Printable View
LRA, no, that to protect other brownies? Though I didn't know you did drone strikes there, thought you just had some special ops advisers to the local armies. Pakistanis, well, they only bomb people who are supposed to be Al Qaeda or Taliban, no? Same in Somalia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Erm, and you think in Iraq and Afghanistan we didn't target people who were Al Qaeda and Taliban?
Afghanistan, yes, where did you see me comment about that? Iraq, no, you did not go in there to fight Al Qaeda, or Taliban, for that matter. Of course, now you're there you managed to get them in the game too there, so that's going rather well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
The Taliban wronged the US no more than Saddam Hussein. Not quite sure why it's ok to kill them but not Hussein supporters.
Quote where the dead 'brown people' rather than our own good ole boys is the object of concern re:Bush please?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Knock it off, Loki. Seriously. I've posted long enough for anyone to know I don't support "pre-emptive" strikes as part of national defense, and don't view the issue from party lines as (R) vs (D) define it. I've said more than once that any legislator who prefers diplomacy and non-violent incentives/threats over saber rattling and "war mongering fear" would be better than the alternative. That includes Dick Lugar, Colin Powell, Ron Paul, and other Republican conservatives that don't define the USA as an Empire, let alone a military Empire.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
When the debates take up IR and foreign policy, I hope they'll focus on our new reality in The World. Military technology, economic sanctions, funding, budgets, and -- most importantly -- the Human Element. That means our own troops as well as innocent others. The US is still a military Super Power, but it's insane to think we can use our military might to control world events.
While I'm not an Obama fan, I'm really getting over the talking heads getting all giddy on the poll bump Romney is getting from the debate...there are 2 more to go, let's see how THOSE go.
I'm wondering if the reason for the bump is that the media so vilified Romney in the last year that when people saw that the guy isn't a fire-breathing demon, they felt lied to, and shifted their support to Romney. It would explain why Romney's approval ratings went up 5-6% after the speech (Obama's didn't fall).
I agree, PresBo spent a fuck ton of cash painting Romney as a guy that loves kicking puppies, killing factory worker's spouses, and a tax evader.
Then people see him live for the first time. All that money goes poof!
Yeah. I think that played a much bigger role than either candidate's debating performance, which suggests to me that the next two debates won't make much of a difference (the people already figured out what both candidates are like). The bump Romney received will probably decrease over time as people get bombarded with more anti-Romney stories though. Maybe the media can run a million specials over Romney's Libya comments while completely ignoring Obama's role in the death of a US ambassador.
Heh, don't worry, even if the press looks at Lybia instead of Big Bird, PresBo can try to throw Hillary under the bus.
or, that he can act like he isn't one :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
you ruined their circlejerking :(
Which was what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
not much of a circle...with 2. Care to join, or are you too wimpy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Wife gets real jealous about that type of thing. Even when its only 1 partaking :(
Huh, sounds like a 'you' problem, and not a 'me' problem. :)
The people who saw Romney Live for the "first time" are either 18-21 yr olds, or have been living under a rock for the last decade. He was running for POTUS last time around, and was in those GOP debates, too. Romney has a pretty long history of public debates and speeches, dating back to his Senate run against Ted Kennedy, and again when running for Governor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
He practically has his own youtube archive. But there's the rub....his positions can be compared and contrasted over time, and they change according to his audience. Or what he thinks the audience wants to hear. It's like watching Mitt debate Mitt. Even his (R) peers say the same thing. Romney is a well lubricated weather vane and you never know which Mitt you'll get.
Like the flies of may,
so are people's memories
of politics
Live for the first time isn't meant to be literal. Keep in mind most Americans are not nearly as politically active as this forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/image...3_63444822.jpg
"Let's do this, motherfucker"
News seems to be leaning towards Biden doing a pretty good job of winning this one, but I didn't watch. Was trying to get my money's worth from my free redbox rental.
You chose...wisely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
I don't know, I was pretty entertained. At least it was more lively than last week's Presidential debate.
You know, if a Republican was that disrespectful in a debate, the media would be up in a frenzy. If Biden does it, it's a sign of strength!
You know, that's pretty funny, because I saw a Democrat supporter making exactly the same point about Romney talking over Obama during the first debate compared to Biden against Ryan. And it's double funny because no one in either case had actually said anything at all about anything being a "sign of strength". It's interesting how partisan's minds work in the basically same way, even when they're on opposite sides.
You're going to compare talking over someone (which both Obama and Romney did) with constant insults, inappropriate laughs, and downright nastiness?
On CNN and CNBC its seemed like they were calling it more of a tie with their polls showing a very slight lead with Ryan, but those generally are pretty weak anyway. They discussed all the laughing and smirking from Biden as disrespectful, though.
No, I haven't watched any of the debates so far and don't intend to watch any of them in the future, either. I just found it funny to see you saying exactly the same thing I'd seen some Democrat say with the terms reversed. Literally the same words - "sign of strength". Has anyone actually said something to do with the debates was a sign of strength, for anyone on either side? No, I don't think they have. It's just something partisans make up when they're having imaginary debates with their pretend opponents.Quote:
You're going to compare talking over someone (which both Obama and Romney did) with constant insults, inappropriate laughs, and downright nastiness?