Debate #3
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3323
- Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 2:26 am
Re: Debate #3
by the way, the reason for the cut in fleet size was that the CBO said it would cost too much. The administration sided with the CBO, not the navy.
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS
"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 13037
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm
Re: Debate #3
Fewer ships being built means a smaller navy. Romney was right.
That's just pathetic, Bob. This kind of apologetic thinking goes along with the Right Wing defense of his 47% remark. "It is true that 47% of Americans pay no taxes. So Romney was right."
Yes, as if that were the point of his remarks. No Bob, Romney was wrong, for all the reasons mentioned in the Politifact piece above. You've ignored the context of his statement and tried to isolate an anecdote from Pentagon requests, one that has nothing to do with Romney's criticism, in order to find some sliver of hope that Romney could be "right" about something.
One can argue that the navy doesn't need 313 ships, but the navy asked for them, and the request was denied.
And for good reason. Military officials are constantly being bribed by lobbyists and contractors to request more needless tanks, planes, ships, tomahawk missiles, etc.
Saying we don't need bayonets and horses is a non-response to a legitimate question about whether our navy is being stretched too thin or not.
It isn't. We have a dozen aircraft carriers at any given time but really only use two or three, usually for monitoring purposes. These are traveling airports with the capacity to level a country within striking distance. Do you really think our enemies are going to care if we have 11 aircraft carriers of 30? Or a thousand nuclear warheads compared to 10,000?
And it's interesting that Admiral Roughead said he was concerned that the navy was smaller than it has been since 1916, but no one made fun of him for saying so. I wonder why not.
Then allow me. He is an idiot. Had his remark been known to a wider audience, I suspect others would have called him out on it. The only reason we're hearing about it now is because it is being used to justify Romney's idiotic remark.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 2555
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:18 pm
Re: Debate #3
Thanks, Bob. I'll look at that.
"The DNA of fictional populations appears to be the most susceptible to extinction." - Simon Southerton
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3323
- Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 2:26 am
Re: Debate #3
Kevin Graham wrote:Then allow me. He is an idiot. Had his remark been known to a wider audience, I suspect others would have called him out on it. The only reason we're hearing about it now is because it is being used to justify Romney's idiotic remark.
I love it. The Chief of Naval Operations says our fleet is too small and is deploying an increasing percentage of its fleet, thus reducing its readiness, and you call him an idiot who's probably taking bribes from the defense industry. Why? Because Romney quoted him.
Jesus H. Christ. It's fine to disagree with the Chief of Naval Operations, but it's ridiculous to call Romney a liar for agreeing wit him. Both candidates have told lies, and a lot of them. How this qualifies as a lie escapes me.
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS
"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 2555
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:18 pm
Re: Debate #3
By the way, while the navy put-down got all the attention, I thought Obama's best line from the debate was the one about foreign policy from the 80s, social policy from the 50s, and economic policy from the 20s.
That pretty much pegs how I see it too.
That pretty much pegs how I see it too.
"The DNA of fictional populations appears to be the most susceptible to extinction." - Simon Southerton
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3323
- Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 2:26 am
Re: Debate #3
krose wrote:By the way, while the navy put-down got all the attention, I thought Obama's best line from the debate was the one about foreign policy from the 80s, social policy from the 50s, and economic policy from the 20s.
That pretty much pegs how I see it too.
From what I can see, a lot of what the president did last night was intended to fire up his base, which it most likely did. I'm not sure it was as well-received among independents.
That said, I'm still pretty sure Obama will win, though less sure than I was a few weeks ago. The electoral math is still harder for Romney than it is for Obama.
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS
"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 7306
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:52 am
Re: Debate #3
Bob Loblaw wrote:Drifting wrote:Shouldn't Romney be held to a higher standard of honesty, at least by fellow Mormons?
Why are you asking me? I'm not a fellow Mormon. I guess I'm just tired of this feigned shock at how much Romney lies. We had a candidate who campaigned against a healthcare individual mandate, only to propose and pass an individual mandate. He said that the penalties for not buying insurance were not a tax ("I absolutely reject that notion") and then argued that the law shouldn't be overturned because it was essentially a constitutionally allowed tax. He said he would stop federal raids on medical marijuana clinics, saying that he was "not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws.” His drug czar went so far as to say "We certainly ended the drug war." The problem is that the raids have increased significantly under Obama. He said his healthcare plan would reduce premiums by $2500 a year, and now he says he just meant that the premiums wouldn't rise as quickly (which they are).
Politicians lie. Mitt Romney has changed his positions, as has Barack Obama.
The difference being that Obama hasn't solemnly covenanted with God that he will obey the commandments, including being "honest, true" etc and being "honest in your dealings with your fellow man". The fact that Romney has done so makes me inclined to view him as callously two-faced. Romney has lied to God (his Bishop should be taking his Temple Recommend off him). I don't see Obama that way. That the Mormon's (on this board and elsewhere) aren't embarrassed or ashamed about Romney's breaching of his covenants says a lot about their integrity, in my opinion.
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.”
Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!"
Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!"
Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 9207
- Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm
Re: Debate #3
Drifting wrote:Thanks Jason, what do you think will cost him the Whitehouse?
If he loses it will be because people prefer Obama and his view more than Romeny and his. Of course how people view each man based on the spins each side puts on them is uncertain.
And for Kevin G yes Kevin I understood Obama's point in spite of my disagreeing with you that his remark was a big score for Obama. And it seems pretty clear that at least one navy admiral felt the same way as Romney. But of course that admiral must be an idiot because he disagrees with you and your candidate.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 13037
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm
Re: Debate #3
Kevin I understood Obama's point in spite of my disagreeing with you that his remark was a big score for Obama.
No, Jason you understood him saying we no longer had horses and bayonets, which is clearly NOT what he said. Hence, you misunderstood him and simply repeated a retort the Right Wing immediately crafted as a way to take focus off of Romney's idiocy. Saying you understood him when your response shows you clearly didn't, is just silly. Why can't you just admit this?
And it seems pretty clear that at least one navy admiral felt the same way as Romney.
Did you even read the article Bob posted? The Admiral didn't bring up the idiotic remark about having the fewest ships since 1916. The author of that article did. The admiral's remarks simply said he would like to have forty more war ships, given the added responsibilities the Navy has been given to secure the globe. But those comments were made way back in the Fall of 2009. Ultimately, is it ridiculously irresponsible for any President to "jump" and comply whenever a military official suggests we need more military equipment. As I said before, these military officials frequently lobby for these things, and they usually retire to make million dollar salaries as lobbyists for the industry, as a reward for their ability to shape legislation. DO you think this is all just a coincidence? For Obama to jump and hand over a few hundred billion for forty ships, during the worst economic crisis since the depression, would have been foolish. But I see your candidate wants to say screw the poor and the economy, and let's keep building weapons of mass destruction.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 13037
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm
Re: Debate #3
Kevin I understood Obama's point in spite of my disagreeing with you that his remark was a big score for Obama.
No, Jason you understood him saying we no longer had horses and bayonets, which is clearly NOT what he said. Hence, you misunderstood him and simply repeated a retort the Right Wing immediately crafted as a way to take focus off of Romney's idiocy. Saying you understood him when your response shows you clearly didn't, is just silly. Why can't you just admit this?
And it seems pretty clear that at least one navy admiral felt the same way as Romney.
Did you even read the article Bob posted? The Admiral didn't bring up the idiotic remark about having the fewest ships since 1916. The author of that article did. The admiral's remarks simply said he would like to have forty more war ships, given the added responsibilities the Navy has been given to secure the globe. But those comments were made way back in the Fall of 2009. Ultimately, is it ridiculously irresponsible for any President to "jump" and comply whenever a military official suggests we need more military equipment. As I said before, these military officials frequently lobby for these things, and they usually retire to make million dollar salaries as lobbyists for the industry, as a reward for their ability to shape legislation. DO you think this is all just a coincidence? For Obama to jump and hand over a few hundred billion for forty ships, during the worst economic crisis since the depression, would have been foolish. But I see your candidate wants to say screw the poor and the economy, and let's keep building weapons of mass destruction.