The Real Mitt Romney

[BigV]

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.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by BigV

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.

***

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.

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.

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.

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!

[tw]

Originally Posted by Adak

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).

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.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by tw

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.

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. 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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Adak

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.

A perverse liar (ie the worst example of a politician) completely ignores the point. You again demonstrate how a Tea Party Limbaugh supporter thinks . Despicable.

Romney said he was more liberal than Ted Kennedy. Since lying to yourself, you must ignore that reality. Even take cheap shots at Kennedy.

An honest reply without a cheapshot attitude means you explain why Romney even said he was more liberal than Ted Kennedy. A liar does what a liar must do. Ignore that fact. Take cheapshots. Even call benchmark conservatives (ie Lugar) a liberal.

When do we see calls for internment camps for Muslims? We now have a new benchmark for liar. You. Or would you instead explain why Romney said he was more liberal than Ted Kennedy? I doubt it. Please prove me wrong by answering the again posted question, as any honest person would.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Adak

snip--

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).

--snip

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

Originally Posted by Adak

Who else is trying to take advantage of our less than stellar foreign policy?

1) North Korea, which continues to expand it's range of ICBM's, despite it warnings from the UN and the US, not to. Next will be a nuclear bomb test. This is after shelling an island belonging to South Korea (which is our ally, and where we station more than ten thousand troops).

2) Al Qaeda and it's related terrorists groups in Cairo and Benghazi, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Yemen, and Mali, etc.

3) China, which continues to push for ownership of a vast area of sea between itself and Japan, and between itself and the Philippines.

4) Syria, which knows we don't have the stomach to support the rebels. Finally, we are starting to arm them.

5) Al Shabab, (an Al Qaeda linked group), who could be crushed in Somalia right now, if we gave the legitimate gov't a little help.

6) Argentina, which is calling on all South American countries to blacklist every shipping company that serves the Falklands. It has several nations signed up for this.

7) Rwanda, which is supporting a terrorist army in the Congo. We have soldiers in country to find and stop the terrorist army.

8) Iran, where the mullah's continue to thumb their nose at the US and the international community, by refining nuclear material, and supporting terrorist groups. Latest effort was to kill with a bomb, the intelligence chief in Lebanon. He was investigating the murder of his father -- chief suspect: Iran.

And much much more.

There is ALWAYS movement on the foreign affairs front. Nations are always jockeying for a better position. Various groups that want a country of their own, are always plotting ways to get one, by violence. We don't hear much about it, because diplomatic efforts, and the efforts to unravel them by force, are made sub rosa, whenever possible.

I don't believe that Obama's administration has been a foreign policy disaster. I simply argue that his planned fleet reductions and foreign policy, will leave us weaker. Despite some more capable ships we have now, we can't have a ship or fleet in the Pacific, help with a problem in the Atlantic or Mediterranean, despite the assurances of Obama. It's crazy that he would use that as a defense, in the foreign policy debate.

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?

[richlevy]

...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.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by richlevy

[youtube]

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'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.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Adak

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 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.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by BigV

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?

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?

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Adak

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:

--snip

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.

[Sheldonrs]

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.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by BigV

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.

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?

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.

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?

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by Adak

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?