Some really cringeworthy clips in there.
Printable View
Some really cringeworthy clips in there.
John Kerry lied about Christmas in Cambodia - Swift Boat Vets for truth had a legit beef with Kerry for using his service to try to win an election.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Right, of all the charges they made, one is true, because it was 1-2 months off. The rest were basically lies. Sounds very legit, indeed!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
It wasn't that it was 1-2 months off; he was never there.
Sorry, thought he likely had been there on covert missions in january/february.
Even if that is true, though, it's still one of the most obvious examples of a smear campaign, mostly based on lies.
I did vote for him (thank you, Bush). :noob:
This election is the first where neither candidate served in the US military. Military service has traditionally been one way candidates appeal to distinct voter groups.
What's interesting now is looking at Romney's record (pro-Viet Nam war) while being exempt from the draft (special status for Mormons). Or how he claims his sons are "serving the country" by working for their dad's campaign. Ryan says his military experience is related to having voted on military spending/surges for Iraq/Afghanistan as a US Congressman. Obama's grandfather fought in Patton's army, but he didn't have to face the Viet Nam draft, and spent most of his life in peace time academia. However, Obama has now spent the last four years being directly and deeply involved in all things military, diplomatic, and international.
I'll get some flak for this statement --- but I'm hesitant to "trust" a Commander in Chief whose never had a family member in military service. Ever. But promises to have a mighty military, the biggest ever, a SuperPower force, with Executive powers to send other people to war. It would be one thing if he espoused dove-like policy, but he hasn't. Romney has surrounded himself with 'advisors' from Bush/Cheney and McCain, who are practically itching for military intervention in Arab states/middle east.
Disagreed entirely for as long as we have a volunteer army and no draft.
Does "we" mean the UK or the US? Maybe it's a moot point, since even members of the British Royal family volunteer for military service.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Why not just have the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff serve as the president. :rolleyes:
:rolleyes: Are you going to re-arrange the executive branch, and elections, too? :donkey:
edit:
I have a problem with "leaders" who operate on different sets of rules and principles: one for their themselves, and another for everyone else. That can take shape in domestic and foreign policies, taxation and public services.
Romney says it's practically patriotic to avoid paying as many taxes as possible. Okay, maybe that's his reaction to a fubar tax code. But when push comes to shove, it's ONLY taxes that fund our military. He wants to play both sides of the field--paying less in taxes, AND having been exempt from military service--while pushing a tax-funded pro-military agenda.
That also means he can be co-opted by various interest groups, with conflicting ideology. Like the low-tax, no-tax-revenue Tea Party or Grover Norquist promise-keepers AND the neo-conservative military industrial complex true-believer hawks. Unfortunately for Romney, they're all residing within the GOP, and he is now considered the leader of the GOP.
Why bother having those? Just have the military decide.
It was made by a small local group against Paul Ryan, but arguably it represents a core re-election argument being made by Obama. We call those kinds of arguments "Mediscare".Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Meanwhile, it's come out that one of the Democrats videos about how heartless Bain capital killed babies and laid-off workers featured a guy who didn't actually work at the company in question. He was the non-employee union representative who stopped-by the steel mill sometime. I've seen some limited coverage calling Obama a liar for saying Romney wants to raise taxes, though not nearly as widespread coverage of the Romney/Ryan "fact checks".
and yet, as was pointed out ealier in the thread, Romney is the one getting called out, from both sides, for how false his medicare ads are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Sounds like that Disillusioned Obama Supporter who was actually a GOP Staffer :haha:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Do you see Obama reaching anything near 616 lies in 33 weeks?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Or are you already jumping on excuses? Should the media ignore how many times Romney lies because he does it more than Obama? :bulb:
You said a lot more:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lolkowski
1 happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust
2 was attempted by Obama but rejected by Congress.
3 didn't.
Seen worse predictions.
Well, I may have misunderstood all the plans, but I'm fairly sure nobody's plan included throwing people off cliffs! :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Wasn't stimulus 1/3 tax breaks?
He tried to cancel the Bush Tax cuts, but that was rejected sure.
And look at how the economy rebounded :)
That's a pretty low bar to set.Quote:
Seen worse predictions.
true, but I was trying to keep it to either politicans, or sane groups who have support for politicans. Having enough money to film a TV spot doesn't mean much for one's sanity. Just look at Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
No he didn't. He tried to cancel them for people making over $250k, which has a tiny fraction of the population.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust
Ah ok. I admit not following the specifics that closely, so I was ready to concede that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
He also closed Guantanamo, ended the war in Afghanistan, didn't start any more military actions, banned the use of illegal interrogation techniques, improved relations with North Korea and Iran, etc. :o
Well, that needed little incentive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Snickers?
http://www.americablog.com/2012/09/g...roy-small.html
Democrats boycott your business because you used the proceeds from your business to take away their civil rights, such as the Mormons did in financing Prop 8 or Chick-fil-A did in financing officially-designated hate groups. Republicans boycott your business because you got excited to meet the President of the United States.
I think they're just jealous for never receiving a hug like this.
It' s interesting how the 2012 US presidential elections seem to get less attention in Europe than usual. It's not like there is no interest at all, it' s just that people are not really talking about it like with earlier editions.
Probably because Europe has slightly larger problems to deal with than is usually the case. :o
Last I heard, it was what, 23 1 star reviews, and 300+ 5 star reviews? Mountains out of molehills, people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Over 1600 reviews from today alone, a vast majority of them 5 star now that this story has spread.
Even if the yelp profile was ass heavy with 1 star reviews, the place is across the street from a college, not exactly business ending.
Sounds straight out of GOP'sQuote:
Originally Posted by Lolkowski
Of course I don't want America to be hit by terrorists but it will be far more likely to happen under an Obama administration. And if conservatives loudly proclaim that he is weakening our defenses, he is emboldening the terrorists, and leaving us open for an attack, if (and I believe it is likely to occur) and when it does occur they need to immediately thrash Obama with it.
Under no circumstances should Republicans and conservatives work with Obama. At every level they need to vote against his social programs, point out the costs, attack him for hurting our war on terror, and all things look to avoid accepting any type of compromise or friendship with him.
When Obama is elected Republicans need to present a united front of anti-Obama. Not the crude trash that liberals delve in like "diebold" but plainly make the case that he is bad for the country we do not like his policies or trust his judgment as commander and chief.
leadershippower-play strategy session on inaugural night, whose #1 goal was to force Obama's failure and make him a one term President. That's how (R) got co-opted by the Tea Party, religious extremists, xenophobes, birthers, and fear mongers. No wonder it was a do-nothing congress with an approval rating below 10%. They abused filibusters, made 'compromise' a dirty word, lost our AAA rating, and became the Grand Obstructionist Party.
What a way to govern.
