About last night, for what it's worth. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


xBullx -> About last night, for what it's worth. (10/23/2012 10:13:51 AM)

Two weeks to go...! Even the most ardent political enthusiast is surely growing weary of the spin and bluster this election cycle has afforded us. I’ve had a few people ask me what I thought about the debate last night, so here goes.

For those that think Obama won last evenings debate, I suggest you put down your glass of Kool-Aid. The current President came off pretentious and condescending at best. The President didn’t display any greater level of knowledge or understanding of past or current foreign events than did Romney. Now considering the President does have occupational necessary data and statistics available to him that the challenger would not, shouldn’t he seem wiser at least to some degree, even though he didn’t? The President also spent the entirety of his time attempting to again slander his opponent as opposed to inform and lay out a coherent strategy for the future.

Only Romney demonstrated that he has plans for dealing with foreign hostiles and the foreign trade relationships that trouble us, primarily he spoke to relations with China and Latin America. While Obama can bring in advisors in to assist with these business and financial matters, I have a growing confidence that Romney, while most likely also willing to solicit advise, understands business matters enough to move forward and make decisions based on his own knowledge and experience, hence he will be much less likely to make the mistakes with American wealth and services that has plagued the Obama administration.

Additionally, I think once all the fact checkers finish sorting through the nonsense that the President was spouting last night such as sequestration, the Russian Geo-Political comments and several items where his credibility on the facts is in question, more and more people will not only change their mind as to who won this debate, but will question this presidents integrity on the whole when he faces moments of desperation. Remember, this president didn’t waste time throwing his own crew and fellow liberal Hillary under the bus recently when things went awry, how long before he kicks the rest of us under the bus. He does after all believe he will have greater flexibility in back room deal making once he is re-elected; assuming we’re foolish enough to give him a continued chance to weaken America even further.

Finally, neither of these men has served this country in a warrior’s capacity and for either to imply that they have a greater understanding than the other candidate of a soldier’s needs and capabilities is offensive to me. Obama’s condescending remarks about horses, bayonets and aircraft carriers, to me demonstrated that he has no real intention to advance national military strength, but rather is only out to confuse and hopefully diminish Romney’s point of building a military capable of serving all the missions that we increasingly pile upon them. The protection of we the people and our constitution is the primary duty of the federal government and this duty is first on the list of priorities for the Commander in Chief. If the fed wasn’t so consumed with filling its own pockets through tax revenues, as well as fostering dependency with certain voter segments and special interests by its social welfare programs, which if necessary are actually state areas of concern, the military budget would be easily affordable while cutting taxes and I do believe this is Romney’s point.




Owner59 -> RE: About last night, for what it's worth. (10/23/2012 10:28:33 AM)

I bet you don`t know how many factorys Mitt owns in China......


Mitt`ll be tough on China alright.....surrrre...[8|]


Got bad news about that bridge you bought in Brooklyn....


Pah-leeezzz......keep your cool-aid to yourselves....







servantforuse -> RE: About last night, for what it's worth. (10/23/2012 10:56:12 AM)

If I'm not mistaken, Obama also has holdings in China as well.  




DomKen -> RE: About last night, for what it's worth. (10/23/2012 11:04:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

If I'm not mistaken, Obama also has holdings in China as well.  

You'd be grossly ridiculously mistaken. Obama has no financial assets under his control.




mnottertail -> RE: About last night, for what it's worth. (10/23/2012 11:10:19 AM)

quote:


the military budget would be easily affordable while cutting taxes and I do believe this is Romney’s point.


While that may have been Willard's point, like the rest of his points, it is pure asswipe




FMRFGOPGAL -> RE: About last night, for what it's worth. (10/23/2012 11:15:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

I bet you don`t know how many factorys Mitt owns in China......


Mitt`ll be tough on China alright.....surrrre...[8|]


Got bad news about that bridge you bought in Brooklyn....


Pah-leeezzz......keep your cool-aid to yourselves....


I guess all the neocons got so caught up in the game of battleship (registered trademark), that they actually missed what Romney said he would do "economic development" is code for outsourcing more American Jobs, if you come from the Bain Capital/Bain Consulting School Of Goverment.

Owner, why didn't Romney sing Lennon's "Imagine".

What a tragedy of reasonimg that first post was.




xBullx -> RE: About last night, for what it's worth. (10/23/2012 11:15:20 AM)


So you automatically assume that has anything to do with how he'd govern?

Seems to me that free and fair trade would be more important to him then. Chinese factories are desperate for American resources.

I actually think he will be tough on China. No one holds more contempt for China than Trump and he seems very happy with Romney. That alone says quite a bit.

Romney said more about dealing with China in 3 seconds last night than Obama has in 3 debates...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

I bet you don`t know how many factorys Mitt owns in China......


Mitt`ll be tough on China alright.....surrrre...[8|]


Got bad news about that bridge you bought in Brooklyn....


Pah-leeezzz......keep your cool-aid to yourselves....






At least I have a bridge.... Obama's letting the Terrorists and Creditors take control of yours.
[:D]




FMRFGOPGAL -> RE: About last night, for what it's worth. (10/23/2012 11:16:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

If I'm not mistaken, Obama also has holdings in China as well.  


That is correct.

You ARE mistaken. But what's new about that?




Toysinbabeland -> RE: About last night, for what it's worth. (10/23/2012 11:17:09 AM)

Obama will take yours and give it away in reparations if he can get ahold of it




DomYngBlk -> RE: About last night, for what it's worth. (10/23/2012 11:18:15 AM)

Terrorists? How so......Romney is no better than Dubya on terrorists and we see how well that went.....9/11




xBullx -> RE: About last night, for what it's worth. (10/23/2012 11:19:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FMRFGOPGAL

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

I bet you don`t know how many factorys Mitt owns in China......


Mitt`ll be tough on China alright.....surrrre...[8|]


Got bad news about that bridge you bought in Brooklyn....


Pah-leeezzz......keep your cool-aid to yourselves....


I guess all the neocons got so caught up in the game of battleship (registered trademark), that they actually missed what Romney said he would do "economic development" is code for outsourcing more American Jobs, if you come from the Bain Capital/Bain Consulting School Of Goverment.

Owner, why didn't Romney sing Lennon's "Imagine".

What a tragedy of reasonimg that first post was.


Well, since you weren’t talking to me, I won’t our time responding to all your hyperbole.




Toysinbabeland -> RE: About last night, for what it's worth. (10/23/2012 11:22:56 AM)

Clinton was the worst for terrorists because he practically gave this country away..... he had the chance to kill bin Laden before 911....




DomYngBlk -> RE: About last night, for what it's worth. (10/23/2012 11:24:16 AM)

So what was Dubya's excuse?




Toysinbabeland -> RE: About last night, for what it's worth. (10/23/2012 11:25:19 AM)

Clinton allowed that mass murderer to hide.




xBullx -> RE: About last night, for what it's worth. (10/23/2012 11:25:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

Terrorists? How so......Romney is no better than Dubya on terrorists and we see how well that went.....9/11


The terrorists part was meant to jerk the chains of the Libyan apologists’. Are you one of them?

Actually I don't think Romney should have said anything about the bullshit message put out by the embassy that night. But I have no idea what this nonsense is that Obama is spinning on his actions now. Personally I hope Romney chooses a competent old General for Secretary of state when he's elected. They both are wanting in dealing with the "bad guys".




DomYngBlk -> RE: About last night, for what it's worth. (10/23/2012 11:26:15 AM)

But, why did Dubya allow 9/11 to happen?




mnottertail -> RE: About last night, for what it's worth. (10/23/2012 11:26:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Toysinbabeland

Clinton was the worst for terrorists because he practically gave this country away..... he had the chance to kill bin Laden before 911....


I should think that august distinction belongs to St. Wrinklemeat, creating al-Queda, letting Ghaddfi go, giving WMD to Iran.  Pretty hard to top that old happy warrior.




Hillwilliam -> RE: About last night, for what it's worth. (10/23/2012 11:26:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Toysinbabeland

Clinton allowed that mass murderer to hide.

In 4.6 Billion years (give or take 6 months), the sun will cool down to the point that life on earth will be impossible.

The Republicans will blame Clinton.




Lucylastic -> RE: About last night, for what it's worth. (10/23/2012 11:29:20 AM)

LOL seeing him collapse into agreeing with Obamas actions made him look like a lying puppet being jerked around from the neo conservative to the most centrist arena, I wouldnt trust him as far as I could throw him
With all his "myths" dribbling out last night, the Presidents response was low key
any lower and people would be calling him a wuss.
If the man cannot sack up after doing nothing BUT attack the Prez since 2008 and whine he was being "attacked" he shouldnt have lied so many times.




DomYngBlk -> RE: About last night, for what it's worth. (10/23/2012 11:29:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: xBullx


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

Terrorists? How so......Romney is no better than Dubya on terrorists and we see how well that went.....9/11


The terrorists part was meant to jerk the chains of the Libyan apologists’. Are you one of them?

Actually I don't think Romney should have said anything about the bullshit message put out by the embassy that night. But I have no idea what this nonsense is that Obama is spinning on his actions now. Personally I hope Romney chooses a competent old General for Secretary of state when he's elected. They both are wanting in dealing with the "bad guys".



So, you aren't going to give the President time to find the people that did it? Or are you saying the President wasn't doing his duty at that time. If so, then I hope you hold Reagan and Dubya in the same regard.......If not, then you are just another republican hypocrite




Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125