login
Pres Debate #3 (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2012-10-22 10:09 PM in reply to: #4462987 |
 Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida |  Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3Tuwood, at least they're arguing. The CNN one was all Obama-ites. |
| 2012-10-22 10:12 PM in reply to: #4464603 |
Pro  9391    Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 hrliles - 2012-10-22 10:09 PM One thing about a leader is to lead by example. Reaching across the aisle would have made sense over the last four years instead of waiting for people to come to his greatness. And continual overtalking someone else is not Presidential. I think Romney's working across the aisle argument is likely his strongest asset in this election. Obama has nothing to counter it. |
| 2012-10-22 10:16 PM in reply to: #4464601 |
Master 2802 Minnetonka, Minnesota | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 GomesBolt - 2012-10-22 10:08 PM Ej, What did he flip on? We saw the "moderate Mitt" tonight trying to avoid confrontation and play if exceedingly safe. I am sure someone will count up the number of times he agreed with Obama. It was amazing I thought. One flip was Afghanistan - he used to say he would pull out in 2014 depending on conditions on teh ground (or whatever). No such nuance tonight. |
| 2012-10-22 10:20 PM in reply to: #4462987 |
| Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 So when he agrees with the other side, you think that's bad. When he changes to your point of view, he's a flip flipper, when he refuses to change he's "doubling down". At least nobody can say Obama flip flops. He just goes left and keeps going left. |
| 2012-10-22 10:25 PM in reply to: #4464615 |
Master 2802 Minnetonka, Minnesota | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 GomesBolt - 2012-10-22 10:20 PM So when he agrees with the other side, you think that's bad. When he changes to your point of view, he's a flip flipper, when he refuses to change he's "doubling down". At least nobody can say Obama flip flops. He just goes left and keeps going left. It's called character and integrity: you say what you mean and you do what you say. I don't think Romney has much of either and will say and do whatever it takes. Bottom line - I don't trust him, and I have voted for plenty of Rs in the past (prior to their move to the far right) when I thought they had the best ideas, etc. edited for: goodnight! Edited by ejshowers 2012-10-22 10:26 PM |
| 2012-10-22 10:30 PM in reply to: #4464606 |
Elite 4564 Boise | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 tuwood - 2012-10-22 9:12 PM hrliles - 2012-10-22 10:09 PM One thing about a leader is to lead by example. Reaching across the aisle would have made sense over the last four years instead of waiting for people to come to his greatness. And continual overtalking someone else is not Presidential. I think Romney's working across the aisle argument is likely his strongest asset in this election. Obama has nothing to counter it. I don't think it's all that strong. When the legislature is 88% democrats, there is no aisle to work across. There is only one side. That is why he was so moderate. |
| 2012-10-22 10:55 PM in reply to: #4462987 |
| Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 Why is it that when CNN explains the polls, they always say "this is a scientific poll of debate watchers and is approximately 8% more republican."? If its a scientific poll then you adjust for what you think will be the electorate (I.e. you value the Rs votes less). Right? Otherwise, where's the science? But another thing is interesting. There have been 8% more Rs watching each of the debates. But all the polls indicate a majority of D voters. So either there will be 8% more Rs voting or the Dems who have not watched the debates (and I know there are many) will suddenly show up at the polls without having educated themselves on all the info. What does COJ think the numbers will be? 8% more Rs or closer to 6% more D's like the polls have shown? |
| 2012-10-22 11:10 PM in reply to: #4464650 |
Elite 4547 | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 GomesBolt - 2012-10-22 11:55 PM Why is it that when CNN explains the polls, they always say "this is a scientific poll of debate watchers and is approximately 8% more republican."? If its a scientific poll then you adjust for what you think will be the electorate (I.e. you value the Rs votes less). Right? Otherwise, where's the science? But another thing is interesting. There have been 8% more Rs watching each of the debates. But all the polls indicate a majority of D voters. So either there will be 8% more Rs voting or the Dems who have not watched the debates (and I know there are many) will suddenly show up at the polls without having educated themselves on all the info. What does COJ think the numbers will be? 8% more Rs or closer to 6% more D's like the polls have shown? Really? You honestly believe that to be "educated on all the info" voters need to watch these debates? You really think more Republicans will vote 2 weeks from today? That's extremely unlikely. The President just won his 2nd of 3 debates. There was a reason Mitt ignored foreign policy at the GOP Convention. Tonight showed why.
|
| 2012-10-23 12:14 AM in reply to: #4464652 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 ChineseDemocracy - 2012-10-22 11:10 PM GomesBolt - 2012-10-22 11:55 PM Why is it that when CNN explains the polls, they always say "this is a scientific poll of debate watchers and is approximately 8% more republican."? If its a scientific poll then you adjust for what you think will be the electorate (I.e. you value the Rs votes less). Right? Otherwise, where's the science? But another thing is interesting. There have been 8% more Rs watching each of the debates. But all the polls indicate a majority of D voters. So either there will be 8% more Rs voting or the Dems who have not watched the debates (and I know there are many) will suddenly show up at the polls without having educated themselves on all the info. What does COJ think the numbers will be? 8% more Rs or closer to 6% more D's like the polls have shown? Really? You honestly believe that to be "educated on all the info" voters need to watch these debates? You really think more Republicans will vote 2 weeks from today? That's extremely unlikely. The President just won his 2nd of 3 debates. There was a reason Mitt ignored foreign policy at the GOP Convention. Tonight showed why.
Bro......Republicans don't vote on emotion....that's a liberal deal. "Hope and change" didn't turn out to have any "change", and "hope" is absolutely gone with the current President. Now is not the time for emotion.....Obama couldn't deliver.....empty suit. |
| 2012-10-23 12:50 AM in reply to: #4464683 |
Expert 1240 Columbia, MO | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 Left Brain - 2012-10-23 12:14 AM ChineseDemocracy - 2012-10-22 11:10 PM.empty suit.
Empty Chair |
| 2012-10-23 1:15 AM in reply to: #4462987 |
Master 1890 Cypress, CA | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 "Horses and bayonets" appears to have replaced "binders full of women" as the new internet meme. But I have to say (as a Navy man), Obama's comments about the size and function of the Navy are among the most ignorant things I've ever heard from a president. |
| 2012-10-23 1:28 AM in reply to: #4464708 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 tjh - 2012-10-23 1:15 AM "Horses and bayonets" appears to have replaced "binders full of women" as the new internet meme. But I have to say (as a Navy man), Obama's comments about the size and function of the Navy are among the most ignorant things I've ever heard from a president. Clueless! |
| 2012-10-23 4:53 AM in reply to: #4462987 |
| Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 Even Anderson Cooper had to back me up on the bayonets piece. His comment was "the army stopped bayonet training in 2010, but the Marine Corps still trains extensively with the bayonet and they're quite capable with them." Obamas point about the navy is something I've pointed out to a lot of my Navy shipmates for some time. They and the Air Force have made it so no one else can even challenge them. So it makes them an easy cut to the budget (politically speaking). Problem is that you can't build ships in a hurry, and you really can't develop new aircraft and new avionics and radar systems in a hurry. You can train grunts in a hurry, but you're using the grunts you have in Afghanistan. Romney's comment was that the navy is smaller than in 2015, therein lies the rub. The Navy is power projection by itself and with the Marine Corps, the Air Force is power projection but they need forward air bases for enemies to notice them (even though B52s and B2s fly from Texas, Guam, ND, and Missouri) and we've been closing those quite frequently. If you're going to cut, you have to do it from the Army mainly and from the Marine Corps other than expeditionary units (under Clinton, we were down by 1 whole company per battalion, had no ammo to train with outside of schools, and we had to duct tape equipment together until 2003). But you have to cut a ton of payroll and 100,000 jobs to get to the cost of one plane or one part of a ship. Meanwhile, a lot of ships are made in Virginia (swing state), a lot of aircraft development happens in Ohio and Florida (both swing states). So the thing you could make most money by getting rid of you have to do so I the states you can't tick off politically. CD, you asked if I thought there will be more R's voting on Election Day. I think anyone who steps back and looks at the voter enthusiasm numbers would agree that there will be more R's on Election Day. Only question is will those R's be in Ohio... This could be the first republican win in the general election, loss in the electoral college ever. It all comes down to Ohio. |
| 2012-10-23 5:03 AM in reply to: #4462987 |
| Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 Another point on grunts. The whole standing army in 1900 was 100,000. Marine Corps was somewhere around 11,000. When World War I happened, we created the million man army by throwing Ground Reinforcement Unit Not Trained (GRUNTs) into the fight. They got mowed down in a lot of battles in France. The 11,000 Marines and some of the regular US Army who had been in the standing army were pivotal in winning the war. After WWI, we said "never again will we be so unprepared." And trained and planed for war plan orange and war plan rainbow (2 front war). It's interesting that under Obama, the generals who taught me this concept (Gen Allen was my CO at The Basic School) are now saying we should cut the 2 front and just have a 1 front force. "The Military isn't asking for it." That's malarkey. |
| 2012-10-23 5:35 AM in reply to: #4462987 |
Master 1440 | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 I can't say that Romney won, but he sure looked a lot more Presidential. Obama had two expressions anger or the smarmy smirk of his that he uses when he thinks he is schooling an inferior. I also thought it was interesting that Obama kept personally attacking Romney instead of his ideas ie that Romney had invested money in China. That makes an interesting contrast to Obama ignoring the amount of U.S. debt that the Chinese currently hold. I also thouhgt the comment Obama made about Romeny "finally realizing that Al Queada was a threat" was interesting when four years ago Obama made the claim that Iran was threat since it was such a "small" country. He also said that they would never have a Nuclear weapon yet now they are four years closer. |
| 2012-10-23 7:13 AM in reply to: #4462987 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 I lost it with Obama's holier-than-thou speech about visiting Israel and the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum and how he felt their pain. Wasn't this the same President who didn't have time to meet with Netanyahu because he was too busy campaigning? What a smug hypocrite. |
| 2012-10-23 8:04 AM in reply to: #4462987 |
| Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 My submariner buddy just texted me: "a ship that goes under water is sunk. A sub is a boat." There's a Monument at Ground Zero to the horse soldiers special ops teams who went into Afghanistan in 2001. Obama must've missed that one. Or the fact that the Marines have not stopped training with mules at the winter training center. Only thing worse than a president not knowing the military is people who claim they do when they don't. |
| 2012-10-23 8:09 AM in reply to: #4464833 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 TriRSquared - 2012-10-23 6:13 AM I lost it with Obama's holier-than-thou speech about visiting Israel and the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum and how he felt their pain. Wasn't this the same President who didn't have time to meet with Netanyahu because he was too busy campaigning? What a smug hypocrite. Same here. My eyes actually made it all the way to the back of my head. |
| 2012-10-23 8:21 AM in reply to: #4464881 |
Champion 11989 Philly 'burbs | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 GomesBolt - 2012-10-23 9:04 AM My submariner buddy just texted me: "a ship that goes under water is sunk. A sub is a boat." There's a Monument at Ground Zero to the horse soldiers special ops teams who went into Afghanistan in 2001. Obama must've missed that one. Or the fact that the Marines have not stopped training with mules at the winter training center. Only thing worse than a president not knowing the military is people who claim they do when they don't.
Come on man! The guy said fewer horses and bayonets. Fewer. Do we have fewer or not??? Jeez. Why do I even bother coming in these threads? It's always the same petty cr@p. I must be a masochist or something. |
| 2012-10-23 8:25 AM in reply to: #4464683 |
Pro 5755 | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 Left Brain - 2012-10-23 1:14 AM ChineseDemocracy - 2012-10-22 11:10 PM GomesBolt - 2012-10-22 11:55 PM Why is it that when CNN explains the polls, they always say "this is a scientific poll of debate watchers and is approximately 8% more republican."? If its a scientific poll then you adjust for what you think will be the electorate (I.e. you value the Rs votes less). Right? Otherwise, where's the science? But another thing is interesting. There have been 8% more Rs watching each of the debates. But all the polls indicate a majority of D voters. So either there will be 8% more Rs voting or the Dems who have not watched the debates (and I know there are many) will suddenly show up at the polls without having educated themselves on all the info. What does COJ think the numbers will be? 8% more Rs or closer to 6% more D's like the polls have shown? Really? You honestly believe that to be "educated on all the info" voters need to watch these debates? You really think more Republicans will vote 2 weeks from today? That's extremely unlikely. The President just won his 2nd of 3 debates. There was a reason Mitt ignored foreign policy at the GOP Convention. Tonight showed why.
Bro......Republicans don't vote on emotion....that's a liberal deal. "Hope and change" didn't turn out to have any "change", and "hope" is absolutely gone with the current President. Now is not the time for emotion.....Obama couldn't deliver.....empty suit. Snerk. Everyone votes on emotion, to a greater or lesser extent. Your reply isn't emotional? |
| 2012-10-23 8:26 AM in reply to: #4462987 |
| Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 In fact no. We have more bayonets and more horses in service now than in 1915. The standing army was only 100,000 troops in 1915. Of that, Cavalry was a small portion. |
| 2012-10-23 8:42 AM in reply to: #4464881 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 GomesBolt - 2012-10-23 8:04 AM My submariner buddy just texted me: "a ship that goes under water is sunk. A sub is a boat." There's a Monument at Ground Zero to the horse soldiers special ops teams who went into Afghanistan in 2001. Obama must've missed that one. Or the fact that the Marines have not stopped training with mules at the winter training center. Only thing worse than a president not knowing the military is people who claim they do when they don't. I'm curious as to how you think that horse soldiers reference is relevant to anything the president said. |
| 2012-10-23 8:45 AM in reply to: #4464917 |
Master 2802 Minnetonka, Minnesota | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 mrbbrad - 2012-10-23 8:21 AM GomesBolt - 2012-10-23 9:04 AM My submariner buddy just texted me: "a ship that goes under water is sunk. A sub is a boat." There's a Monument at Ground Zero to the horse soldiers special ops teams who went into Afghanistan in 2001. Obama must've missed that one. Or the fact that the Marines have not stopped training with mules at the winter training center. Only thing worse than a president not knowing the military is people who claim they do when they don't.
Come on man! The guy said fewer horses and bayonets. Fewer. Do we have fewer or not??? Jeez. Why do I even bother coming in these threads? It's always the same petty cr@p. I must be a masochist or something.
Exactly. I am FAR more concerned that Romney thinks Iran 1) has no access to the sea and 2) that it shares a aborder with Syria. "Mitt Romney repeated his contention that Syria is Iran’s route to the sea. This Note REPEATED as in he has said this and been corrected before. It was expected that he was a FP lightweight, and he confirmed it last night. Edited by ejshowers 2012-10-23 8:46 AM |
| 2012-10-23 8:46 AM in reply to: #4464927 |
Champion 11989 Philly 'burbs | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 GomesBolt - 2012-10-23 9:26 AM In fact no. We have more bayonets and more horses in service now than in 1915. The standing army was only 100,000 troops in 1915. Of that, Cavalry was a small portion. More troops doesn't equal more horses and bayonets. Maybe more bayonets if they are still standard issue, but if there are more military use horses now than in 1917 I will change my profile pic to one of Mittt Romney from now until election day. Please provide a verifiable resource for the number of military use horses today compared to 1917 (that was the year Romney used) Edited by mrbbrad 2012-10-23 8:48 AM |
| 2012-10-23 8:50 AM in reply to: #4463510 |
Science Nerd 28760 Redwood City, California | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 AcesFull - 2012-10-22 12:53 PM scoobysdad - 2012-10-22 10:11 AM jeffnboise - 2012-10-22 9:57 AM Good Monday Night Football game and Game 7 of NLCS. I predict dismal ratings for this one. No doubt-- an important NFC North matchup, too. I think this debate gets demoted to DVR-delay status. Some women will likely be watching on the small TV up in the bedroom, while their man-folk huddle in their man-caves watching football or baseball on the big screen. Not sure who this helps or hurts. Hey know, I don't appreciate the stereotyping. In my house, it was the opposite. I wanted to watch football, hubby wanted to watch the debate. He won. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK