President Obama

[Malcador]

I'm guessing the foreign policy debate will also attack Obama for weakness on Iran and Syria, as well. Former will also gets the bonus of the charge of abandoning the loyal ally Israel.

[Tigranes]

I loved the two 'China 'em evil bastards' jabs in the first debate by Romney. If that's the style he's going for, then the second debate will be trickier, because he'll have to tread the fine line between differentiating sufficiently from Obama and declaring how he'll go tough on China etc, and avoiding sounding like some warmonger crying about how China is the new Soviet Union.

 

The major problem I had with Obama's performance was that his primary line of attack was "Romney if you do everything you say you'll do today that's great but you won't do it and it can't work", which is far too difficult to parse through when you're watching TV and Romney is right back in your face. Combine that with Obama's refusal to defend his record and focus on the 'future', and all that remains is: (1) the Romney narrative on how everything was screwed up last 4 years; (2) the debate over whether the Romney Plan for the next 4 years works or not, is real or not, etc. There's a critical lack of a focus on Obama and his own vision, which will have to come out whether retrospectively or prescriptively.

[Gfted1]

Also, on Foreign Policy, If Obama says he's gonna kill a dude, he kills that guy. No "Oh well we got his second in command four times!" just "He's dead biatch!"

 

*sigh*

 

Yes, because the other times they missed him on order of Bush.

[ravenshrike]

Yeah, another point on FP is where Obama left our ass hanging in the wind in Benghazi, and then when the fecal matter hit the rotary impeller started lying through his teeth on the issue. All intelligence pointed towards Benghazi as an AQ hotspot. This was the explicit reason that the Brits pulled out of Benghazi in June after AQ tried to assassinate the British ambassador. There was no mob at the Benghazi consulate until well after the attack started. There certainly wasn't one at the SAFE HOUSE. And yet, somehow Stevens' death on 9/11 was caused by a shoddy movie trailer. ****ing pathetic.

 

The more I see you post, the more I think you're taking Glenn Beck as holy writ. Or Faux News.

 

Also, on Foreign Policy, If Obama says he's gonna kill a dude, he kills that guy. No "Oh well we got his second in command four times!" just "He's dead biatch!"

Sorry, never watched GB a day in my life and never watch FN or FNC.

 

However, just to shut you up...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk...e-east-19605322

US embassies and consulates in areas of the world where they are deemed liable to attack are usually offered a formal security contract called a Worldwide Protective Services Agreement, known in the industry as a 'Wips'.

The contract, or so-called tasking order, is between the US state department and any one of several major private military contractors such as DynCorp International and Aegis Defence Services.

Under this agreement, extensive security precautions are put in place, including low-profile armoured vehicles, run-flat tyres, sufficient weapons, ammunition and trained personnel, as well as a tried and tested command and control system.

But sources have told the BBC that on the advice of a US diplomatic regional security officer, the mission in Benghazi was not given the full contract despite lobbying by private contractors.

Instead, the US consulate was guarded externally by a force of local Libyan militia, many of whom reportedly put down their weapons and fled once the mission came under concerted attack.

 

Inside the consulate, the defenders - consisting of a small group of Libyans and private US contractors who had formerly served in the US military including the elite Navy Seals - returned fire and put into action a fall-back plan to evacuate staff to a second building.

But the defenders were quickly outgunned by the sizable and determined attacking force that used heavy weapons including rocket-propelled grenades prompting investigators to consider whether Tuesday's attack had in fact been planned in advance by a jihadist group.

"This was a well-crafted military operation [by the attackers]," said former Libyan jihadist Noman Benotman. "They would have carried out at least two weeks of surveillance."

With fires blazing inside the compound within minutes of the attack beginning, the US ambassador became separated from other staff in thick smoke, which is believed to have caused him to suffocate.

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2...rnal/index.html

Three days after he was killed, CNN found a journal belonging to late U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. The journal was found on the floor of the largely unsecured consulate compound where he was fatally wounded.

CNN notified Stevens' family about the journal within hours after it was discovered and at the family's request provided it to them via a third party.

The journal consists of just seven pages of handwriting in a hard-bound book.

For CNN, the ambassador's writings served as tips about the situation in Libya, and in Benghazi in particular. CNN took the newsworthy tips and corroborated them with other sources.

A source familiar with Stevens' thinking told CNN earlier this week that, in the months leading up to his death, the late ambassador worried about what he called the security threats in Benghazi and a rise in Islamic extremism.

http://townhall.com/...security_lapses

. Appearing on Sunday's Meet the Press, Rice claimed that two of the four American diplomatic staff murdered in Benghazi were security personnel; evidence, she said, that the diplomatic outpost was not unprotected. NBC Nightly News now reports that her assertion was untrue

www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvijJvTDJ2s

 

Now, unless you're going to start calling the BBC, NBC, and CNN fox news' shills, I suggest you rethink your argument.

[Calax]

Well other than the fact that you Have one news item that's "Oh hey! We found a journal". Another that just says that the Consulate made bad security choices. And the third says... that the place was entirely unprotected(?)

 

So... you've got an article that says there was security, but an inside job and an organized military strike won out. A second article that says that the strike won out because of the fact that the embassy made bad security decisions, but still had a capable core of security individuals who managed to get most out alive. And the last one has a member of the Administration saying there was security... and NBC saying that there wasn't in spite of the other two articles?

 

Are you trying to say that the Consulate had security and Obama lied about it being stronger than it was, or that it didn't have security and Obama lied that it did? Because the three articles you linked are arguing about that. By the way, nice job on getting the NBC thing from a republican spin blog. Really a good way to prove your point.

 

Also None of those quote have anything said about Al Queda, only that it was Islamic militants. So if you would like to point out where somebody said "Al Queda" that's not a fox news member, please, be my guest.

 

I get the feeling even Ye Olde Guard Dog (please let him return soon) would laugh at your rhetoric.

[Humodour]

My feeling is that Obama deliberately flunked that debate so that he would get American society's permission to demolish Romney with negative attacks.

 

After all, negative attacks are exactly what Obama didn't do in the first debate, exactly what people claim to hate, and yet also exactly what people and the media are now asking for unanimously. Whereas if Obama had of attacked Romney and his policies mercilessly in the first debate, people might instead be talking about how negative Obama was.

 

Seems like a pretty clever move to me. Especially since all Obama has to do is not screw up to win the election (even if that means being a little boring).

 

Also, US unemployment fell a whole bunch to below 8%, and employment is now above the level it was when Obama took office. That kills one of Romney's strongest attack lines of the first debate. I wonder if Obama knew this figure was coming before the debate? You'd imagine so - these figures can certainly leak early to the political class in Australia.

[Humodour]

I get the feeling even Ye Olde Guard Dog (please let him return soon) would laugh at your rhetoric.

 

I wouldn't waste your breath on him. I know it's worth debunking lies and trying to win over open-minded voters with rational arguments, but it's probably worth doing that with independents rather than rude rusted-on Faux News repubs like Ravenshrike.

[Blodhemn]

Is there even a difference in foreign policy between the two? I was always under the impression that they differed the most on domestic and economical issues.

Agreed. When you have the warmongering Hillary Clinton as your Sec of State, I don't see how you can claim to be much different than most Republicans on foreign policy. Let's not forget that she fully supported Bush's Iraq war before it became politically trendy to do otherwise, and former President Mr Clinton supported it as well. People want to try to break it down and grasp at straws, but the fact remains, the Obama Admin encourages turmoil and destabilization in the middle east, and is hated more or less the same.

[ravenshrike]

Also, US unemployment fell a whole bunch to below 8%, and employment is now above the level it was when Obama took office. That kills one of Romney's strongest attack lines of the first debate. I wonder if Obama knew this figure was coming before the debate? You'd imagine so - these figures can certainly leak early to the political class in Australia.

Oooh oooh, fun fact, this was the first time since they started keeping records on the subject that the employment numbers for the 20-24 age range went up in September. Which means one of two things. Either someone ****ed with the numbers in the survey, or a ****load less people went to college this year and picked up part time jobs instead.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-05/strangest-number-todays-jobs-number

 

 

The fact of the matter is full-time employment hasn't gone up AT ALL. Which is the important kind of employment when discussing economic growth.

[Blodhemn]

Yeah that's pretty comical that an Aussie is going to speak for the US economy based off of skewed numbers just because the side that he wants to win is releasing said numbers. I'm no Romney supporter either, I'm just kind of sick of outsiders being more biased for one candidate than many Americans are..

[Hurlshort]

I think the whole idea of attacking the employment numbers is ridiculous. We should all want the economy to improve, and the numbers are still positive growth. Spinning them into a negative is stupid, and Romney needs to get rid of his campaign people because they keep making stupid choices like this.

 

I would love to see Romney challenge Obama to be a better President. He has some momentum after the debate, so maybe he can get it together.

[Blodhemn]

There's growth but it's slow, and it could be argued that the focus on Healthcare certainly hurt the recovery. I said it from day one that it's just bad management to do such a thing during bad economic times - simply illogical, it stunts real growth and everyone who passed that bill knew it would do so, they just wanted to be a part of "history". I'm voting for neither of these guys, even though I think Romney would be better for the economy(though that's certainly no sure bet), but his foreign policy would be awful and he'll be mostly controlled on that front much like Obama is.

[Calax]

There's growth but it's slow, and it could be argued that the focus on Healthcare certainly hurt the recovery. I said it from day one that it's just bad management to do such a thing during bad economic times - simply illogical, it stunts real growth and everyone who passed that bill knew it would do so, they just wanted to be a part of "history". I'm voting for neither of these guys, even though I think Romney would be better for the economy(though that's certainly no sure bet), but his foreign policy would be awful and he'll be mostly controlled on that front much like Obama is.

 

Do you even understand basic economics? In order for the economy to grow, money has to be spent. The private sector is obviously reluctant to do so, so we have to at least do some with the governments.

 

It's hilarious that you call the Clintons "Warmongering" given that during the Clinton administration there was only an armed intervention within the former Yugoslav Republics that led to the first war crimes trial of a had of state, and a 4 day airstrike campaign against Iraq for it's failure to follow the UN procedures that it agreed to. Iraq was a dog and pony show completely by the executive branch, with disregard to the War Powers Act.

 

Understand, the Republicans blocked efforts to fix the economy, and instead spent a day "Reaffirming that "In God We Trust" is the official motto of the United States" because they think Obama will turn us godless.

[ravenshrike]

Ah, the smell of Neo-Keynesianism. That bastard Bernanke has started pumping 40 billion a month of quantitative easing into the economy, all just to cover his ass over the election period since Romney specifically called his ass out on the carpet. The Fed has been wrong about every major economic development over the past 20 years. The government cannot FIX the economy, and even Keynes assumed that the deficit spending on things like infrastructure envisioned in his plan would be a marked change from the status quo, instead of a merely amping up of the status quo.

[Calax]

Fix? No, but they can stimulate.

 

Otherwise why would people be offering negative interest loans to the government so it could spend like crazy to avoid a full on depression instead of a recession?

 

I mean, people like Romney and larger corps are just pulling money out of the US economy and letting it sit in their accounts, without doing anything within the economy to provide stimulation.

[Hurlshort]

There's growth but it's slow, and it could be argued that the focus on Healthcare certainly hurt the recovery. I said it from day one that it's just bad management to do such a thing during bad economic times - simply illogical, it stunts real growth and everyone who passed that bill knew it would do so, they just wanted to be a part of "history". I'm voting for neither of these guys, even though I think Romney would be better for the economy(though that's certainly no sure bet), but his foreign policy would be awful and he'll be mostly controlled on that front much like Obama is.

 

Most of the stuff from Obamacare hasn't actually been enacted yet.

[Humodour]

There's growth but it's slow, and it could be argued that the focus on Healthcare certainly hurt the recovery. I said it from day one that it's just bad management to do such a thing during bad economic times - simply illogical, it stunts real growth and everyone who passed that bill knew it would do so, they just wanted to be a part of "history". I'm voting for neither of these guys, even though I think Romney would be better for the economy(though that's certainly no sure bet), but his foreign policy would be awful and he'll be mostly controlled on that front much like Obama is.

 

Most of the stuff from Obamacare hasn't actually been enacted yet.

 

Shhh! Don't let facts get in the way of a good blame and shame session!

 

And now, for something completely different: here is a Republican member of the House science committee stating that evolution is a godless lie from the pit of hell meant to turn us away from being saved by Jeeeebus: http://bostonherald....om__pit_of_hell

[NOK222]

There's growth but it's slow, and it could be argued that the focus on Healthcare certainly hurt the recovery. I said it from day one that it's just bad management to do such a thing during bad economic times - simply illogical, it stunts real growth and everyone who passed that bill knew it would do so, they just wanted to be a part of "history". I'm voting for neither of these guys, even though I think Romney would be better for the economy(though that's certainly no sure bet), but his foreign policy would be awful and he'll be mostly controlled on that front much like Obama is.

 

Most of the stuff from Obamacare hasn't actually been enacted yet.

 

Shhh! Don't let facts get in the way of a good blame and shame session!

 

And now, for something completely different: here is a Republican member of the House science committee stating that evolution is a godless lie from the pit of hell meant to turn us away from being saved by Jeeeebus: http://bostonherald....om__pit_of_hell

 

I saw that earlier, it sickens me that him and "Legitimate Rape" guy is on a ****ING SCIENCE COMITY.

[Blodhemn]

There's growth but it's slow, and it could be argued that the focus on Healthcare certainly hurt the recovery. I said it from day one that it's just bad management to do such a thing during bad economic times - simply illogical, it stunts real growth and everyone who passed that bill knew it would do so, they just wanted to be a part of "history". I'm voting for neither of these guys, even though I think Romney would be better for the economy(though that's certainly no sure bet), but his foreign policy would be awful and he'll be mostly controlled on that front much like Obama is.

 

Most of the stuff from Obamacare hasn't actually been enacted yet.

Like I said, it can be argued that the uncertainty isn't very favorable to businesses when it comes to hiring. But if you want to think otherwise, that's your prerogative but I wouldn't totally dismiss what I said either.

[Blodhemn]

There's growth but it's slow, and it could be argued that the focus on Healthcare certainly hurt the recovery. I said it from day one that it's just bad management to do such a thing during bad economic times - simply illogical, it stunts real growth and everyone who passed that bill knew it would do so, they just wanted to be a part of "history". I'm voting for neither of these guys, even though I think Romney would be better for the economy(though that's certainly no sure bet), but his foreign policy would be awful and he'll be mostly controlled on that front much like Obama is.

 

Do you even understand basic economics? In order for the economy to grow, money has to be spent. The private sector is obviously reluctant to do so, so we have to at least do some with the governments.

 

It's hilarious that you call the Clintons "Warmongering" given that during the Clinton administration there was only an armed intervention within the former Yugoslav Republics that led to the first war crimes trial of a had of state, and a 4 day airstrike campaign against Iraq for it's failure to follow the UN procedures that it agreed to. Iraq was a dog and pony show completely by the executive branch, with disregard to the War Powers Act.

 

Understand, the Republicans blocked efforts to fix the economy, and instead spent a day "Reaffirming that "In God We Trust" is the official motto of the United States" because they think Obama will turn us godless.

 

Money doesn't have to be spent, it has to be invested.. You don't grow an economy by blindly throwing money into systems and hoping for the best.

 

Hillary is certainly a warmongerer. What do you think she's been doing this whole time in the middle east? She's really no different than a right winger, but go ahead and pretend she is just because she plays ball on your team..

[alanschu]

Since healthcare was mentioned, I did find this American's perspective different, mostly because I was able to get some sort of glimpse into what may motivate someone to feel Universal Health Care is an infringement on one's freedoms (a position I never fully understood).

[Gorgon]

50 days to a year in paid maternity leave. I don't disagree with it, just from experience those kinds of laws can prevent women from getting hired.

[Humodour]

50 days to a year in paid maternity leave. I don't disagree with it, just from experience those kinds of laws can prevent women from getting hired.

 

It's 6 weeks here.

 

But the bat**** crazy leader (Tony Abbott) of our conservative party (which historically has been centre-right, but under his auspices has become extreme far-right) has such an image problem with women that he's been throwing around claims that he'll extend it to 6 months if people would just vote for him.

 

His colleagues hate the idea, and he didn't pass it by them first. So it won't actually get implemented even if he does get in power, but you know, conservatives will pretend they'll implement any socially progressive policy if it gets them into power.

[alanschu]

50 days to a year in paid maternity leave. I don't disagree with it, just from experience those kinds of laws can prevent women from getting hired.

 

Not being a woman I don't know if it's much of an issue. All of my female friends and relatives seem to have decent jobs that they enjoy though. One recently became a doctor and then almost immediately put out 2 kids afterward, so.... haha.

[ravenshrike]

There's growth but it's slow, and it could be argued that the focus on Healthcare certainly hurt the recovery. I said it from day one that it's just bad management to do such a thing during bad economic times - simply illogical, it stunts real growth and everyone who passed that bill knew it would do so, they just wanted to be a part of "history". I'm voting for neither of these guys, even though I think Romney would be better for the economy(though that's certainly no sure bet), but his foreign policy would be awful and he'll be mostly controlled on that front much like Obama is.

 

Most of the stuff from Obamacare hasn't actually been enacted yet.

Yes, because when a business owner is thinking about hiring someone on part or full time they only think about the immediate costs. They never look 6 months to a few years down the road and figure their costs. Oh wait, that's EXACTLY what they do.