The Real Mitt Romney

[glatt]

True. It's been more interesting with him. I think he's enjoying the attention. Has some free time and this gives him something to do. I think he believes in his party and candidate and loves to argue. Doesn't care much about seeking truth or understanding, so he'll bluff his way through an argument when it's a weak one. He just want to win the argument.

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by glatt

True. It's been more interesting with him. I think he's enjoying the attention. Has some free time and this gives him something to do.

Maybe we're the comparative after-school program designed to keep kids busy til parents pick them up so they don't get themselves into deeper trouble. Perhaps this board is keeping him out of situations where could do more damage.

[BigV]

He's trolling, true. But I believe he is a true believer, a zealot. And he has a frighteningly large number of like minded small thinking herd voters. They are intellectually weak but vocal and persistent.

[DanaC]

I've enjoyed this thread, for the most part. It's been interesting hearing some different perspectives on economic stuffs. I just lose patience when people wheel out crap like the 'apology tour' and other creations of right-wing punditry.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I've enjoyed this thread, for the most part. It's been interesting hearing some different perspectives on economic stuffs. I just lose patience when people wheel out crap like the 'apology tour' and other creations of right-wing punditry.

Would you like to hear some of Obama's speeches on audio, where he repeatedly points out that America has "made mistakes in the past"?

Maybe a lot of these same countries would have preferred it if the Soviets still controlled their country? Maybe they would have preferred to be slaves to Hitler, Mussolini, or the Japanese?

What would you call it, if not an apology tour? Because that SURE AS HELL is not what we're used to hearing from our President, speaking to other countries!

It's not an "I'm sorry", but it's not facing the reality that ALL countries make mistakes in foreign policy - not just the USA. Truth is, MANY of the nations in the UN, have truly miserable human rights abuses, or dictators/presidents who have seriously abused their power. And the USA has done a LOT to help other nations, all over the world.

But somehow Obama finds it necessary to point out OUR "mistakes", over and over, around the world?

[DanaC]

liberal and socialist are not interchangeable terms.

And none of what you describe is what i would consider either 'true liberalism' or 'true socialism'. You, as a conservative have every right to define what is or is not true conservatism. You don't get to define the same for the other side.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by DanaC

liberal and socialist are not interchangeable terms.

And none of what you describe is what i would consider either 'true liberalism' or 'true socialism'. You, as a conservative have every right to define what is or is not true conservatism. You don't get to define the same for the other side.

No, but they can fit into one box - the anti - Conservative box.

I don't live in an apple tree, but I still know what an apple is, thank you. If apples were quite rare, I'd agree with you, but when they're everywhere you look, like liberalism and socialism, you get to know them.

Please, define "True Liberalism" and "True Socialism", but let's do that in a new thread devoted to that topic.

Turkey: That's a good example of what I'm talking about! He's addressing a country that slaughtered the Armenians in the first act of (really major) genocide, in modern times, and refuses to this day to recognize it. And he's talking about the darker period in OUR history??

Wait a second, here!

Saying it once, or saying it in a more private setting, would be OK. Going around the world with basically the same "apology" template in his VERY public speeches, is WAY off the mark.

It may be good for a human (and a country), to acknowledge their shortcomings to themselves, but to proclaim them to the world, all around the world, is unwise, unnecessary, and makes us look like our Commander in Chief is our chief apologist, and ripe for a bit of exploitation.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Adak

Turkey: That's a good example of what I'm talking about! He's addressing a country that slaughtered the Armenians in the first act of (really major) genocide, in modern times, and refuses to this day to recognize it. And he's talking about the darker period in OUR history??

That was his point. Turkey refuses to acknowledge a darker period in their history, and when encouraging them to do so Obama acknowledges a darker period in our history, showing that a mature country can do it.

And you and Romney complain that he's not following Turkey's lead instead?

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

That was his point. Turkey refuses to acknowledge a darker period in their history, and when encouraging them to do so Obama acknowledges a darker period in our history, showing that a mature country can do it.

And you and Romney complain that he's not following Turkey's lead instead?

Put on your foreign policy hat for a moment. Understand that to many politicians, around the world, the foreign policy they use is based on a zero sum game: your nation's loss, is my nation's gain (or at least, could be).

So, especially for the U.S., if you travel 'round the world making statements that are taken for introspective reflections of a weak moment, nations that are watching very carefully, react accordingly.

This is the problem that Carter got into with Iran. They saw him as weak (in his military attitude), and decided to overrun the embassy in Tehran, and take our personnel hostages for over a year.

Clinton had some of the same problem in Africa, and in dealing with Osama Bin Laden. Things were going well here, and he just didn't put much effort into finding those responsible for attacks on our embassies in Africa, etc. Clinton says "I would have killed Osama, if I could have found him".

Well Bill, you won't find him, because you're not looking very much. Bin Laden was 6ft. 4inches or so, and in the Middle East, that stands out. You could have found him. Also, he's pretty famous thereabouts.

It's all fine to be a historian, and reflect on these things, in private, or even in a book. It's not fine to go around the world, and do it, as the representative of your country, in public speeches.

No American voted for Obama, to be our apologist. He is our President, damnit! He can apologize until he's blue in the face, when he becomes a private citizen again.

"A time for every purpose under heaven". This was a poor time to reflect on the shortcomings of America's past.

P.S. Almost every nation has had slavery at some time or other. It's not like we were the only one's using it. Same with the Native Americans. They drove weaker tribes off the lands they wanted, whenever they deemed it wise to do so. Some tribes were completely destroyed.

The Sioux for example, were weaker, at one time, and were driven out of their homelands by the stronger Sac and Fox tribe (Mesquakie-Sauk), onto the plains. Many died from starvation (they were eating grass to survive, at times), before they learned the new skills they needed to survive.

The Indians understood completely. That was their practice, as well, (to drive out their enemies from land they wanted), for thousands of years. And no, they were not gentle about it.

We learned better torture techniques, from the Indians (without any equipment). We learned the practice of taking scalps, and drying them on little hoops, from the Indians.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Adak

So, especially for the U.S., if you travel 'round the world making statements that are taken for introspective reflections of a weak moment, nations that are watching very carefully, react accordingly.

Countries do not base their foreign policy on rhetoric. At least Russia, China, Iran, or Pakistan don't.

This is the problem that Carter got into with Iran. They saw him as weak (in his military attitude), and decided to overrun the embassy in Tehran, and take our personnel hostages for over a year.

Not true.

It's all fine to be a historian, and reflect on these things, in private, or even in a book. It's not fine to go around the world, and do it, as the representative of your country, in public speeches.

Admitting past mistakes is often seen as a sign of strength, not weakness. I don't know of anyone outside the US who saw those speeches as a sign of weakness. Only Republicans do.

No American voted for Obama, to be our apologist. He is our President, damnit! He can apologize until he's blue in the face, when he becomes a private citizen again.

He never apologized. You are wrong.

"A time for every purpose under heaven". This was a poor time to reflect on the shortcomings of America's past. \

Disagree. There are two types of power: hard power and soft power. Obama's speeches, along with other things, gave the US a huge boost in soft power. I can almost guarantee that McCain would not be able to get as tough of sanctions against Iran as Obama did.

P.S. Almost every nation has had slavery at some time or other. It's not like we were the only one's using it. Same with the Native Americans. They drove weaker tribes off the lands they wanted, whenever they deemed it wise to do so. Some tribes were completely destroyed.

So why are you insecure about admitting it if everyone did it?

The Indians understood completely. That was their practice, as well, (to drive out their enemies from land they wanted), for thousands of years. And no, they were not gentle about it.

We learned better torture techniques, from the Indians (without any equipment). We learned the practice of taking scalps, and drying them on little hoops, from the Indians.

Good thing we don't live in the pre-1800's, huh?

[DanaC]

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/23/po...our/index.html

The facts:

When President Obama began his term, he made a number of speeches in the Middle East and elsewhere -- all designed to forge better ties with Europe, the Middle East, and Latin America.

Critics such as Romney have said Obama apologized for past actions in such addresses.

Obama did indeed mention past U.S. flaws in speeches. But in those addresses, Obama never uttered an apology for the United States.

Those statements were snippets, part of larger and grander narratives about repairing ties, building friendship and working together.

[...]

During an address in Strasbourg, France, in April 2009, Obama did utter words Romney referenced in the debate.

In that speech, Obama said, "there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive."

But in the very next sentence, Obama called out the Europeans for an "anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what's bad."

He then goes on to talk about forging "common solutions to our common problems."

"America cannot confront the challenges of this century alone, but that Europe cannot confront them without America. So I've come to Europe this week to renew our partnership, one in which America listens and learns from our friends and allies, but where our friends and allies bear their share of the burden. Together, we must forge common solutions to our common problems."

And in Turkey:

During that speech, he said "another issue that confronts all democracies as they move to the future is how we deal with the past" and touches on a major blemish on U.S. history.

"The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history," Obama said. "Our country still struggles with the legacies of slavery and segregation, the past treatment of Native Americans."

After that statement, Obama segued into a similar stain on Turkey's history -- the massacre of Armenians during World War I, and how both Turks and Armenians should work toward a "new day."

[...]

Back in December, Michael Cohen, a columnist for Foreign Policy's Election 2012 Channel, called the "apology tour" claim "a lie that has been reiterated so often that it has become conventional wisdom on the right. "

"The apology canard has been disproven practically as often as it has been made."

[...]

Conclusion:


Romney's claim is false. The president has mentioned past U.S. mistakes and flaws during speeches about the larger issues of building bridges to other countries. But he has never apologized or gone on an "apology tour."

Obama didn't look weak to other nations. He came across as strong enough to be open and honest and move forward with foreign allies. A far cry, true from 'you're either with us or against us', but in no way an 'apology tour'

[DanaC]

Actually, I'd truly hesitate do any such thing. I don't believe there really is a 'true socialism' or a 'true liberalism'. That suggests a belief system set in aspic. That's just not really how people and societies work.

These things are contextual and contingent on many factors. The fact that you consider Obama to be verging on the socialist is a case in point. What is 'socialist' or 'liberal' in your political milieu is not necessarily the same as in mine. Nor indeed does every socialist share a carbon copy of each other's beliefs.

[DanaC]

Hahahah.

I went tootling around on wiki seeing how liberal and conservative were defined on there and found a few things that made me smile.

First, here's a snippet from the Liberal entry:

Liberalism, a political ideology:

Classical liberalism, a political ideology that advocates unregulated markets, limited government, rule of law, due process, and individual liberties including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and others

Conservative liberalism, a variant of liberalism, combining liberal values and policies with conservative stances, or, more simply, representing the right-wing of the liberal movement

Economic liberalism, the ideological belief in organizing the economy on individualist lines, such that the greatest possible number of economic decisions are made by private individuals and not by collective institutions

Social liberalism, the belief that liberalism should include social justice and that the legitimate role of the state includes addressing issues such as unemployment, health care, education, and the expansion of civil rights

But the bit that really made me laugh was fro the Conservative entry:

In the United States, conservatism is rooted in the American Revolution and its commitment to conserve the rights and liberties of Englishmen. Most European conservatives writers do not accept American conservatism as genuine; they consider it to be a variety of liberalism.[27

[DanaC]

*chuckles*

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "In the United States liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies."[13]

Goes to show. In this area, we really are talking a very different language. I have to mentally adjust my political settings when I discuss politics with you guys

[BigV]

Perhaps I can help with a vernacular translation of Adak's view on Conservative-ish-ism-icity-etc. It really means "No." It is a label to attach to a nostalgic view of something that used to be better than it is (a subjective position). What is is *not* is conserving anything. No saving ....

I'm just gonna stop there. It really isn't a useful label or concept, and it's totally useless in the way Adak uses it. Stereotypes--UHHHN--What are the good for? Absolutely NOTHING! Say it again! /Edwin Starr