it, so it was all about "peace" and not arguing last night. Because that's the way most women like their foreign policy debates. They don't want to hear Dick Cheney.
And what do you think that ridiculous "Navy ships in 1917" line is about? He knows it's stupid and the comparison doesn't make any sense. So why does he keep saying it? Give it a try. Let's see how good you are.
-
I can't believe Obama's response to the ships line. He spoke down to him like a child, then again, it was a really stupid point for Mitt to bring up.
-
It doesn't deserve much else. I enjoyed it.
-
Crank?
So to be clear, you are upset that Romney wants to appeal to women voters, correct?
The stupid bitches who don't want to send their sons to Afghanistan how to get their ass shot off so Obama can thump his chest?
And I should be astounded, but I'm not, that you support the drone strikes knowing how many innocent people are being killed.
Again for nothing.
At least I can speak out when Romney does something I don't like.
I was watching Morning Joe this morning and was a little stunned to hear the usual round table from the left, the far left and the fringe left spouting rubbish like it's better to kill children there then let them kill children here.
And kill them before they kill us.
So I'm the crank?
Frankly I'm less concerned with Romney pandering to women then you and Obama pandering to Bunker.
Maybe they should have desecrated bin Laden's body or pissed on it so you guys could jump around like monkeys.
WSS
-
It doesn't deserve much else. I enjoyed it.
It doesn't deserve much else. I enjoyed it.
Because in your own adolescent way you think it's funny to be at obnoxious ignorant asshole.
That is actually a hallmark of the left.
WSS
-
Haha. Calm down buddy. It wasn't that bad a debate performance.
I'm explaining to you why your use of the word "indiscriminate" makes you sound like a crank. And a left wing crank at that. They're not indiscriminate. And if you can't tell from my two dozen or so posts on the subject, I'm not a big fan of drone strikes. But I also understand the trade offs. But you don't do gray areas so well, so preach away.
Nor am I upset that Romney pandered to women voters last night. All Romney does is pander to voters. He's never done anything else in his entire political career. That's what makes him so special.
Any guess at the Navy ships line? Why do you think he uses that one?
-
Oh by the way I thought the debate was a draw.
Sorry if I sound like a left wing crank there.
I guess I am a pole smoking left wing fag, huh?
But seriously I'm not quite sure what Navy ships line struck you as funny. I watched the whole thing and cat exactly remember which 1. Sorry.
The fact that the Navy wanted 300 and some odd ships and all they have is 200 and something?
The horses and bayonets line?
I thought that was a great line even though it had no real point.
WSS
-
And Obama's favorite lap dog yelping about Romney pandering???
Now that's hilarious.
And sure I understand grey areas.
If a Republican Administration does something its satans own work.
When Obama does it's just wonderful.
WSS
-
Oh by the way I thought the debate was a draw.
Sorry if I sound like a left wing crank there.
I guess I am a pole smoking left wing fag, huh?
But seriously I'm not quite sure what Navy ships line struck you as funny. I watched the whole thing and cat exactly remember which 1. Sorry.
The fact that the Navy wanted 300 and some odd ships and all they have is 200 and something?
The horses and bayonets line?
I thought that was a great line even though it had no real point.
WSS
Oh by the way I thought the debate was a draw.
Sorry if I sound like a left wing crank there.
I guess I am a pole smoking left wing fag, huh?
But seriously I'm not quite sure what Navy ships line struck you as funny. I watched the whole thing and cat exactly remember which 1. Sorry.
The fact that the Navy wanted 300 and some odd ships and all they have is 200 and something?
The horses and bayonets line?
I thought that was a great line even though it had no real point.
WSS
No, it's the line that "Our Navy is smaller now than any time since 1917." And Obama's line has a clear point: that the number of ships in the Navy now compared to 1917 is a completely irrelevant comparison. Much like comparing the number of horses or bayonets.
But why is Romney flogging the idea that the Navy needs more ships? Think. And remember: this is Mitt Romney we're talking about.
-
And Obama's favorite lap dog yelping about Romney pandering???
Now that's hilarious.
And sure I understand grey areas.
If a Republican Administration does something its satans own work.
When Obama does it's just wonderful.
WSS
And Obama's favorite lap dog yelping about Romney pandering???
Now that's hilarious.
And sure I understand grey areas.
If a Republican Administration does something its satans own work.
When Obama does it's just wonderful.
WSS
If you could characterize my or anyone's position on the left even remotely accurately this would be a lot easier. It's always contempt first, some more contempt second, mischaracterizations third, and brain last.
-
Because someone in power somewhere within the Navy said they needed more ships?
Like I said?
How could you take it differently?
By the way the Marines still use Bayonets.
WSS
-
And Obama's favorite lap dog yelping about Romney pandering???
Now that's hilarious.
And sure I understand grey areas.
If a Republican Administration does something its satans own work.
When Obama does it's just wonderful.
WSS
If you could characterize my or anyone's position on the left even remotely accurately this would be a lot easier. It's always contempt first, some more contempt second, mischaracterizations third, and brain last.
If you could characterize my or anyone's position on the left even remotely accurately this would be a lot easier. It's always contempt first, some more contempt second, mischaracterizations third, and brain last.
Apparently so.
And right after that comes my response.
I see the pattern.
WSS
-
If you could characterize my or anyone's position on the left even remotely accurately this would be a lot easier. It's always contempt first, some more contempt second, mischaracterizations third, and brain last.
Apparently so.
And right after that comes my response.
I see the pattern.
WSS
Apparently so.
And right after that comes my response.
I see the pattern.
WSS
And my contempt for Obama is nothing worse than your contempt for Mitt Romney.
and your constant accusation that I can't see the big difference between 2 similar act by 2 different parties is laughable and an excuse for your own hypocrisy.
WSS
-
Because someone in power somewhere within the Navy said they needed more ships?
Like I said?
How could you take it differently?
By the way the Marines still use Bayonets.
WSS
Because someone in power somewhere within the Navy said they needed more ships?
Like I said?
How could you take it differently?
By the way the Marines still use Bayonets.
WSS
Haha. No, it's not because the Navy is hobbled by its lack of ships and needs to return the total to 1917 levels. That's not what it is.
It's because they make those ships in Newport News, Virginia. It's because the Virginia suburbs are littered with defense contracting firms. It's just about votes in Virginia.
You actually took that one on face value? Jeez. Come on, man.
-
And yes, the Marines still use bayonets. That's why the analogy works. We still use ships too. The whole point is that comparing their numbers to the levels in 1917 doesn't matter. But again, thanks for not recognizing pushback for what it is, and repeating what the Republican flacks are all out there saying this morning.
in other words, when Obama says we use fewer bayonets and horses, and the Republicans get up the next morning and rally around the talking point that "We still use bayonets!" it's not much of a rebuttal, is it? Because he never claimed we didn't still use bayonets. He claimed we use fewer.
Here's the quote: "You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed."
...See? Nice try though. Hack.
-
Are you telling me that no one in the Navy said that they needed 300 + ships and they only have 200 +?
Are you saying that was not in the debate, that it never ever happened?
There is a possibility I didn't hear that.
But I believe I did.
And if I did you are blowing smoke. Nothing more. Just like your president.
WSS
-
I agree with the grey area remark, lol.
-
You want a bone? Here. It's the same reason Obama mentions the auto bailout. That's just about Ohio.
And it's why Romney - comically - is now saying he was for offering government's plan for Detroit. That was my favorite Etch-a-Sketch of the evening. Amazing. From "IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye." To 'I was for the bailout.' It's hysterical how little he needs to completely mislead.
He's something else.
-
Are you telling me that no one in the Navy said that they needed 300 + ships and they only have 200 +?
Are you saying that was not in the debate, that it never ever happened?
There is a possibility I didn't hear that.
But I believe I did.
And if I did you are blowing smoke. Nothing more. Just like your president.
WSS
Are you telling me that no one in the Navy said that they needed 300 + ships and they only have 200 +?
Are you saying that was not in the debate, that it never ever happened?
There is a possibility I didn't hear that.
But I believe I did.
And if I did you are blowing smoke. Nothing more. Just like your president.
WSS
Steve, what I'm telling you is that you don't get why Romney is pushing the 1917 line. If you'd like to think it's because of a real policy disagreement about defense procurement levels (every agency, military or non-military, always requests more money than they eventually receive in appropriations) you're even more clueless about this stuff than I thought you were.
Romney doesn't mention it in every speech because housewives in Ohio need to bone up on defense procurement levels. He does it for two reasons: 1) to make people think the military is being "gutted" under Obama, which it isn't, and 2) to appeal to the crucial swing state he needs to win where they make all of the Navy's ships, and whose firms supply lots of the Navy's hardware.
Yes, Virginia, it's about Virginia.
-
Interesting comments about the drone issue from Mark Bowden.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login