Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

Posted by heri_cles 10 (My Page) on
Mon, Oct 8, 12 at 13:58

I am betting that since the Romney Flip Flop strategy seemed to convince the media and his supporters that he "won the debate" that Mitch will use the same tactic at the debate on Foreign policy. "I never opposed a tax cut of that magnitude...my health care plan covers preexisting conditions..."

Romney at Foreign policy debate: "I am a hawk, I am a dove, no, I am a dove with the heart of a hawk. I am against this outrageous Obama spending, but I want more spending on the military, did I just say that, no I didn't mean that, what do you mean I was for this before I was against it."

This should the question posed to Flip before any attempt is made to chase down his positions.

"Was that always your position?"

If Romney won a debate, he won it against himself. How can anyone debate a moving target like Romney? He is like the stuffed animal lure that is dragged in front of greyhound to get them going faster and faster. There is no point just running faster when you will never catch an elusive, flip-flopping stuffed shirt.

I guess that Romney team decided to use the Flip Flop thing as a campaign weapon rather than as a liability. Catch me if you can. LOL!


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

"Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?"

I'm betting that it's a two-way debate, and that Obama doesn't show up again.

:)


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

"Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?"

I'm betting that it's a two-way debate, and that Obama doesn't show up again.

:)


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

Guess what--you lose!

Kate


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

"Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?"

He might as well....your guy was a no show the first time.


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

Yes, the president was very stiff and mannequin-like. It seemed like he didn't want to be bothered to engage in a conversation with us watching. Without the catch phrases, he didn't have anything of substance he was willing to say. It was disappointing. I was hoping the presidenr would say what he really thinks about/plans for us.


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

I was hoping the presidenr would say what he really thinks about/plans for us.

I was hoping Romney would do the same. Instead he decided to just say what he thought people would like to hear.


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

I expected the president to do that as well. That does seem to be the order of the day when it comes to elections-ANY election, right down to class president.


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

Romney hit it out of the park again! His foreign policy speech was loaded with the red meat that Americans love: USA! USA! USA!


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

Na,,,I think he will be debating himself again.

What a POS.

Here is a link that might be useful: Flip Romney Used car salesman


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

He did hit it out of the park again tobr. He certainly didn't advocate war, simply peace through strength.


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

I think "peace through strength" is another way of saying "we'll beat the crap out of you if you don't do what we say".


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

No esh, it means stop trying to destroy the US because we won't allow it to happen, we will always be too strong, and start working internally to bring your own country to a place of peace and prosperity with your neighbors and the world. And if you choose, we can help you. Peace through strength.


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

Which is like totally different than the Obama foreign policy.


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

Posted by david52 z5CO (My Page) on
Tue, Oct 9, 12 at 9:41

Which is like totally different than the Obama foreign policy.

Yea, apologize, apologize, apologize.


 o
article

Mitt Romney has delivered a lot of dishonest speeches in recent months, but Monday's address on foreign policy may be the most mendacious yet.
It was expected that he would distort President Obama into a caricature of Jimmy Carter. But it was astonishing to watch Romney spin a daydream of himself as some latter-day George Marshall, bringing peace, prosperity, and hope to a chaotic world - this from a man who couldn't drop in on the London Olympics without alienating our closest ally and turning himself into a transcontinental laughingstock.

To the extent that Romney recited valid criticisms of Obama's policies, he offered no alternatives. To the extent he spelled out specific steps he would take to deal with one problem or another, he merely recited actions that Obama has already taken.

Let's go through the text, point by point.

Romney began with the recent attacks on the Libyan consulate, the killing of the U.S. ambassador, and the anti-American riots that broke out across the Middle East - all signs, he claimed, that "the threats we face have grown so much worse" while President Obama does nothing.

Let's pause here. First, these threats are not worsening; in fact, the number of attacks on U.S. embassies is near an all-time low. Second, the spate of attacks, riots, and American flag-burnings, which followed the attacks in Libya and Egypt, ended almost immediately. Romney himself, after recounting the grim events, noted that we're now seeing "something hopeful" - protests by "tens of thousands of Libyans" against the militants and in support of the American ambassador.

Yet Romney ignored the reasons why the riots subsided and why the Libyan people went after the militants. These things happened because President Obama had supported the Libyan rebels in their resistance to Muammar Qaddafi - and because, after the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Obama had a long phone conversation with Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, spelling out the facts of life: that Morsi had to choose between siding with the Islamist militants (who formed part of his constituency) and rejoining the civilized world. Romney repeatedly bemoaned Obama's passivity, but one can only ask: What is he talking about?

Later in the speech, Romney criticized Obama for "missing an historic opportunity to win new friends who share our values in the Middle East." It's unclear whether, or to what extent, even the protesters in Benghazi "share our values," but it is clear that Obama's actions have made them friends - which is why they took to the streets against the militants.

Romney then turned to the topic near and dear to the voters of Florida in particular. "The relationship between the president of the United States and the prime minister of Israel, our closest ally in the region, has suffered great strains," he said, adding that they have "set back the hopes of peace in the Middle East and emboldened our mutual adversaries."

First, yes, there are strains in Obama's relationship with Netanyahu - but they're no more severe than the strains in Netanyahu's relationship with his own military establishment. Israel's defense minister, Ehud Barack, said in a CNN interview two months ago, "This administration under President Obama is doing, in regard to our security, more than anything that I can remember in the past." Many Israeli security officials think Netanyahu has gone way too far in his pressure on Obama. An American politician can support Israel's security without supporting the Israeli prime minister in his own domestic quarrels - much less agreeing with everything he says.

"In Iraq," Romney claimed, "the costly gains made by our troops are being eroded by rising violence." This is true. But then he said, "America's ability to influence events for the better in Iraq has been undermined by the abrupt withdrawal of our entire troop presence," adding that Obama tried to secure a more gradual drawdown but "failed."

The facts are these. First, President George W. Bush signed an agreement with the Iraqi government in November 2008 stating, "All U.S. forces are to withdraw from all Iraqi territory, water, and airspace no later than the 31st of December of 2011." Second, as the deadline neared, Obama did explore options to keep some of those troops in Iraq for a while longer - but Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki did not want them to stay. Iraq was, and is, a sovereign nation. If Romney thinks he could have negotiated a deal to stay, he doesn't say what it would have been. He can't, because there was no such deal anywhere near the table.

Then came a gratuitously outrageous statement. "America," Romney said, "can take pride in the blows that our military and intelligence professionals have inflicted on al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan, including the killing of Osama bin Laden." (Italics added.) Really? President Obama deserves no credit for dealing these blows? Obama has personally ordered many of these blows (as some in his own party have complained), and, as is well known, he ordered the raid on bin Laden's compound against the advice of Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who thought it was too risky.
Romney followed this with the most stupefying attack in the entire speech, worth quoting at some length:

I will put the leaders of Iran on notice that the United States and our friends and allies will prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. I will not hesitate to impose new sanctions on Iran and will tighten the sanctions we currently have. I will restore the permanent presence of aircraft carrier task forces in both the Eastern Mediterranean and the Gulf region- and work with Israel to increase our military assistance and coordination. For the sake of peace, we must make clear to Iran through actions, not just words, that their nuclear pursuit will not be tolerated.

Obama has long been doing all of these things. He has ratcheted up sanctions and persuaded others (including Russia) to go along, to the point where Iran's currency has plummeted by 40 percent, prompting the merchant class to protest in the streets. Two aircraft carriers have been on constant patrol within range of Iran since the summer. And U.S. security assistance to Israel, as its own defense minister said, is at near-peak levels.

Romney then pledged to boost defense spending, saying, "I will roll back President Obama's deep and arbitrary cuts to our national defense that would devastate our military." He also claimed that the "size of our Navy is at levels not seen since 1916."

Both statements are highly misleading. First, these "deep and arbitrary cuts" in the defense budget (he also calls them "catastrophic") will go into effect only if Congress cannot agree on a deficit-reduction plan. Last year, Congress agreed that if they couldn't devise such a plan by the end of 2012, the entire federal budget- including defense - would be cut across the board. (Romney's running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, voted in favor of this pact.) Obama's actual, existing military budget for next year - which amounts to $525 billion, plus $88 billion for overseas operations (in Afghanistan and elsewhere) - is only 1 percent below this year's budget.

As for the Navy, a single modern aircraft carrier has enough firepower onboard to destroy 1,000 targets with impressive accuracy. To compare the might, range, and speed of today's vessels with those of 1916 is absurd - and an insult to the Navy.

Romney neglected to note that his own budget plan calls for adding $2 trillion to military spending over the next 10 years. He may have sidestepped this fact - even though it might have appealed to his audience of cadets at the Virginia Military Institute - because, time and again, he has declined to specify how he will pay such a whopping bill. Nor has he specified why such increases are necessary: for what contingencies, against what enemies.

On foreign aid, Romney said, "I will make it clear to the recipients of our aid that, in return for our material support, they must meet the responsibilities of every decent modern government," including the protection of rights for women and minorities, free media, and an independent judiciary. He seems not to realize that the United States hands out aid to promote U.S. interests, not just the recipient's needs, and that our own leverage has limits: If an allied government doesn't want to make this deal, it can go elsewhere.
Romney's line on Syria was very delicately phrased: "I will work with our partners to identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values and ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad's tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets." (Italics added.) First, and again, it's unclear any of the rebels "share our values." Second, it's unclear whether, once the good guys among the rebels (a.k.a. the non-Islamists) get these heavy arms, they won't share them with their Islamist brothers. Third, he left unclear where the rebels will "obtain" these heavy arms. More to the point, he didn't say that he would provide them. So what would he do that Obama hasn't? He didn't say, perhaps because he doesn't know.

On Afghanistan, Romney seemed simply muddled. First, he said, "I will pursue a real and successful transition to Afghan security forces by the end of 2014." Then he denounced Obama's "politically timed retreat that abandons the Afghan people to the same extremists who ravaged their country." But Obama's policy also calls for pursuing a transition to the Afghan forces by the end of 2014. In fact, this is official NATO policy - and a policy that Afghan President Hamid Karzai supports, even demands. So what would Romney do differently?

Then Romney restated his main theme: "There is a longing for American leadership." Everywhere, "the question is asked: 'Where does America stand?' " He especially raised concerns about Asia, where "China's recent assertiveness is sending chills through the region."

Again, one wonders what world Romney is watching. In Asia, Obama has responded, even taken the initiative, renewing security arrangements with Japan, sending Marines to Australia, stepping up joint naval patrols, challenging Beijing's claims in the South China Sea, while also seeking cooperative forums with the Chinese military. The defense analyst Robert Kaplan (no relation), one of the first to warn of Chinese ambitions, said at a panel sponsored by the New America Foundation that the Obama administration was doing pretty much all that needed to be done - both in its activities and in its shipbuilding program.

Finally, Romney proclaimed, "The 21st century can and must be an American century." This is where he and his advisers, many of them Bush-Cheney neo-cons, share a dangerous assumption about the world. They seem to believe that the United States can wield the same force and influence it did during the Cold War, if only a strong president sat in the White House again. Yet the rise of American power after World War II was facilitated by the geopolitics of the day: a bipolar international system, a faceoff between the United States and the Soviet Union, with much of the rest of the world choosing, or falling into, one camp or the other. When the Cold War ended and the Soviet Union imploded, this international system collapsed as well - and, as yet, nothing has taken its place. Power has dispersed as power-centers have weakened.
As he has on other occasions, Romney asserted that a president must "use America's great power to shape history," not to let events shape America. But the fact is there are no superpowers in today's world; no country has as much power to shape history - or as little immunity to the influences of others - as America did in the Cold War era. To exercise true leadership, a president must come to grips with the limits of his or her power. This has nothing to do with notions of "American decline." It has to do with the shattering of the Cold War world.

Romney is right that, in some cases, most notably Syria, Obama has not done as much as he might have to influence the course of events. However, there is almost nothing in Romney's speech to suggest that he would do better - and a great deal to indicate he'd do much worse.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

Once again, please list the exact times and places where Obama "apologized" and the exact words that consitute an apology. Then list all things he has done (like get bin Laden killed, for starters) as part of his foreign policy. And please include the wars he has ordered (I don't think anyone would confuse war with an apology), but also include things like the sanctions he and others have imposed on Iran (I doubt if the suffering populace there thinks that is an apology), and include on the list other things that would be placed under foreign policy.

Now give us an evaluation based on actual FACTS.

Oh, excuse me, I didnt' realize you were just stirring the troll-pot, just for the fun of it. I apologize for thinking you were making a serious point.

Kate


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

Oh, excuse me, I didnt' realize you were just stirring the troll-pot, just for the fun of it. I apologize for thinking you were making a serious point.

Kate

*

"You talkin' to me?"

It's easy enough to google.
I have to go on a walk, you can look it up, but here's all you need:

April 3, 2009, Strasbourg, France.

April 6, 2009, Ankara, Turkey.

April 17, Trinidad and Tobago

That does not mention the apologies made at his direction through the embassies and state department, particularly in the last six weeks.

Let's not forget that fabulous apology by Obama, paid for by taxpayers and joined by Hillary Clinton, apologizing to Muslims for the exercise of free speech in this country.

*

Calling people trolls and nasty names when they don't engage you aren't really your forte, and I'm surprised.


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

Never mind, Kate... they won't list any apologies or answer any questions as that would detract from the continually repeated talking points.


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

In other words, you have no evidence that Obama's foreign policy consists of "apologies." Where is the very long list of all the non-apologetic things he has done? It is there--if you'd bother to look it up. But no, you prefer to make troll-jabs.

I don't know why you would be surprised that I find trollish behavior disgusting. Most sensible people do.

And to pull out a demi-technicality, I never called you a troll or any nasty name. So you owe me an apology for accusing me of having done that when anyone reading my post above can clearly see I did not directly call you anything. (I know how you love to stand on legal technicalities, which is why I mention this legal technicality. I learned how to do that from your many previous posts taking positions based on legal technicalities.)

Kate


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

I asked if you were talking to me, Kate--you could have answered.

Who, then, were your "troll" and other comments directed to?

If you want to hold me to a higher standard than your buddies here on this forum, fine.

I apologize for thinking you were talking to me when you referred to "someone" as a troll and referenced Obama's apologies, which I did.

Every day posters make remarks just like I did, only a lot, lot, more glib.

If it makes you feel good to "call me out" and take me to the woodshed, then have at it, Kate.

I'm glad I can brighten your day! Feel better, now?
It's better than the feeling you get reading the latest polls, isn't it?

NOW, I'm going for my walk.

Have a great day all!~


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

heri_cles 10 (My Page) on Mon, Oct 8, 12 at 13:58

I am betting that since the Romney Flip Flop strategy seemed to convince the media and his supporters that he "won the debate" that Mitch will use the same tactic at the debate on Foreign policy. "I never opposed a tax cut of that magnitude...my health care plan covers preexisting conditions..."
Romney at Foreign policy debate: "I am a hawk, I am a dove, no, I am a dove with the heart of a hawk. I am against this outrageous Obama spending, but I want more spending on the military, did I just say that, no I didn't mean that, what do you mean I was for this before I was against it."

This should the question posed to Flip before any attempt is made to chase down his positions.

"Was that always your position?"

If Romney won a debate, he won it against himself. How can anyone debate a moving target like Romney? He is like the stuffed animal lure that is dragged in front of greyhound to get them going faster and faster. There is no point just running faster when you will never catch an elusive, flip-flopping stuffed shirt.

I guess that Romney team decided to use the Flip Flop thing as a campaign weapon rather than as a liability. Catch me if you can. LOL!
*****************************************************

Say what you will. I saw through his chameleon BS during the first debate, but there are many people who bought into his schtick, esp single women.

Many people are "not very bright" and vote on LOOKS. I work with someone who takes advantage of the "hand-outs", but decided to go Romney after the debate.
Why? Who knows? Maybe she liked his looks. Granted, she's NOT very bright, in general.

I'm actually thinking that it was Romney's looks that solidified some of the women votes. There is NO other explanation. Remember how some women claimed that they would rather have Dubya over for dinner, than Gore Or Kerry?....because the Dem candidates were not pretty? How superficial was THAT? Maybe some women like men who LIE to them and promise them things that they'll NEVER see in their lives.


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

Demi--I was talking to you. I did not call you a troll or any other nasty name. What I did do is sarcastically apologize for charging you with stirring the troll-pot, just for the fun of it. Which you evidently were since you do not indicate how I should take your earlier comments as a serious discussion of a serious issue.

However, to describe your behavior as troll-like is not the same as calling you a troll. Therefore, you are wrong when you claim I was calling you nasty names.

Is that clear enough now? I'm serious--you have made that same defense dozens of times on this forum for your own posts that others took offense at. Don't you recognize your own defense?

Kate


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

Romney's foreign policy sure does seem as if it's the terrible consequence of the Republican Party's attempt to treat spending as if it was the only failure of the Bush Administration, rather than acknowledging the various ways in which the Bush foreign policy made the United States worse off.

The issue here is not even a reckless foreign policy versus a domestic policy that may give Republicans grounds for hope: a foreign policy like this will not permit much of a domestic policy at all. It will consume a presidency, just as it consumed George W. Bush's."

I can't say it better than that.

Here is a link that might be useful: Mitt's foreign policy speech


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

Kate, don't beat a dead horse.

You got an apology, do you want a pint of red state blood, too?


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

Wow.
Politics has almost become a bloodsport for some of you.


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

Romney won the debate on looks? Granted, he isn't ugly but looks like an underwear model to me. I find him not attractive in the least. But then I must have been in the minority, because I found Bush even less attractive. Gore , (not now but in 2000) and Kerry were more attractive to me, but anyone who votes on the looks of a person should not be voting in the first place.

With the exception of Kennedy, I can't recall a handsome President since photography was in invented. In fact some of our earlier guys would not make the "cute" test today. Visuals matter which is why Kennedy won the debate in 1960. Those hearing it on the radio thought Nixon won, but on TV with his handsome looks, tan, and flashy smile compared to pale, sweating Nixon who needed a shave, it was a no brainer.


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

Hahahaha.

Talk about grasping at straws--"Romney "won" the debate because of his good looks, Obama was tired, Obama couldn't take the altitude, the moderator didn't "control" the conversations."

The fact of the matter is Obama LOST the debate because he was incompetent, had no retort, no plans, nothing to articulate, and pretty much just a nervous and very uncomfortable empty suit on that night.

In fact, he has been incompetent and an empty suit much of his tenure as President.

Those facts are difficult to digest for koolaid drinkers, I know.


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

Hahahaha.
Talk about grasping at straws--"Romney "won" the debate because of his good looks, Obama was tired, Obama couldn't take the altitude, the moderator didn't "control" the conversations."

The fact of the matter is Obama LOST the debate because he was incompetent, had no retort, no plans, nothing to articulate, and pretty much just a nervous and very uncomfortable empty suit on that night.

In fact, he has been incompetent and an empty suit much of his tenure as President.

Those facts are difficult to digest for koolaid drinkers, I know.
*****************************************************
Nobody is saying that Obama won the debate, and he has made some mistakes during his leadership.

However, Romney LIED so badly ( I paid attention to his "stance" on things before the debate, and he completely did a 180 degree change during the debate).
He won the debate on LIES.
However, when I hear that someone who is OLD-er, not too far from retirement, and has no assets, will need Medicare and SS soon, utilizes govt hand-outs, but decides based on that debate to vote for Romeny, the only thing I can think of she liked his looks, because there was NOTHING there for her in Romney's bag of SECRETS (LIES). She must have fallen under his spell.lol

I may not lurrrve either of the candidates, but my principles closer resemble the Democratic party. The GOP in the recent years has become MANIPULATIVE, SCARY and MEAN.


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

Keep saying...Romney lied. I know that is the democratic talking point. They say it started in a conference call ten minutes before the end of the debate. It's working. The new Pew research poll has Romney at 49% and Obama at 45%. Do you realize what a swing that is from before the debate? They are now even tied among women 47% and 47%. So please keep it up. 72% of almost 70 million people love the thought that you think they are so stupid they don't know the difference between a lie and the truth. So please, don't stop now.


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

It's not 'just' a democratic talking point. Other people are talking about it too.

don't worry - we won't stop.


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

It won't stop, mrskjun, because that is all they've got.

Obama can't run on his record, only trying to scare people about Romney.


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

American Presidents win on a State by State basis not on popular vote.

The Swing States of Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Iowa and even Wisconsin are tracking very favourably for Obama. Florida and Virginia are tighter calls.

It ain't over 'til it's over.


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

True there is those "other" people. Only 78% of Independents thought Romney won the debate, and republican registration has doubled.


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

I thought Romney 'won' the debate, but that doesn't mean I will vote for him.

As for the polls, they certainly do show a sharp swing for Romney. But thats national polls, not swing state polls, where the election will be decided. And the barrage of ads here pointing out the specific Romney lies is just about relentless.


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

Funny how the Right LOVES polls when they think their candidate is winning, but disdain them when Obama is leading? How ironic. Sorta like the unemployment under 8%, at 7.8% has to have been manipulated. It gets crazy. The lying Republicans will do and say anything to win. Bring it on. Watch the next three debates. Our side will come out fighting. I know Obama knows he messed up, but it aint gonna happen again.


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Tue, Oct 9, 12 at 17:03

Be interesting to see if Romney can pull the old switcharoonie and get away with it in the next debate. I'm glad he came out with his foreign policy statement, we'll see how he twists and turns it after a few days. Judging by Romney's recent rate of transformation it will morph by the hour.

Mitt Romney 2012
Transformer Sequel


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

When a person gives numbers and views that AREN'T factual, we call them lies. When you say something that's not true, it's a lie.

Calling lies the truth, or ignoring those lies, must be the newest Republican talking point issued.


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

MrsK and demi - are you actually saying that Romney did not change his positions during the debate? Are you actually saying that the positions he took during the debate are the same positions (more or less) that he'd been taking since the general election started? Is that what you're saying? He didn't lie? He's been saying the same thing all along?


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

jill, what I don't understand, it doesn't seem to bother you that Obama lied, you'll still vote for him. But "if" Romney told a lie he is unfit to be running for office. Why is that?


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

We can all accept the fact that politicians spin, omit details and sometimes tell an outright lie. Sad but true.

The difference with Romney is that he has done at least one total about turn on just about every single policy and position he has ever spoken of! EVERYTHING from abortion , to healthcare, taxes, and the most amazing total backtrack on the 47% comment.

However I have truly come to understand that most Republicans really don't care what his position is becasue they believe it will be in line with basic conservative policies even though they cannot articulate one single policy with any level of detail.

We'll see how happy they are when they go to war with Iran, when they loose their mortgage deduction , when the infrastructure in the States falls into total disrepair, when the public education system is so totally decimated that the US falls even further behind all major industrialized nations and business are free to outsource jobs all they want.

When the middle class is put in it's place.


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

I've said before that Obama has lied. All politicians lie. Unfortunate but true.

But nobody is in the same universe of lies as Romney. He's done complete 180 flips on just about everything. And then he flops back again.

What I don't understand is why you always answer a question with a question. Can you answer the question this time?


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

Nothing to answer jill. If you read factcheck you will see they both stretched the truth a bit during the debate. You are happy with the direction that Obama has taken the country the past four years, and I am not. I will be voting for Romney, simple as that.


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

I didn't ask you who you were voting for. I asked you if you're saying Romney hasn't completely changed positions. I have no idea why you are never willing to answer a single question. It's useless trying to discuss topics with you when you refuse to answer a question.


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

I know...if I don't answer a question in such a way that you might find reason to attack or insult, then I haven't answered correctly. Sorry bout that. That was my answer and I'm sticking to it.


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

You said "nothing to answer". That's your answer?

I guess you are afraid to answer because someone might "attack" your answer? Of course, I'm pretty sure by "attack" you mean ask more questions. You know, like a conversation.

If you're not willing to answer questions, why are you on this board? Oh right I remember now...to post the daily gotcha. And then disappear from that post when those pesky facts are shown to you.


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

A conversation? With a liberal? Wow, that would be something new and different. A true conversation would be an exchange of thoughts and ideas. Doesn't really include words like troll, douche bag, sleazy, moron...etc. etc. etc. I'm on this board to remind myself why I'm glad I switched to the Republican party.


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

It's becoming tedious to see so many threads highjacked and derailed. The sequence is becoming so predictable and boring. The common denominator is always disparagement (incompetent, empty suit, Koolaid drinkers) and then an artful dodging or silence when pressed for an answer to a question. Or, even better, accusations of stalking and even insinuations that a poster might seek someone out at her residence. I can't fathom this kind of behavior.


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

Well MrsK I never used those words. And yes a conversation would be nice. Too bad you're not capable.

And thanks for admitting you're not here to have that conversation. Most honest thing I've seen you ever say.


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

"I can't fathom this kind of behavior"

Then don't. Go with the flow; near as I can tell, no one's trying very hard to fathom anything around here. Basically stating opinions, agreeing, disagreeing, you know like an in-person conversation except clothing is optional and you can wear a funny hat.

Aluminum foil really brings in the frequencies.

;D


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

Both candidates have changed their point of view on a lot of things. That's called "being a politician." Thing is some people get down right nasty about it and others manage to take it in stride and realize they aren't going home with the politiician so taking all this too personal is just not worth it.

Quoting a couple of our presidents who found their asses in a bind "Let me make this perfectly clear," I will not vote for a socialist who wants to fundamentally change this country and destroy its' heritage. I don't care who is running against Obama, he/she is the person I am voting for. And now you know. So all your talk about how bad Romney is falls on deaf ears for me because Romney posseses my fundamental beliefs, values and is a decent man and for that I'll vote for him. The End.


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

Posted by ingrid_vc Z10 SoCal (My Page) on
Tue, Oct 9, 12 at 19:45

It's becoming tedious to see so many threads highjacked and derailed. The sequence is becoming so predictable and boring. The common denominator is always disparagement (incompetent, empty suit, Koolaid drinkers) and then an artful dodging or silence when pressed for an answer to a question. Or, even better, accusations of stalking and even insinuations that a poster might seek someone out at her residence. I can't fathom this kind of behavior.

*

Does that mean another Swan Song is in the works?


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

As I was saying, I can't fathom this kind of behavior...


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

Timing seems about right. Probably time to rotate.

"...and even insinuations that a poster might seek someone out at her residence."

Like an invitation? I missed that part.


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

I will not vote for a socialist who wants to fundamentally change this country and destroy its' heritage.

Will someone please explain to me what the heck that means?

Obama is not even remotely a socialist, unless you consider someone who supports Social Security to be a socialist. Exactly what has he done that would be considered socialistic?

Exactly what has he done to fundamentally change this country? What change are you talking about and how is it fundamental to this country?

Exactly what has he done to destroy our country's heritage? What heritage are you talking about?

I can't make heads or tails out of such vague generalities. It must be some kind of code talk for insiders. It makes no sense to me. Maybe if you would give me the code translation, I would have a clue what you are talking about.

Kate


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

Obama is not even remotely a socialist, unless you consider someone who supports Social Security to be a socialist. Exactly what has he done that would be considered socialistic?

Exactly what has he done to fundamentally change this country? What change are you talking about and how is it fundamental to this country?

Exactly what has he done to destroy our country's heritage? What heritage are you talking about?

greatgollymolly does not possess the ability to articulate an answer to those questions. She'll say something about he wants to take money from one group and give it to another and that's about as far as she can get. She doesn't realize that kind of "redistribution" was started long before Obama and will continue long after him.


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

Obama is not even remotely a socialist, unless you consider someone who supports Social Security to be a socialist.

Since more than a few conservatives have taken to calling President Obama a socialist, I'm wondering if the John Birch Society's definition of a socialist has now become acceptable.


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

I think the issue is understanding what the word socialist means. Seems that many conservatives have devise their own definition but have not shared it with the ROW.

Socialist....HOOT!


 o
RE: Romney to Debate himself again on Foreign Policy?

It's just another manipulative rhetorical trick.


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here