Well both conventions are over. Let round 2 begin.
Thought ex-President Clinton's convention speech provided a surplus of details while both ex-President Bush I & II had a deficit, but were much shorter.
Either way you look at it, we're screwed. In any event, I've officially become a registered voter as of last Friday, so I'll be casting my vote come November.
__________________
I talk to corporate like a BAWSS!
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 66
Thanked 968 Times in 703 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCHitman1
Either way you look at it, we're screwed. In any event, I've officially become a registered voter as of last Friday, so I'll be casting my vote come November.
Yeah, we're screwed either way. I plan to continue my practice of not voting for President and just voting on local elections. Both candidates are horrible and neither one of them can seriously jack up my life right?
Read over it, not fibs but reasonable interpretations.
Example:
Romney criticized Obama for withdrawal of troops and ending the Iraq war.
Romney stated: It is my view that the withdrawal of all of our troops from Iraq by the end of this year is an enormous mistake, and failing by the Obama administration. The precipitous withdrawal is unfortunate — it’s more than unfortunate, I think it’s tragic. It puts at risk many of the victories that were hard won by the men and women who served there.
Obama stated: “My opponent said it was ‘tragic’ to end the war in Iraq.”
Yeah, we're screwed either way. I plan to continue my practice of not voting for President and just voting on local elections. Both candidates are horrible and neither one of them can seriously jack up my life right?
This is the real world, there is never a perfect choice, one must choose the best available option. At least for President you have at least three choices, more in some states.
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 66
Thanked 968 Times in 703 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980
This is the real world, there is never a perfect choice, one must choose the best available option. At least for President you have at least three choices, more in some states.
I'm sorry, but if the choice is being shot through the head and dieing immediately and being shot in the stomach and bleeding out slowly and painfully it's really not a good choice.
Also, I love how with Romney and Ryan it's a bald faced lie, but with Obama and Biden it's "reasonable interpretations." Biased much?
I'm sorry, but if the choice is being shot through the head and dieing immediately and being shot in the stomach and bleeding out slowly and painfully it's really not a good choice. ...
Reality check, voting and being murdered are different. Guess which one doesn't rely on coercion ?
Yeah, we're screwed either way. I plan to continue my practice of not voting for President and just voting on local elections. Both candidates are horrible and neither one of them can seriously jack up my life right?
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 66
Thanked 968 Times in 703 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980
Yet you don't offer a counter example, just unspecific complaining. Bias much ?
Um, I linked to an entire article detailing the fibs, half truths and flat out lies that Obama and Biden both told. Ryan says that Obama did nothing with the recommendations from a bi-partisan deficit commission. This is true. Ryan didn't mention that he was part of the reason why Obama scuttled those recommendations. Ryan is lying. Obama says that Romney claimed it was "tragic" to end the war in Iraq. In fact Romney said, " It is my view that the withdrawal of all of our troops from Iraq by the end of this year is an enormous mistake, and failing by the Obama administration. The precipitous withdrawal is unfortunate — it’s more than unfortunate, I think it’s tragic. It puts at risk many of the victories that were hard won by the men and women who served there." In another words he's criticizing how Obama pulled the troops out and how fast he pulled the troops out. But Obama is not lying here. He is making a "reasonable interpretation". That's fine.
So one party twists facts and tells half-truths and they are liars who should be ashamed of themselves. The other party does the exact same thing and that is just a "reasonable interpretation" of what the truth really is. One party is lying. The other party is just interpreting the truth in their special way apparently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja
What Europeans care about is how your country acts.
As stated earlier, Americans don't really care what Europeans think.
Um, I linked to an entire article detailing the fibs, half truths and flat out lies that Obama and Biden both told. ...
Just because you say something, doesn't make it true. I gave an example from your cited article that disproves "fibs, half truths and flat out lies that Obama and Biden both told."
Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous
... Obama says that Romney claimed it was "tragic" to end the war in Iraq. In fact Romney said, " It is my view that the withdrawal of all of our troops from Iraq by the end of this year is an enormous mistake, and failing by the Obama administration. The precipitous withdrawal is unfortunate — it’s more than unfortunate, I think it’s tragic. It puts at risk many of the victories that were hard won by the men and women who served there." In another words he's criticizing how Obama pulled the troops out and how fast he pulled the troops out. But Obama is not lying here. He is making a "reasonable interpretation". That's fine. ...
Romney stated "I think it's tragic", referring to the troop withdrawal due to the end of the Iraq war, but wanted to keep troops in Iraq. If the war is over, why keep troops in Iraq, unless one doesn't want to recognize the war is over ? To Romney the end of the Iraq war as demonstrated by withdrawing troops was tragic.
A reasonable interpretation is that Romney believes the end of the Iraq war was tragic, unless he believes Hussein is directing a war from the grave.
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 66
Thanked 968 Times in 703 Posts
Ugh. ::Facepalm::
The entire article lists the lies that Obama and Biden both told. The entire article is about those lies. It details exactly what Obama and Biden said, the context the said it in and the actual facts that were wrong. But you dismiss the entire article.
The Romney quote is completely out of context. The article quotes it in context. I quoted it in context. You still claim the Romney quote is accurate. The flat out bias is insanely annoying. You've decided what the truth is and what the facts are is irrelevant.
The entire article lists the lies that Obama and Biden both told. The entire article is about those lies. It details exactly what Obama and Biden said, the context the said it in and the actual facts that were wrong. But you dismiss the entire article.
The Romney quote is completely out of context. The article quotes it in context. I quoted it in context. You still claim the Romney quote is accurate. The flat out bias is insanely annoying. You've decided what the truth is and what the facts are is irrelevant.
We went to war because we were told Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. Hussein is dead and there were no weapons of mass destruction. No longer need troops in Iraq if war ends are accomplished.
Romney believes withdrawing troops was tragic, therefor the end of war was tragic. It's a logical conclusion you differ with. Fine.
Do you want to discuss another example from your cited article ?
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 66
Thanked 968 Times in 703 Posts
Romney never said he believes withdrawing troops was tragic. That's my point. Obama says he said that. He didn't. The quote is entirely out of context. Hence the lie.
Romney never said he believes withdrawing troops was tragic. That's my point. Obama says he said that. He didn't. The quote is entirely out of context. Hence the lie.
From your cited source. Romney, "I think it's tragic." How is it out of context, hence the lie, because Romney used the adjective "precipitous" ?
Romney, Nov. 11, 2011: It is my view that the withdrawal of all of our troops from Iraq by the end of this year is an enormous mistake, and failing by the Obama administration. The precipitous withdrawal is unfortunate — it’s more than unfortunate, I think it’s tragic. It puts at risk many of the victories that were hard won by the men and women who served there.
Device(s): Galaxy Note II (stock.... for now)
Acer Iconia A100 (stolen by a 2 year old:p)
Carrier: Death Star
Thanks: 208
Thanked 139 Times in 116 Posts
You have to admit, he could have stated it in a way that didn't sound like he wanted the troops to stay longer. Out of context? Just a bit. I'm sure he didn't mean it as it was said. (i could be wrong) Obama pretty much just used the poor choice of words to his advantage..... Just my 2 cents.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to kool kat2 For This Useful Post:
You have to admit, he could have stated it in a way that didn't sound like he wanted the troops to stay longer. Out of context? Just a bit. I'm sure he didn't mean it as it was said. (i could be wrong) Obama pretty much just used the poor choice of words to his advantage..... Just my 2 cents.
True, but they're both professional politicians and they choose their words judiciously. Romney was suggesting the mission wasn't completed, therefore war wasn't completed, therefore troops were still needed, therefore Obama wasn't a competent Commander & Chief. Obama just called Romney out on it, i.e. Hussein is dead, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, therefore mission completed, no troops necessary, war is over is not tragic.
It was a subtle reminder that the Republicans lied to the American people and funded the war with debt at the same time cutting the taxes of those that benefited from the war.
Except when they don't support your military excursions?
Correction, A.Nonoymous gives what he *thinks* is what Americans care about.
Doesn't mean what he thinks has any basis with reality.
There are many that believe that if you are extremely wealthy, (drug lords, Private Equity Locust, etc) it's divine intervention, therefore, you mere humans have no right to question, while the want-to-be overseers of their masters, attempt to ingrain themselves with the masters of the universe (five time felony criminal convictions) Koch industries. They call it personal responsibility.
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 66
Thanked 968 Times in 703 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by kool kat2
You have to admit, he could have stated it in a way that didn't sound like he wanted the troops to stay longer. Out of context? Just a bit. I'm sure he didn't mean it as it was said. (i could be wrong) Obama pretty much just used the poor choice of words to his advantage..... Just my 2 cents.
That may well be true. Still the point remains that he was criticizing the way Obama pulled the troops out and how fast he pulled the troops out. He was not saying Obama shouldn't have pulled the troops out at all. The article is pretty clear on that and cites other quotes from Romney clarifying his statement. These quotes and the article in general are ignored for convenience sake. The point is that when Obama takes a quote out of context in order to misrepresent his opponent's stance it's a "reasonable interpretation." When Ryan does the same thing (like he did with the plant closing thing) it's a bald faced lie and he should be ashamed of himself. Obama said the plant wouldn't close. It closed. Obviously Obama had nothing to do with the plant closing. It's a complete misrepresentation of a quote. But Ryan doing it is reprehensible. Obama doing it is ok.
This is the problem with politics. It's turned into a religion. Anyone who opposes you is demonized regardless what they say. Anyone who agrees with you is a saint no matter what they say. We've got to the point where a candidate could sacrifice a child to a goat god live on TV and half the country would defend it. We've got a country that has some serious problems. The economy is still in the crapper. The healthcare system is flawed. Med***** and Social Security are going to run out of money. We're in debt up to our eyeballs and the only thing both candidates seem to agree on is that we need to go further into debt. But rather than focus on solving these problems it's more important that we defeat the political infidels. If you criticize a Democratic plan, you must be stopped. If you criticize a Republican plan, you must be stopped. We should be sitting down and looking at the good and the bad and picking the best ideas. Instead we want to dismiss every single idea from the other party and belittle them for even opposing us in the first place, then ram our agenda down everyone's throat. It's a religion to us. Both parties do the same thing but it's ok when we do it, but evil if the other party does. I'm growing to despise politics. But a disinterested voting populace isn't an answer either.
"Opinions about the president really shape opinions about the country. When President Bush was unpopular, the United States was largely unpopular," he said. "President Obama is largely popular, albeit not quite as popular as he was in 2009, and the United States is more popular than it was. So, the face, the leadership, matters to the world."
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 66
Thanked 968 Times in 703 Posts
Sources are good, but the world liking us or disliking us doesn't affect us one bit as far as the average American is concerned. We don't see that we benefit a whole lot from our relationships with Europe. Sure you want to get along with everyone, but if there's no benefit for you, why go out of your way?
I would bet money that the average American couldn't name half a dozen foreign leaders. By and large we just don't care.
Sources are good, but the world liking us or disliking us doesn't affect us one bit as far as the average American is concerned. We don't see that we benefit a whole lot from our relationships with Europe. Sure you want to get along with everyone, but if there's no benefit for you, why go out of your way?
I would bet money that the average American couldn't name half a dozen foreign leaders. By and large we just don't care.
A legend in our own mind, no reason for data, just believe what I told you to believe.
I never claimed to be neutral. That site claims I am 93% Romney which is ridiculous since I disagree with him on so many things. His healthcare solution is jacked. His plan to add more debt is even more jacked. He's not a solution at all and I would never ever ever vote for him, but the site says I match with him. If I was forced to vote I would vote for Gary Johnson without thinking twice. The site says I have more in common with Obama than Johnson though.
I see the hypocrisy on both sides. That's the difference between you and I. You see the Dems and see them as doing the work of the angels. Whatever they say is gospel truth. Whatever they do is righteous. The GOP are not the same. They are evil to the core. All they do is wrong. Anything they propose should be dismissed out of hand. They may do the same thing the Dems are doing, but it's wrong when the GOP does it. That's the difference between us. Is there anything about the GOP you actually like? Is there anything about the Dems you don't like? I would guess no and no.
What's Romney going to do for American students? Last time I checked, he said that the government wasn't going to help alleviate any pressure from the acquisition of debt due to student loans. That alone makes me not want to vote for him.
... Still the point remains that he was criticizing the way Obama pulled the troops out and how fast he pulled the troops out. He was not saying Obama shouldn't have pulled the troops out at all. ...
Not withdrawing the troops would have violated the agreement which ended the U.S. involvement. Romney wanted to keep troops in Iraq in violation of the agreement. Romney may have couched it as just a disagreement on the timing of the withdrawal, but he didn't specify when they should have been withdrawn. The withdrawing of the troops effectively ended the U.S. participation in the war. When Romney stated this withdrawal was "tragic", he is effectively stating ending the U.S. involvement, i.e. end of the war, was tragic.
All US Forces were mandated to withdraw from Iraqi territory by 31 December 2011 under the terms of a bilateral agreement signed in 2008 by President Bush.
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 66
Thanked 968 Times in 703 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCHitman1
What's Romney going to do for American students? Last time I checked, he said that the government wasn't going to help alleviate any pressure from the acquisition of debt due to student loans. That alone makes me not want to vote for him.
It's not the government's responsibility to help with student loans.
It's not the government's responsibility to help with student loans.
I daresay that it is. Students (and youth in general) are the future of the country. The cost of affordable education is already out of reach for many. We have some of the best colleges/universities in the world here, yet those who come from affluent families are the only ones who get to attend? I'm sorry, but I don't see the logic in that.
I don't see a reason why the gov't can't step in and put a hold on interest %, so students can at least recoup some money. There needs to be some kind of reform to this area, whether you agree to it or not.
It's not the government's responsibility to help with student loans.
Frankly I think its nuts that once you go the third level, education costs pretty much square themselves in the US. Over here we find it ridiculous that its $13K for a year in an English college, I mean, that is IMO the very upper limit for what anyone should have to pay.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ElasticNinja For This Useful Post:
That's the difference between you and I. You see the Dems and see them as doing the work of the angels. Whatever they say is gospel truth. Whatever they do is righteous. The GOP are not the same. They are evil to the core. All they do is wrong. Anything they propose should be dismissed out of hand. They may do the same thing the Dems are doing, but it's wrong when the GOP does it. That's the difference between us. Is there anything about the GOP you actually like? Is there anything about the Dems you don't like? I would guess no and no.
I wonder if you think the same about myself.
I'm sorry, but one can never truly find that two sides are equally bad if they are looking at things from a logical point of view.
I mean, in the Cold War, the Soviets ****ed up, the US ****ed up, but ultimately, the US was by far the best of the two.
Conservatives may have had some unfair economic policies. But Communists would have made everyone poor and take away freedom. etc etc.
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 66
Thanked 968 Times in 703 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980
This is the position of extreme right wing.
Isn't having educated citizens providing for the General Welfare of the nation ?
I think the method of providing the means to pursue higher education has faults, but not the purpose or responsibility of the government.
The main weakness of the extreme right wing is their view of government as evil, when in fact the government is us and neither is perfect.
Government is not evil in and of itself. When it oversteps it self to the point that citizens are not being served, but instead being kept it becomes evil. If you choose to bury yourself in debt, it is not the government's job to bail you out. The feds already back student loans. What more do you want? You want them to guarantee student loans so you can get them in the first place then you want them to pay them off for you too?
Government is not evil in and of itself. When it oversteps it self to the point that citizens are not being served, but instead being kept it becomes evil. If you choose to bury yourself in debt, it is not the government's job to bail you out. The feds already back student loans. What more do you want? You want them to guarantee student loans so you can get them in the first place then you want them to pay them off for you too?
Who said anything about them paying it off? I know that I didn't. I only asked to keep the interests rates what they are or attempt to lower them. That's not unreasonable.
Either way, it needs to be easier for EVERYONE to go to college. Not just myself or those who are more affluent than me.
The Following User Says Thank You to NYCHitman1 For This Useful Post:
I daresay that it is. Students (and youth in general) are the future of the country. The cost of affordable education is already out of reach for many. We have some of the best colleges/universities in the world here, yet those who come from affluent families are the only ones who get to attend? I'm sorry, but I don't see the logic in that.
I don't see a reason why the gov't can't step in and put a hold on interest %, so students can at least recoup some money. There needs to be some kind of reform to this area, whether you agree to it or not.
20Likes
US Federal Elections 2012
