Since there is no "foreign policy Mitt Romney", I'd like to return to the search for the "real Mitt Romney". I'm reposting this, and a couple more observations and questions.

Crossroads GPS is a major player in the Romney campaign. There's no denying it, despite the fact that their organization Crossroads GPS is headed by Karl Rove, a person whose ideals and methods I have opposed for years. I didn't like him when he ran GWB's life and I don't like him now. As a starting point, if Rove's for it, I'm against it. Look at what kinds of social welfare he's promoting now.



Social welfare? Or political speech? It is clearly a call to political action. We have structures for this, they're called Political Action Committees, PACs. The thing about PACs is that the donors must be recorded and filed so the electorate, we citizens, you and me, can see WHO is saying what. Not so with the Social Welfare organizations. They are not required to reveal their donors. Yet, Karl Rove can use this anonymous money to influence voters. Aren't you curious about who is buying this influence for Romney? I sure am.

I'd like to know to whom Romney will owe a debt of gratitude, or more, should he be elected. It is not a lot of people. Check this out:
Wow, only sixteen people made up about 87% of the money! Just these few rich people are trying to get him elected, but trying in secret. What is gonna happen when Romney's elected? Don't you think these people are gonna want a return on their investment? Probably not a bunch of lottery winners in that small group, they're business people, they don't just throw money away, they're *investing* it. Do you really believe they're doing it for the social welfare of the viewer? Lots of philanthropists put their names on their donations. These people are trying to make a difference.

I sincerely doubt the difference they're striving for is the same difference I'm striving for. The concerns of Romney's NFL and NASCAR owning friends are not my concerns. I don't want them calling the shots.

There's so much about Romney that doesn't add up. He is hiding so much, all headlines and no body. No details. No tax returns to show where his treasure is, so will his heart be also, right? I can't decide if he's more Thurston Howell III or Mr Burns. But he's a caricature and a scary one.

How are we kicking a dead horse? I'm assuming that was an analogy and not just worthless rambling?

Well Adak? What's your position on all the secret money bankrolling Romney?

Not quite. The idea is that a ship in the Gulf of Persia, can't help with a Naval issue in the Mediterranean Sea, and one in the Mediterranean Sea, can't help with a problem in the Sea of Japan, etc. Yet Obama believes it's OK to have fewer ships.

You can't rescue an oil tanker under attack, but firing long range ship to ship missiles at small boats nearby the tanker, from the Gulf of Persia. See what I mean?

Think about real life issues where the Navy has had to intervene in the last 10 years. How many times could a simple firing of a longer range missile from an advanced Cruiser, have been the solution to the problem? Almost never.

In the foreign policy debate, Romney argued that the decline in the number of ships in the US Navy, resulted in a weakening of our Naval military strength.

Obama then stated in a condescending tone, that we had these ships called Aircraft Carriers, and planes land on them, and the ships today were much more capable than ships in the past, so we have more strength, with fewer ships.

There was more; that's just an off the cuff highlight of that exchange in the debate. You can hear the debate in zillions of places on the net.

What's wrong with Youtube?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tecohezcA78

We need to use our common sense in developing our policies - whether inside the country, or our foreign policy.

Let history be your guide here. We were weak before WWI, and we lost a lot of soldiers because we were unprepared, and our soldiers were horribly under trained when they arrived at the front.

After the "War to end all wars", we naturally let our military disband largely, and stopped looking like a first class military nation. Other nations, like the UK, did the same thing.

Shortly thereafter, Hitler came to power, and Germany started rebuilding it's military. We were weak, the UK was weak. Poland was terribly weak, and the French had actually gone back to using HORSES for some of their army transport! Russia with Stalin, had just killed off most of their top military leaders, because Stalin feared them. They were woeful at that time.

With that weakness all around of course Hitler felt encouraged to bully and bluster, and finally, go to war with them!

We couldn't believe it! Neither could most of the people in the UK. They were kicking the dead peace horse, waiting for it to run again and carry us all to a lasting peace.

But that horse was really dead. :mad:

Thinking that we'll have little need for a strong foreign policy, and the ability to project military strength today, is just lunacy. There is a LOT of instability in the Middle East. North Korea is a chronic hot spot, as is the recent squabbles with China and Japan over some islands that lie between them.

And then there's Al Qaeda and their several associated groups, that are quite active in Mali, Sinai, Syria, Libya, Tunisia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, etc.

With the UK so very weak - NO aircraft carriers for now, and the French being headed by a Socialist, We need to be alert, and not knocking down the number of ships in our Navy.

Both candidates have secret money behind them. You know those "Obama mobile phones" that are going out to Obama supporters?

Those were financed by Carlos Slim - who's the worlds richest man, and not even an American.

So no, Romney's money sources don't bother me any more than Obama's.

To be honest, these big $$$ men, REALLY like having some association with those in the White House. Even if it's just to visit and share a drink, maybe a dinner, and a chat with the President - they LOVE it. It gives them a great deal of pleasure.

But the President has constraints. He can't cater to their needs too much, even if he wanted to, because he's such a major figure that everything he does is watched and reported (nowadays).

Couple of points:

The disestablishment of large chunks of the armed forces after a conflict is pretty much the way Britain has always done things. We only stopped passing the annual Mutiny Act (for governing the size, budget and purpose of the army) in 1879.

Cultural unease over large standing armies was only just starting to pass out of the national consciousness by the time of the first world war.

It is standard for Britain to allow herself to become militarily weak during peace time and then have to scrabble around furiously recruiting and training up soldiers when large scale conflict erupts. It's one of the key reasons that Britain often does very badly at the start of a conflict. Not only is a large proportion of the army still green when they begin, but the structural integrity of regiments and battalions has often been shattered by large scale disestablishment and the need to move men around by, for example, combining the remnants of different battalions into a new whole, or using homebased battalions as a recruitment filter for overseas regiments.

Over the course of the conflict they become skilled and experienced and gel into an effective fighting force. Then when the conflict ends numbers are again slashed, and regiments stripped down or removed from active service altogether.

Rinse and repeat :p

Second, whilst Britain is weak now relative to its historic strength (in terms of military and naval reach) it is still the fifth in Global Firepower rankings. Given the size of our land and population, that's still way overpowered.

The lack of aircraft carriers is a problem. For all that I am generally anti-war it grieves me to see our navy so depleted. We don't even build ships anymore. Naval power has been a factor in English and British identify since the 10th century. The closure of the shipyards felt like a part of that was being ripped away.

Back to the disestablishment of regiments though: now that the dust is beginning to settle on our recent military ventures, the government has announced a large scale reorganisation of the army, along with massive budget cuts. Some regiments are being disbanded atogether, others are being absorbed into surviving regiments.

truly there is nothing new under the sun.

You know, I've been thinking about this thread and the 'True Conservative' thread, and I think I should retract an element of what I have said in here:

For ease, I've been using the labels 'conservative' and 'republican'. But actually the views expressed by Adak in this thread, though in line with much of what we see of republicanism/conservatism through news and political commentary, doesn't seem so in line with mainstream conservative views. Certainly judging from other conservative dwellars.

I probably should withdraw the labels 'conservative' and 'republican' and replace them with extreme republican, or right-wing conservative. I suspect they are no closer to many ordinary conservative or republican Americans, than the Socialist Workers' Party is to me.

Carrier? I didn't even lift her!


Attachment 41377

Just saying.

Umm, thought we went down to 1 carrier in 2011?

Uhhh .. pic was on a page dated 2011 ... I saw it "somewhere" a few days ago and dug it up.

I suppose it depends also on whether or not you define the Invincible class as a true aircraft carrier. I think we still have one in service.

China's single crappy carrier isn't depicted either. The point still stands that we are insanely over-committed to our Navy. Romney's ideas in this department make no sense whatsoever. This is one area where Romney seems like he's had a consistent position, so we can maybe believe he will throw Eisenhower under the bus.

Why does Thailand need a carrier ?

My first thought was it must be scrap iron from the our Reagan years.

They seem pretty militarily active lately compared to some places.

Yehbut, being militarily active and needing an aircraft carrier aren't the same thing.

I was a little surprised they needed one. Not because I think they don't have any military engagements going on, just that I didn't think they went far enough afield to need carriers.

For a coastal nation, with as much coastline and as many islands as Thailand, and military concerns across the southern pacific... hell, if they can find the budget for it, i can imagine it'd be totally useful and great to have.

Yeah. Once I started thinking about it, it did make sense :p

it's just down to cost priorities. If the Thais think they'd rather have a carrier than... however many smaller boats, or airfields, or whatever, that they could buy/maintain for the same price, I'm SURE they'd put it to good use.

Hell, I bet Mongolia would buy an aircraft carrier if they figured out how to afford it. Why WOULDN'T you want a carrier if you could afford it?

Is Adak still posting Tea Party propaganda about a smallest US military since 1887?

I watched the whole debate. What you say Obama said never happened. Your smear is baseless. Obama did not say that a ship in the Pacific can help a ship in the Atlantic as you said:
You did say that, Obama didn't say that; your statement is merely a smear, a figment of your frightened imagination.

A decline in naval military strength? A decline relative to what? You can not possibly be suggesting it is a decline relative to the naval military strength of our navy in 1916, can you? Romney set those parameters--Obama answered in kind. You must know how important it is to keep units of measure consistent when comparing two quantities. It's not a matter of one person's facts versus another person's facts, it's just the difference between logical statements to address the issues and using non-sequiturs to make up some noise as the run up to your conclusion.

I think one of our carriers could take out the entire "Great White Fleet" handily.

regarding secret money

Yes, both do have secret money in their campaign. That is troubling. Both have foreign money supporting them, also troubling and illegal to boot. But the relative amounts are not balanced, much, much more untraceable money is being devoted to Romney's campaign. They're both wrong, but Romney's got a huge lead on this score.

Cite.

Cite.

lol. nope. I've no aliases. If I have something to say I'll say it to you myself. Have I EVER deviated from that? Have I ever not told you what I thought?

Thanks Spexx & IM.
You're right, I haven't been around much.

The real Mitt Romney, wait, the political noise about the real Mitt Romney trumpets his "bipartisan effectiveness". He crows about his ability to get things done in MA as a Republican Governor of a state with a legislature with a Democratic majority. Ok, but... the facts indicate that in four years as Governor, Romney issued 800 vetoes. How is this working across the aisle? As you know, when the executive vetoes a bill, it is returned to the legislature to be upheld or overridden. Interestingly, over 700 of those vetoes were overturned.

Romney's transition from business executive where he issued orders and could expect and enforce compliance to government executive where the office holder needs to cooperate with the other branches of government was clearly unsuccessful.

Romney was unhappy with his relationship with the legislature and MA was unhappy with him. His poll numbers for unfavorability were 69%. This was likely a major contributing factor to his absence from the state for most of the last year of his term as governor. Plotting his course to the Presidency, no doubt.

@DanaC: good discussion on UK's carrier loss. Yes, UK is down to zero carriers, atm. One is being built, but won't be in service for a couple more years. Yes, I do mean REAL carriers.

The chart on Carriers is out of date.

I didn't say that Obama said a ship in the Pacific could handle a problem in the Atlantic or the Med. What I was trying to say, is that following Obama's logic, a ship in one place, would have to be able to handle a problem, that was in another place entirely. Ships can project their power, but the world is a big place, and our Navy has a lot of allies to defend, and lots of problems.

Just last week, we had the Miramar Air Show in San Diego. This week a bunch of the fighters that were at Miramar, have been transferred to a "Mid East country". These are Marine airmen, and they work on Navy carriers. My point is, these guys, and our carriers, are kept busy, working.

It's always disappointing when a good conservative governor is elected, but the legislature for the state is solidly liberal. MA has paid handsomely for being liberal. They see that now, but it's hard to take back a gov't service, after the people have become used to having it.
Now they have to pay for that misstep.

Romney can work with liberals, but no conservative can work with a liberal legislature which is strongly polarized and vote straight liberal on every vote, regardless of it's worth. We've seen that all too often at the federal level, haven't we? Hopefully, we'll get a good block of conservatives in the House and Senate, and we can get ourselves back on track.

The hot air is all out of the liberal's balloon, and all we'd get from another four years of Obama and the liberals, is the last "pffffff", as the balloon sputtered out. He has no PLAN, and no PROGRAM to ignite any spark of change. Same O Same O.

The weird thing is, even though his plans haven't worked, and he has nothing new to offer us, some people still support him. Obama doesn't even CLAIM he has anything new!

Weird.

You know insanity is doing the same thing that didn't work before, over and over, and expecting a different outcome, right?

Yeah.

That's what I don't understand. Obama's policies are NOT working, so why keep supporting them, and him?

It's weird. Just weird.

What is not weird, just typical of ideologues everywhere, is your inability or unwillingness to see the real success of Obama's policies, and the wisdom of continuing to support them. The problem is *not* his policies, the problem, in this case, is your misrepresentation and/or misunderstanding of them.

***

regarding the sphere of influence of a given ship, OF COURSE a ship can project power effectively in many places the actual ship isn't in. I suppose we could have a rational argument about the radius of such a sphere, but no rational person would ever suggest that a ship in the Pacific could exert influence in the Atlantic or the Mediterranean. That is what you said Obama used as an excuse. You cling to that. Obama's logic, no person's logic would ever suggest that, you raise it only as a strawman about how dumb Obama is. Your persistence on this point only shows how dumb this point is, and those who believe it.

***

Romney's no aisle crosser. Romney's used to giving orders, fine as the big boss man, but it doesn't work that way at all as the President. I've no confidence that his business experience will have any significant positive effect on our nation. He won't even have his most-favored tool as Governor, the line-item veto. He'll have to work with the whole Congress, something he his record shows he is unable to do consistently or significantly.

You mean like reading your posts?

Anyway, that statement doesn't make sense, even in its cliched overuse, in this case. How many times have we voted in Obama?
Over and over and over?

:confused:

p.s. IT's =IT IS. ITS = ownership

the real mitt romney: Disaster Relief is immoral.



yup. You're reading that right. Disaster relief is immoral because deficits.

Helping Americans devastated by storms, or earthquakes, or fires, who have had their whole lives, their houses, their things, their livelihoods washed away or blown away or burnt to ashes or whatever, get a leg up and start the long, slow process of recovery, is immoral because deficits.

That there's some plain-and-simple ayn-rand-ron-paul insanity. Then again, no surprise, from the party in favor of letting sick folks just die.

You took that WAAAY out of context...

He is saying the states should take care of it. Not that we shouldn't have disaster relief altogether.

the real mitt romney: deceptive and misleading.

That's utterly ridiculous. The states can't do it, and private companies sure can't do it. Mitt Romney didn't say "if the states can't afford it, the federal gov't should step in to help"; he said "we cannot afford to do those things". "those things" being DISASTER RELIEF.

I'm not commenting on how realistic it is, which I don't know, but Romney never said that disaster relief was immoral. Romney did his entire "the debt is immoral" spiel and from actually watching the video, the part you emphasized was Romney just finishing his statement, not answering King's question.

With respect to disaster relief, this is what Romney responded to this:
The entire "immoral" spiel was just his standard anti-debt rhetoric. If you assume that the role can successfully be moved to states, there is nothing wrong with that statement. I just don't know if it is realistic or not.

Who should I believe, Obama - or my "lying" eyes? Obama or the CBO data? Obama, or the labor stats?

It's an easy decision - I'm sticking with the facts, and leaving my belief in Obama's policies, in the garbage where they belong.

My argument is that cutting the number of ships, has left us unable to respond quickly, to hotspots and other naval duties (like combined fleet training and maneuvers with other nations).

Do you remember when we started air operations in support of the rebels in Libya? We needed an aircraft carrier over there, off the Libyan coast, but because we HAD NO aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean Sea (which had been our policy for many years), we had to wait for several days while one was brought up through the Suez Canal. :mad:

With the help of the French and the Brits, we came out alright in stopping the armor "slaughter" groups headed for Benghazi, but other targets simply had to wait. Undoubtedly that cost lives in Misrata, etc. which were under attack at that time.

Now is not the time to cut down the number of our Naval ships.

Romney will have no problems at all, because the Congress will be controlled by the Republicans, imo. I agree completely that a President can't do much, if he's blocked at every turn, by a Congress that is polarized along party lines, and is controlled by the other party.

That's why you need to vote a straight Republican ticket, obviously! :D

The deficits will destroy us far far worse than any natural disaster in our history, if we don't stop them. You have no idea of how bad it gets when you have a real monetary crisis in a country.

In any budget, you can point out SOMETHING that appears cruel. Any budget. In fact, when Obama was asked about something similar in regards to Obamacare, he said "maybe you just send some folk home with a pain pill or something. Not everyone needs an operation." (the operation was an expensive one).

Romney is correct however - the federal gov't can't afford to be a replacement for insurance on your home. Why should it be? That's why we have insurance companies, and I don't know anyone who doesn't have insurance on their home. Maybe a few Democrats don't, but they're always hard to figure out. :rolleyes: Paying for the National Guard to be brought in is fine, but paying people for their losses - no. The federal gov't is NOT our insurance company. Which is good, because the fed's could never run as efficiently as any insurance company.

The help that you are appealing for, should come from the State, but most immediately, from the nearby and affected communities, friends, and various charity groups like the Red Cross, etc. Katrina is a lesson in this. The people went to the Superbowl for shelter, expecting the gov't to take care of them. But the gov't had told them to bring their own provisions, etc. Many did not however. So the Superbowl was completely overwhelmed, both in numbers, and in what they needed. They simply weren't set up to handle THAT many people.

And it took days for FEMA to get even bottled water in to those inside. :eek:

This last hurricane that hit New Orleans, the city was clear - The Superbowl is CLOSED, and no one will be admitted. So what happened? The people made their own arrangements, and everything worked out much better. Of course, there was much less flooding, but the idea is that YOU are the one responsible for your own safety, and YOU will do a LOT better job than some FEMA director in Washington can do for you. (The director's previous job was as an officer in an Arabian horse club, btw Oh! I hate Crony Politicians!)

Do you REALLY want to put your safety in the hands of these nitwits? Why? Please discuss!

Does not matter how massive our military is. 13 times larger than any nation is still too small. Adak is Romney's baggage. Same baggage was so destructive under George Jr. Limbaugh disciples (also called the Tea Party) are so easily brainwashed as to not even know they are brainwashed. Extremists say we need more military and more wars. Same brainwashing made same claims in 1930s Germany.

Romney once said in a debate with Ted Kennedy that he was was more liberal than Kennedy. A good politician knows who to lie to. Locate the most easily brainwashed. Ie Limbaugh disciples. Then claim to be an extremists just like Limbaugh. The most brainwashed will conveniently forget that Romney said he was more liberal than Kennedy. Brainwashing the least educated is that easy.

We need a president who can lie even more then Nixon and George Jr. So wackos extremists need Romney. Liars clearly make the best leaders. Liars can even massacre 5000 American servicemen for no purpose. So that Tea Party extremists will know that was good.

We need more military to massacre more Americans in useless wars. Adak said so. He can deny with the best of them. So it must be true.

That may well be your argument. But that's not what you said. Here's what you said:

I have challenged you repeatedly to support this statement of yours, and you can't or won't. You have a different argument, what you were trying to say was, a ship can't be in two places, look at the video of the debate, etc etc etc. Whatever.

I ask you directly, do you reaffirm or reject this statement of yours?

...and the Romney campaign is doubling down on FEMA.



I think this guy is thinking of the Bush-era 'Brownie' FEMA. Most of the time FEMA does it's job quite well. And having one national emergency agency, which will be constantly training and gaining field experience is a good idea in addition to the existing state agencies, which are victims to states ongoing budget crises and a certain forgetfulness when the last major disaster in a state can be years ago.

Privatizing FEMA would be even worse. Can you imagine putting the profit motive and someone like Halliburton/KBR into this - kickbacks to state legislators, horrendous markups on disaster supplies and services? All the graft and corruption we encountered in Iraq brought here to our own desperate citizens in their worst time of need.

I'd rather they just fucked with Big Bird.

... like runaway spending on more military might that we do not need?

Ridiculous.

He contradicts himself in his first sentence saying that he'll match our military to our interests. But his whole plan is to make sure this all happens above a *FLOOR* (his italics, not mine) of 4% of GDP. If all you have are military dollars, everything looks like a military threat. He doesn't say how he will pay for it, what with reducing everyone's taxes, dramatically increasing our defense budget, typical Romney, say anything that will stampede the voters, facts be damned.


Jesus, you are obdurate. Please provide a citation for this. (ps, I'm just gonna ask nicely this once, and if you don't give a cite, I'm going to chalk this up to more defamation by you.)


I agree with you, the federal government can't afford to be a replacement for insurance on your home.

But no one is suggesting that. You are melodramatically exaggerating the role of FEMA.


Money from the state, collected in the state, distributed to the state? No interstate/federal help?


My god, you sound like Romney, that you believe that people, some 47% of us, won't take responsibility for our lives, that we, some 47% of us, believe it is the federal government's responsibility to take care of us in every way, including our safety. Unbelievable.

Yet.

You would blindly put our national safety in the hands of the same "nitwits", with an even bigger military budget. Gotcha. I doubt you can explain that one away, but you probably meant to say something else.

The US is not in danger of losing its global power status through not having enough ships in its Navy. You have more navy than the rest of the world combined.
You are in danger of losing your superpower status through going bloody bankrupt. Maintaining that enormous military is a significant factor in your fiscal problems.
Sure, it took several days to get a carrier into position for the Libya operation. That was OKAY. Things worked. It was quick enough.

I support it, of course. I try and re-write it so you can grasp it, but maybe one more time, and this IS the last time:

Cutting the number of ships in our Navy, reduces our ability to get the ships we need to move to a hotspot - to that hotspot, in a short amount of time.

Of course, we want to save $$$ by not over-spending on our Navy, but we have been cutting down the number of ships, quite a bit. We need to stop cutting down the number of ships in our Navy.

Think about this: The US Navy escorts almost all of the worlds oil tankers, as they leave the Gulf of Persia, loaded with oil. Not the French, not the UK, not anybody else. The Iranians have threatened on several occasions to attack those tankers (that's why they've all been reregistered as US ships, so they have US Naval protection).

Oh, and btw., the South Korean dissidents HAVE released a bunch of helium balloons with leaflets attached, into North Korea. These ARE the leaflets that the North Koreans said they would begin merciless artillery fire on the South, if they were sent. No one is sure what may happen as a result, but I'm sure the Navy will want to keep a couple Carrier groups nearby, just in case.

In light of this, do you REALLY believe this is the best time to continue cutting Navy ships?

Well, we've got a great liar in Obama, but let's not compare lying politicians - that's like asking which elephant is bigger than a flea. :rolleyes: All politicians lie, and all of them say stupid stuff, from time to time. You can't talk that much, and not go wrong, from time to time. Just watch Obama give a non-campaign speech, when the teleprompter doesn't work -- he hems and haws and stammers like you wouldn't believe.

Ted Kennedy? Please- a sad case of a sad drunk who crashed his car while driving drunk, and left his date to die, while he sobered up for several hours before reporting the accident. A truly despicable man. He could give a good speech, however. Fine speaker when he was sober.

I don't believe we can do any more good in Afghanistan, and yes, I believe we've handled it badly. Wars like Afghanistan and Iraq, should be REALLY avoided. These places are not like Europe after WWII, or Japan. Their culture is VERY Islamic, and mostly tribal in large parts of the country. Many don't WANT to move into the 21st Century, and we don't need to drag them into it, kicking and screaming. Let them stay where they want to be. If Al Qaeda from country X attacks us, or tries to, we attack them - but we don't build up/rebuild their country for them at a cost of 100's of Billions of dollars. They can rebuild their own country, if needed.

I'm not in favor of privatizing FEMA, and yes, I was clearly referring to Brown era FEMA. The big idea here though, is that WE take care of OURSELVES, and help our neighbors and friends. DON'T rely on the gov't to take care of us.

DO NOT become dependent on the gov't, for your survival and recovery, in an emergency. You will be quite sorry if you do, because FEMA can be overwhelmed in any big emergency, and YOU could be totally ignored. You probably will be found after you're dead, however. I'll give them that much credit.

You might think differently if your family was a victim in Misrata that died during that period.

Fact is, we are going bankrupt from our over-spending. We need to cut back, clearly, and some cuts in the military, may be needed and OK. Further cuts in Navy ships is not smart at this time, however.

We have taken on the extra task of escorting nearly ALL the world's oil tankers, leaving through the Persian Gulf, which Iran has threatened to attack. This is a substantial amount of extra work to take on, AND the Korean peninsula is heating up, as well. Also, we still need one carrier at least, to support Afghanistan, while ops are on-going there.

YOU do not have the kinds of resources that the gov't has. YOU can do everything in your power to prepare and survive, but if the levies fail and the wave comes, that may not be enough. Because YOU only have domestic responses. Unless you happen to have helicopters, fully trained medics, hydraulic rescue equipment etc etc.

If FEMA can be overwhelmed, then so can ordinary people. Your post implies blame towards those who relied on the gov't for their survival, when their own resources failed them in the wake of Katrina.

Does Obama say how he's going to pay for Obama care? Nooooo!
That's what lying politicians do - get over it.

I don't have a cite for you. It's been played a few times on the conservative radio talk shows. The announcer/host said where and when, but I didn't write it down. It came up when Obama care was about to be voted on, so it was some time back.

Oh, am I? What were all those trailers about after Katrina, then?

You and I both know that the reason those buildings in New Orleans couldn't be rebuilt quickly, was because they either had no flood insurance, or if they were rebuilt, their new flood insurance rates would be higher (probably too high), or unavailable.

Think about it. The City of New Orleans is built on washed down dirt from the Mississippi River. As the dirt compacts, the city sinks about just a bit, every year. In addition, a large part of N.O. is in a bowl depression, close to sea level.

In other words, the city is doomed - it will sink into the Gulf, inexorably. Clearly, they need to build a New New Orleans, back on solid ground, asap. Did you notice that another part of N.O. did receive 12 ft. of flood waters, in their last Hurricane? (Not Sandy). The sea wall and etc., doesn't protect the whole city, even when it works.

We don't need FEMA to think, and we need to start using our own resources to mitigate these disasters ourselves. THEN FEMA and Red Cross and other groups, can assist. ASSIST, not be expected to rescue our butts.


Watch the interviews done with the Katrina survivors that were inside the Superbowl in New Orleans. Every one of them relied on the gov't for help - and most of them relied on the gov't for everything - even though they were told to bring their own supplies, explicitly and repeatedly.


I am not sure that we need a bigger military budget. I just don't want the Navy ships budget cut any more. As far as the "nitwits" in charge of our national safety - no, the military doesn't allow the Crony Appointments that Presidents are so famous for (like BROWN at FEMA, or Janet Reno as Attorney General).

And you automatically believed it because it validated your preconceived notions. That's very conservative of you.:rolleyes:

I recognize Obama's voice when I hear it - high fidelity stereo speakers. :cool:

I don't have a problem with a limit to the nationalized health service. I understand that you only should get back, what the system can afford to give. What bugs me about Obama care, is that he's lying about the cost, and underfunding it. That means the taxpayers are going to be left with the bill when it comes due - ie., more taxes, AND the quality of the care will have to be somewhat curtailed - which he's not really telling anyone now that Obama care has become so disliked.

I'm waiting for the first 68 year old man who can't get a heart by-pass, because he's too old, etc. Then we'll see how this Obama care REALLY works (or doesn't).


It's smart to keep your mouth shut about an unpopular topic, when you're in a tight reelection campaign. I understand why he's not talking about it, anymore. I wouldn't either, if I were him.

If it works - nearly flawlessly - everywhere else in the "developed" world, without having to ration care through "death panels" (i wish I could say i thought you were above relying on that tired old trope, but honestly, i didn't) killing 68 year olds - why in god's name can't we do it?
I don't actually believe that America is the "best" country in the world, or anything, by a long shot. But I DO damn well think that when America wants to do something, Americans can make it happen. If everyone else can fix their healthcare systems, so can we. We just need to stop pandering to people like you, who would rather see insurance company profit than healthy americans.

So Obama is a liar and a cheat because of his projections about Obamacare.

But when it comes to Romney's plans, you
Obama is a hammered by you for optimistic projections, but Romney is just saying it's morning in America.

Your indefensible double standard is showing.

Don't get angry with Obama about economic projections. Gov't and business has been using them since - roughly -- forever. ALL budgets are based on projections. Are those projections reasonable? Define "reasonable".


Unless it's Obama's prediction. Then, different story.


more double standard follows.
It's double standards like this that make you and your guy look bad. For thinking people, who like to see the math and are skeptical, "logic" like this is a big red flag. In my opinion, it is characteristic of intellectual laziness. You hear something you like or something from someone you like, and you accept it uncritically. Conversely, when the speaker is disliked, or the statement is at odds with your pre-existing conclusion, you're hostile to the message. Content matters Adak, for me and for you, even if you don't care about it. It is content that will affect our lives. You would do well to measure the content more closely and the label of the speaker less closely.

This saddens me. I gave you every chance to retract your smear of the President, and you refused. You don't seem stupid Adak, you don't seem mean. But I can not understand why you would support your libel.

Actually, a few posts further down, a very telling remark by you helps me understand some of the factors that influence what I hear you saying. When you talk about hearing it on conservative talk radio, I had an epiphany. I, too, listen to much of that same stream, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Sean Hannity, ... I hear their programs, and also their programming. It is not a good source for knowledge, nor for quality information. There's plenty of scaremongering there, lots of slander, meanness, and especially emotionally charged opinion making. And, I have to say, lots and lots of commercials. They are, after all "obscene profit making" enterprises. They are in business to make money, and they do so by keeping you tuned in through the commercials.

Nothing wrong with that, but it's useful to know what their motivations are so that you can more clearly understand what they're saying by knowing why they're saying it. By making scandalous teasers, then breaking away for a commercial, you are likely to hang around to find out if The Donald is going to finally tear away the veil of secrecy from Obama's muslim/foreign/traitorous past.

They have an agenda, and they're implacable in the pursuit of that agenda. Promoting Romney is merely expedient for them, but they make full use of his celebrity for their own purposes. They pander even more than Romney does, but at least you can turn off the radio. With Romney, god forbid he is elected, we'll be stuck with him.

In everything he says, everything he does and perhaps more importantly, everything DOESN'T say or do, Romney has done all he can short of hitting everyone over the head with a "I Should Not Be President" stick.

Those hi-fi speakers also give you a good earful of the hosts on those shows, which is why you're so misinformed.

If you would like to refute any point of Constitutional law with Mark Levin (former Chief of Staff to the Attorney General for Ronald Regan), and now a talk show host), PLEASE - by all means, you do that! :D

Here's a metaphor for the liberals. Say you are at a Thanksgiving Dinner and you want the ketchup.

A conservative grabs it, and pours the ketchup.

A middle of the road type, asks the Washington bureaucrat sitting nearby, to please pass him the ketchup - although it's easily in arm's reach.

A liberal wants the Washington bureaucrat at the table, to see that he needs the ketchup, and pass it to him. An email from Washington reminding him of this need, would be a nice touch.

An ultra liberal wants the Washington bureaucrat to use monitors to study his eating habits, and know automatically, when and if, he will want the ketchup passed to him - based on his previous dining habits. This will require a Ketchup department to be established in Washington, with a senior Secretary of Ketchup, a full staff, and regular updates to the President on the status of Ketchup with meals.

:D

Because the President, and his appointed Secretaries, have all lied, big time, right to my face. (well, the TV).

I live fairly close to the Mexican border - I KNOW when the illegal crossing have resulted in Kidnappings, murders, and other serious crimes.

I don't appreciate Napolitano (Sec'ty of Homeland Security) coming down here and saying "the border is safe" - right after a murder by the drug cartel, of a US citizen, on a lake near the border, in broad daylight.

And I know Obama did NOTHING to save our Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi, and others. For chrissakes, they had phone calls, email, real time video from a recon drone, and military assets just a short hop away at Aviano, Italy. The attack lasted OVER 5 hours (some say up to 7 hours), and still Obama did NOTHING!

He's a damn criminal for just sitting on his ass and not trying to help them -- they were OUR people, damn it! He had us fly thousands of missions to save the people of Benghazi from Ghaddafi, but he can't even fly ONE to save our Ambassador?

WTF??

A photo was released today showing the President in the Situation Room, studying the progress of Hurricane Sandy.

Well, WHAT was Obama studying when our consulate was being attacked and overrun and our Ambassador was being killed? :mad:

As I've stated previously, i won't listen to Limbaugh anymore, because his ad hominem attacks are WAY over the top.

A little trash talk is understandable, but not NEARLY as much as Limbaugh does. Last I listened to him, it was 80% trash talk. I won't put up with that.

I do listen to Mark Levin, and Michael Medved. They are sharp thinkers. Also, Roger Hedgecock, when he is discussing politics and not personalities, is good. As the former Mayor of San Diego, he resonates well. Nobody else knows more about politics in America, and how it works, on the radio.

Far from an ideologue, I'm a pragmatic guy - if it works, I like it! If Obama care worked - had a hope of working - I'd support it. Same with all the other crazy CA and liberal policies and laws, we have.

If they only worked - but they don't, or they don't work efficiently. Efficiency is very important, because we can't just throw money at our problems - we don't have enough of it, and shouldn't be wasting it.

To be kind, they're very wasteful, and big time liars. I neither need nor want, our fed gov't to control every damn thing in my life.

Anybody remember what liberty and freedom were about?

Well, since you asked... I don't expect for a moment to change your mind, but I haven't participated in this thread so far, and your comments are as a good as an excuse as any for me to jump in with my deep insights and scintillating comments (HAH!)

I remember the days when many of my and everyone else's liberties and freedom was guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Along came 9/11 and the Republican administration then in power pushed through the so-called Patriot Acts and the creation of Homeland "Security." Not content with these atrocities, the Rebublican Gang of Four then got us into a war under false pretenses and without giving the slightest thought as to how the US was going to pay for this atrocity. Rather than following the route of fiscal responsibility by raising taxes and implementing other substancial money saving programs to pay for our adventures in Iraq, the Republicans LOWERED taxes and added insult to injury by awarding lucrative contracts to defense contracters who were in bed with the upper echelons of Republican politicians and the Department of Defense, Pentagon, Chief's of Staff, etc. Can anyone say Halliburten or Dick Chaney or Karl Rove or or or?

Ancient history,, perhaps, but it's brought us to where we are today. Oh, and let's not forget the big financial bailout of all those crooked CEOs and bankers specializing in sub prime lending instruments, etc., etc. These corporate criminals tanked the US economy and you and I had the "freedom" of paying for their get out of jail free cards. Was so much as one criminal financier called to account for his actions? Did a single one go to trial or spend time in prison for the crimes that were committed against the American people? Don't everybody all answer at once.

Why didn't a single Federal prosecutor bring charges against these charlatans who practically drove our country to its knees? I blame both parties for this. No high ranking politician was going to risk PAC money or other campaign contributions or the incredible goodies handed out by the lobbiests for the country's financial low lifes.

And how about the outsourcong of American jobs? Remember Apple? Remember when it was the quintensential American success story? Until it discovered China that is. Goodbye Apple and goodbye every single other American manufacturer of microchips and almost all other components used in the electronics industry.

Wanna hear what Chinese workers get paid to work for Apple? One dollar/hour. And they work 12 hour days with only one day a week off. If production falls behind, they get to work extra shifts for free until the new quotas are met. Apple workers in China are housed in dormitories of 10 stories or more. This makes it easy for them to jump from an upper floor and commit suicide when they break down under the constant criticism they are subjected to and the incredible stress of their work load.

Republicans have the incredible nerve to call this global "free enterprise." Bull shit! China is a COMMUNIST country for those of you who have forgotten. The Chinese government subsidizes Chinese industries with low or zero rate loans, free land to build their plants on, and a system of tarriffs which prevent most foreign produced goods from being competitive in the Chinese market place.

BTW, the above info on Apple comes from the book, The Betrayal of the American Dream by Barlett and Steele, pp. 85-97.

The US joins in the party by actually giving tax breaks to US corporations who export US jobs overseas. There is no system of tariffs that has any teeth which protects American manufacturing the way Chinese products are protected. BTW, is there any American manufacturing left? I guess we still make a few car parts and your pal, Romney objects to even that.


Wake up and look at what is going on both in the US and globally. The wealthiest individuals and corporations in the US have bouht themselves a national legislature of their very own in no small part due to Citizens United. Would you like to explain to me how you or I have the "liberty" or "freedom" to run a candidate who represents the actual American people - not Goldman Sachs. Good fucking luck, sucker. Until - IF -we get campaign financing reform, our country will continue to run at a deposit as jobs continue to vanish overseas, CEO's are paid obscene salaries to dismantle American enterprise, and the war du jour will rake in billions if not trillions for the cronies of the administration who yet again, "Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war," against whatever hapless nation is discovered to have something we want.

Why in the name of the FSM are Conservatives so deliberately blind. You strain at gnats and miss the mountain one foot from your face. The defit is all the fault of the disabled and the homeless children and seniors living on $700/month. Certainly not any of those other factors I mentioned. Oh, yeah. And FEMA, too. Romney et al want to save us from the evil Fema program. Have fun all you folks who were in Sandy's path. Hope you know how to repair your own power grids single handed. And how about "safety net" programs? Romney wants to end the food stamp program. Wanna tell me what the low income children in the US are going to eat? Maybe Romney will start a canned goods program to help them out. What will happen to the low income disabled and seniors when Romeny gives us "liberty" and "freedom" from housing assistance and medical care through Medicaid (the medical program for the very poor)?

You, oh grasshopper, want efficiency in your government programs? According to the non partisen Center on Budet and Tax Priorities the social safety net programs account for - get this - 13 percent of the entire United States budget. The most expensive programs are social security and defense - both coming in at 20 percent. Now you want to tell me that there's no waste in defense spending? Pardon me while I go find a place to die laughing - maybe I'll just join all those old people and disabled folks that were turned out to starve or die of exposure or die due to lack of medical treatment, so you and your mad hatter hosted tea party could save a a lousey 13% by killing (yes, killing) the most vulnerable members of our population. Meanwhile, Halliburten et al will be shoveling krugerands into their secret off shore accounts and people like members of the Bin Laden family will be secretly spirited away to continue their lives of wealth and priviledge, not to mention well placed campaign contributions.

I have nothing but contempt for the current crop of Republicans who can't be bothered to study even recent history, are to lazy to use common logic, and are all too eager to literally destroy thousands of their fellow citizens because they want to buy a cheap i-pad under whatever outrageous terms Apple may demand and FSM forbid that some rich bitch in a gated community have her taxes go up by even 2 cents

PS. And you think the Republicans tromping around in your bedroom is LESS intrusive government?

Well said Sam.

Adak, that ketchup analogy is deeply flawed.

The ketchup metaphor was meant to just give you a little "flavor" for the different philosophies. Doesn't suit your tastes, eh? :) :D

Sam wins. Game over.

(that wah wah wah pacman game over sound.)

Just doesn't work very well as a metaphor.