3rd debate

[Pandora]

It happens because a bunch a right wing trolls won't be happy unless Glenn Beck does it...O god the moderator asked what they would do about Iran....what a liberal Question!

you guys are just pissy because you lost the debate and like always can't blame yourself so you blame the fucking media like children who can't take a loss , dust themself off and get ready for the next round. Grow a pair and stop pretending the boogie man is always out to get you..

I dont think Romney lost the debate but tied in one of them.

and I think all the mods were good except for candy, but I do not expect you to see the bias that came through in that debate

 

[Gipper]

Romney and Obama are even more in agreement about foreign policy than they are about domestic issues. That came through loud and clear in the debate, as they both said the same thing in different words.

The real question isn't which candidate has the better political ideology, but which one is most likely to be able to get anything meaningful through Congress, and which one has the most experience with economic issues. The answer to that one is obvious.

I can agree with that. Romney agreeing with BO's dumping the dictators in the ME, was really dumb, but shows their foreign policy is very similar. So, no matter who wins, America will continue this insane policy of foreign intervention that only leads to more dead Americans and wasted treasure.

And yeah, Romney has to be better on the economy. BO had his chance and blew it.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

They, the armed forces and CIA not we, have been killing off leadership for 12 years. Not surprisingly they have developed new leadership. I had to laugh when Obama broke out the "we have AL Quada on the run" after all the derision Bush got saying it. Very ironic.

Romney knows you can't leave it to the UN or NATO to do anything as nothing ever happens when they do it. Being a superpower requires that you impel the rest to do the right thing.

Iran wants to talk ? Have we heard that too ? From Hussein, Kim Jong Il etc ? Its a time killer while you do what you want to do. And all these crackpots know we fall for it. Do you see anyone trying this with Russia ? Lead from strength.

your right lets go to war...fuck talks.

and guess what the new leadership is fractured and the best leaders they had...are dead..sure new ones pop up...but they are not as good and there is infighting...Its dieing. Unlike Bush its actuly true.

 

[BigRob]

Mitt is the one talking about numbers of ships not me.

And his underlying point deserves more than idiotic platitudes from the President along the lines of "we have fewer horses too."

And if we can't defend the US with This Navy..lets just give up because outspending the top 5-10 nations can't save us..

The other nations do not have the same mission that our Navy does -- and simply comparing spending levels is in no way shape or form addresses anything relevant.

Special Forces , Ground Troops, Drones, and the Internet are going to the the weapons we need...not a super sized navy.

We don't have a supersized Navy -- and you again miss the point on certain capabilities for certain missions. To think special forces or drones can carry out the Navy's mission is laughable. All of the above things are important -- and so in the Navy -- because they all play different roles.

Yes we need a good one, but the fact is we have that now and our navy is not going to be in any danger even if it got some cuts. If what we have is not enough..that means we are doing to much...not that we need to spend more on more ships.

What level of cuts is acceptable to you? Even President Obama stated at the debate that the sequester cuts won't occur -- what level would you be comfortable with -- and where would those cuts come from?

If you cannot answer that question, then you cannot make the statement that "navy is not going to be in any danger even if it got some cuts."

 

[BigRob]

We killed off many of the Top Al Quida leaders...the Top Pakistani Haqani network people as well...Bin Laden of course...

All continuations of the previous administration's policy.

Lybia is going threw trying to form a democracy now...rather then live under a Dictator who killed Americans...and we did not even have to invade or lose one American life in the war ( yes after we lost 4...still beats more then 4000)

President Obama said in regards to Libya: "We are answering the calls of a threatened people and we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world." -- yet never could quite spell out what that interest was, and his own Secretary of Defense stated there was in fact no interest.

Great if Libya can become a functioning democracy, but if our recent track record in the region is any indication, I have low expectations.

Iran is Crippled and has no econ and wants to talk..

You left out that the Senate had to vote 100-0 over the opposition of the Obama administration to sanction the Iranian Central Bank -- one of the most hard hitting sanctions. In fact, Treasury and State went down to the Hill to testify AGAINST that legislation.

Syria there is nothing we can do...Unless you want to go in and fight a war that will end with fighting Iran......

There is plenty we can do without fighting a war with Iran....and the President did after all say "We cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy." I guess he must have changed his mind.

Mitt can't even figure out what the hell to do, and just sat there saying your wrong but I would do the same thing as you...now thats leaders ship...Then again that was yesterday, I am sure he has changed all his policies again by now.

So let me get this straight:
1) President Obama continuing the previous administrations policy of using drone strikes to kill top terror leaders is leadership, but if Romney wants to continue that -- its not?
2) Obama deserves credit for leadership on Iranian sanctions, despite sending officials to the Hill to testify AGAINST them -- forcing his own Party to go against him?
3) Obama deserves a pass on Syria for some unknown reason that does not align with the world vision he laid out a few months earlier?
4) Obama deserves some great praise for humanitarian intervention in Libya -- when history has shown us that decades later areas we get involved for that reason are still failing -- Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor....there is nothing accomplished yet in Libya.

 

[steveox]

Did Anyone see Bill OReilly blast CBS this Morning about the moderators on the debate?

Hes right you know

 

[dogtowner]

your right lets go to war...fuck talks.

and guess what the new leadership is fractured and the best leaders they had...are dead..sure new ones pop up...but they are not as good and there is infighting...Its dieing. Unlike Bush its actuly true.

did I say go to war ? did Romney ? no.
if you want a job done right you do it yourself, called leadership.
they have been infighting forever, its all about power and that guarantees infighting and they do seem capable of mayhem as they were not four years ago.

 

[GenSeneca]

What level of cuts is acceptable to you?

Cut the defense budget by 50%: Get all our troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the other 126 countries around the world where we currently have troops but, as a compromise to returning to a fully non-interventionist foreign policy, I would agree to maintaining our bases in Germany and Japan and thereby retain a small presence in both the European and Asian theaters. I doubt the navy would have to take any cuts if we did that, hell, they might even be able to add some ships to our fleet with the money we save.

HOWEVER - Our massive, unsustainable, and still growing Welfare State should not be spared when making drastic cuts to the defense budget. Considering our Welfare State is spending money at 3 times the rate of our military (1.5 trillion to 500 billion), we should demand a 2:1 ratio of cuts at the very least. That means cutting the defense budget by 50% would entail slashing the Welfare State by 33%.

What's truly scary is knowing that even making cuts that dramatic, we'd still have an annual deficit of $550 billion and that would put our national debt at 100% of GDP in about 4 years. Once our debt exceeds 100% of GDP, that's it... Game over... We'll be Greece. The cuts I'm proposing will seem minimal in comparison to those we'll have to make if the US government goes into default.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I dont think Romney lost the debate but tied in one of them.

and I think all the mods were good except for candy, but I do not expect you to see the bias that came through in that debate

I know she was really bias in pointing out a fact to Mitt...

 

[Pandora]

I know she was really bias in pointing out a fact to Mitt...

Actually it was an error that an hour after the debate she admitted she made

 

[Gipper]

Cut the defense budget by 50%: Get all our troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the other 126 countries around the world where we currently have troops but, as a compromise to returning to a fully non-interventionist foreign policy, I would agree to maintaining our bases in Germany and Japan and thereby retain a small presence in both the European and Asian theaters. I doubt the navy would have to take any cuts if we did that, hell, they might even be able to add some ships to our fleet with the money we save.

HOWEVER - Our massive, unsustainable, and still growing Welfare State should not be spared when making drastic cuts to the defense budget. Considering our Welfare State is spending money at 3 times the rate of our military (1.5 trillion to 500 billion), we should demand a 2:1 ratio of cuts at the very least. That means cutting the defense budget by 50% would entail slashing the Welfare State by 33%.

What's truly scary is knowing that even making cuts that dramatic, we'd still have an annual deficit of $550 billion and that would put our national debt at 100% of GDP in about 4 years. Once our debt exceeds 100% of GDP, that's it... Game over... We'll be Greece. The cuts I'm proposing will seem minimal in comparison to those we'll have to make if the US government goes into default.

I don't think we can avoid the same fate as Greece. Our political class is too corrupt to do whats needed. When it all comes crashing down, the Left will blame capitalism and many will fall for their lies AGAIN.

Its anyone's guess what happens then.

 

[Cruella]

Cut the defense budget by 50%:.

And how do you propose to replace all those hundreds of thousands of jobs and businesses that will be lost? Spend the military savings on more welfare and unemployement?

 

[BigRob]

Cut the defense budget by 50%: Get all our troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the other 126 countries around the world where we currently have troops but, as a compromise to returning to a fully non-interventionist foreign policy, I would agree to maintaining our bases in Germany and Japan and thereby retain a small presence in both the European and Asian theaters. I doubt the navy would have to take any cuts if we did that, hell, they might even be able to add some ships to our fleet with the money we save.

To do this would of course be the end of American dominance in the world, and the blowback would be horrible, but I will set that aside for the moment.

You want to cut 50% of the defense budget -- seemingly by bringing the troops home, but the math does not add up. In the DOD request for FY2013, and I am counting the OCO money because let's face it, we are in fact spending it, there is a proposed total of $620 billion in spending. $420 billion of that comes in the form of military personnel and to fund operations and do maintenance. So, if you eliminate all military personnel (ie don't pay them etc), and eliminate the ability of the military to conduct operations and do maintenance on their equipment, you reach a 65% cut. I don't think anyone would suggest such a drastic cut, but those are the numbers you need to come up with to cut that much out of the military -- even reaching 50% on the backs of military personnel and operations is rough.

Here is the DOD budget information for FY2013, where is the $310 billion that we should eliminate -- keeping in mind that ultimately the OCO "savings" cannot be duplicated on a yearly basis.

HOWEVER - Our massive, unsustainable, and still growing Welfare State should not be spared when making drastic cuts to the defense budget. Considering our Welfare State is spending money at 3 times the rate of our military (1.5 trillion to 500 billion), we should demand a 2:1 ratio of cuts at the very least. That means cutting the defense budget by 50% would entail slashing the Welfare State by 33%.

This all sounds good -- but what is the implication -- and the first question will of course be, where is that $500 billion to cut in the welfare state?

What's truly scary is knowing that even making cuts that dramatic, we'd still have an annual deficit of $550 billion and that would put our national debt at 100% of GDP in about 4 years. Once our debt exceeds 100% of GDP, that's it... Game over... We'll be Greece. The cuts I'm proposing will seem minimal in comparison to those we'll have to make if the US government goes into default.

We need to address our debt issues, there is no doubt, but with access to basically unlimited credit at 2% currently, we are far from bankrupt.

 

[BigRob]

I know she was really bias in pointing out a fact to Mitt...

You can find the complete transcript of President Obama's remarks here....you might note how long it takes him to use the line "no acts of terror" -- and you might note the placement of line -- right after a reference to 9/11 -- easily leading people to conclude that the terror reference was to 9/11. In fact, during his entire opening about the incident, he continually uses the word "attack", he uses "killers" and "brutal acts" -- why no mention of terror at this point? Why does that only come up in passing after he references 9/11?

It is certainly not a strong statement that this was a "terror" attack -- even more so when they spent the next week blaming spontaneous rights and a video.

 

[Cruella]

You can find the complete transcript of President Obama's remarks here....you might note how long it takes him to use the line "no acts of terror" -- and you might note the placement of line -- right after a reference to 9/11 -- easily leading people to conclude that the terror reference was to 9/11. In fact, during his entire opening about the incident, he continually uses the word "attack", he uses "killers" and "brutal acts" -- why no mention of terror at this point? Why does that only come up in passing after he references 9/11?

It is certainly not a strong statement that this was a "terror" attack -- even more so when they spent the next week blaming spontaneous rights and a video.

Not to mention the speaches he and Hill gave standing on the coffins of the 4 dead Americans at Andrews AFB and the speal they gave at the UN. (not to mention the 70 million they spent on their own propaganda video for Pakistan condeming the video)

Whatever happened to the bogus video maker? Oh.... he's still sitting in jail with his mouth taped shut.