Debate #3

[_Jason Bourne]

Kevin give it up dude. I understood it. Of course I knew he meant that we have a modern military and things change as a result. I simply thought his remark was childish. If you want to rant on about what I understood and did not understand feel free. But it makes you look foolish.

[_Jason Bourne]

Did you even read the article Bob posted?

Yes Kevin I read the article.

The Admiral didn't bring up the idiotic remark about having the fewest ships since 1916.

Did I say he did? No, I just said he agreed the Navy needed more ships.

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

Bingo!

But those comments were made way back in the Fall of 2009.

So what?

Ultimately, is it ridiculously irresponsible for any President to "jump" and comply whenever a military official suggests we need more military equipment.

Who is doing that? This is a leap isn't it? The only point made is that Romney agreed with a lead Admiral that the Navy needed more ships.

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.

Sure. Just like people lobby for national health care, farm subsidies, for planned parenthood support, and on and on and on. So what?

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.

Well hell Kev you are all for government spending. Why would the money be any less better spent to build ships than to build roads or hire teachers? It all goes into the economy somewhere right? Building ships would have paid a lot of ship builders wages would it not?

But I see your candidate wants to say screw the poor and the economy, and let's keep building weapons of mass destruction.

First of all I am not yet convinced he is my candidate. Second of all don't rant about the effects of Keynesian economics if you really want to argue with a straight face that building ships would have screwed the economy any more than paying teachers or policemen or spending it on so called shovel ready jobs. Building ships would have created jobs for those building the ships. Or is it for you that Keynesian economics works when YOU agree with what it is spent on? Last of all if you paid any attention to what people said rather than try to make a caricature out of any one who disagrees with you in the slightest you would know I am not for more defense spending. My entire point about this was I thought Obama's remark was silly, rude and condescending. He could have answered it in a much better way. But we all love meaningless zingers now don't we.

[_Brackite]

All of Debate #1 is online at: http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews ... of-denver/

The VP is online at: http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews ... e-college/

All of Debate #2 is online at: http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews ... niversity/

All of Debate #3 is online at: http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews ... oca-raton/

[_Kevin Graham]

Kevin give it up dude. I understood it

Then why respond the way you did?

Of course I knew he meant that we have a modern military and things change as a result.

But if you didn't misunderstand him to say we no longer used horses and bayonets, then why respond the way you did?

I simply thought his remark was childish.

Why? He clearly make Romney look stupid. The fact is the number of ships doesn't determine one's military strength, not in this day and age. Romney has no business being Commander in Chief if he can't grasp this simple fact. Obama's analogy to a child playing a game of battleship was pure genius.

If you want to rant on about what I understood and did not understand feel free. But it makes you look foolish.

Not when my points are supported by the evidence. No ranting here. Just a little confused and frustrated that you keep doing this crap. Jumping in with the latest FOX News "rebuttal" as if it has any merit, comparing me to bcspace as if there were any resemblance at all, and then pretend to be some moderate who is being perfectly fair and objective in this whole thing. And calling me bcspace makes YOU look foolish. Even EA corrected you on that point because the sources I use are infinitely more credible than the sources bcspace constantly throws up. I mean seriously, you want to compare Huffingtonpost to WND or Daily Caller? EA is no Liberal but he checked Mediamatters.org and said they typically rely on the right sources to get to the truth of any given matter. Huffington posts frequently posts articles critical of Obama, as I learn on Facebook every week when some Republican friends post articles from Huff, with titles like "What Obama doesn't want voters to know" etc etc. And I am constantly posting economic opinions from Reagan/Bush economists who refute many of Romney's idiotic doctrines. So for you to complain about bias as much as you do, just tells me you're not actually taking the time to read most of what you criticize.

Well hell Kev you are all for government spending. Why would the money be any less better spent to build ships than to build roads or hire teachers? It all goes into the economy somewhere right?

I'm sure your familiar with this notion called the cost/benefit analysis. The fact is teachers and roads provide services that don't expire as soon as the last ship is built. Military spending provides a drain in the overall scheme of things, even if it provide a short boost to the local shipbuilders. It provides no long term service whatsoever unless you think cruising around Muslim countries trying to intimidate them somehow provides a service. I live in Atlanta, just a few miles away from Lockheed. There are thousands of employees in this area dying to see Romney get elected because they know that means more contracts to produce more F-22s and such. They went through this phase in the early 90's and then again during the Iraq War. And if the government isn't constantly buying hundreds of billion dollar planes from them, Lockheed goes through a firing spree. Last year alone Lockheed fired 3,000 employees with more expected to lose their job this year. This, even despite the fact that the government had pours hundreds of billions into this company over the past twenty years. Talk about an "unsustainable trajectory." There is a reason why no one in their right mind thinks military ship building is going to do anything except provide a temporary boost to a local economy. That is the benefit that doesn't even begin to outweigh the cost to the tax payers.

But if you seriously don't see the difference between this and the hiring of thousands of teachers around the country, then there isn't really much else to say.

[_Jason Bourne]

Kevin give it up dude. I understood it

Then why respond the way you did?

I think I have told you about, what, three times already? I thought Obama's response was rude and condescending. I understood it and felt he could have answered it better than he did. Got it? You thought he was wonderful in his response. I did not. Zingers don't impress me.

Of course I knew he meant that we have a modern military and things change as a result.

But if you didn't misunderstand him to say we no longer used horses and bayonets, then why respond the way you did?

See above.

I simply thought his remark was childish.

Why? He clearly make Romney look stupid.

No I think he made himself look un-presidential.

The fact is the number of ships doesn't determine one's military strength, not in this day and age. Romney has no business being Commander in Chief if he can't grasp this simple fact. Obama's analogy to a child playing a game of battleship was pure genius.

The fact is Romney used that as one simple example. you think Obama's response was awesome. I don't. Quite simple. Got it now?

And by the way, as I have told you umpteen dozens of times I am not for increasing defense spending.I am for decreasing it. That alone may sway my vote to someone other than Romney. But we'll see. I am in an anti-incumbent mood across the board.

If you want to rant on about what I understood and did not understand feel free. But it makes you look foolish.

Not when my points are supported by the evidence. No ranting here.

My point is you were ranting about what I understood and did not understand. I understood it immediately when he made the comment. One thing you cannot do is read my mind.

Just a little confused and frustrated that you keep doing this crap. Jumping in with the latest FOX News "rebuttal" as if it has any merit,

You know your jabs at Fox News are boring and predictable. Fox News as about as reliable as any other cable network. Sure it tilts right and in some of its shows way right. Just as MSNBC is a constant commercial of left wing ideas. So what?

comparing me to bcspace as if there were any resemblance at all,

Bob L was the first to do that. I tend to agree. You are a left wing ideologue as much as BC is a right wing ideologue. That is fine. Own it. I do not mean it as a put down but it is a simple fact. Anyone can garner this by reading what you promote and your position against the Republicans and right wingers.

and then pretend to be some moderate who is being perfectly fair and objective in this whole thing.

I am more moderate. Right of center. My best friend at work who is as left as you seem these days though thinks I am becoming a Democrat. He may be right. Time will tell.

And calling me bcspace makes YOU look foolish.

I did not mean it as a put down.

Even EA corrected you on that point because the sources I use are infinitely more credible than the sources bcspace constantly throws up. I mean seriously, you want to compare Huffingtonpost to WND or Daily Caller?

Everyone thinks there sources are the best ones and most truthful.

EA is no Liberal but he checked Mediamatters.org and said they typically rely on the right sources to get to the truth of any given matter. Huffington posts frequently posts articles critical of Obama, as I learn on Facebook every week when some Republican friends post articles from Huff, with titles like "What Obama doesn't want voters to know" etc etc. And I am constantly posting economic opinions from Reagan/Bush economists who refute many of Romney's idiotic doctrines. So for you to complain about bias as much as you do, just tells me you're not actually taking the time to read most of what you criticize.

At times I read in depth, at times I skim. I will admit a few times when I skimmed I missed critical points and admitted as such later.

Well hell Kev you are all for government spending. Why would the money be any less better spent to build ships than to build roads or hire teachers? It all goes into the economy somewhere right?

I'm sure your familiar with this notion called the cost/benefit analysis. The fact is teachers and roads provide services that don't expire as soon as the last ship is built. Military spending provides a drain in the overall scheme of things, even if it provide a short boost to the local shipbuilders. It provides no long term service whatsoever unless you think cruising around Muslim countries trying to intimidate them somehow provides a service. I live in Atlanta, just a few miles away from Lockheed. There are thousands of employees in this area dying to see Romney get elected because they know that means more contracts to produce more F-22s and such. They went through this phase in the early 90's and then again during the Iraq War. And if the government isn't constantly buying hundreds of billion dollar planes from them, Lockheed goes through a firing spree. Last year alone Lockheed fired 3,000 employees with more expected to lose their job this year. This, even despite the fact that the government had pours hundreds of billions into this company over the past twenty years. Talk about an "unsustainable trajectory." There is a reason why no one in their right mind thinks military ship building is going to do anything except provide a temporary boost to a local economy. That is the benefit that doesn't even begin to outweigh the cost to the tax payers.

Paying teachers may have long term benefits as long as they continue to get paid because they spend. And the teach which should pay dividends down the road. But once a bridge is built or repaired that work is done just as much as it is when a plane or ship is built that work is done as well. Sure the bridge makes travel better, safer and more convenient. Some may argue the strong defense makes us safer and more secure. But don't mistake my comments to say I would rather spend on ships than roads and bridges. That is not my point. I am simply pointing out that spending money on building weapons can stimulate the economy as much as other things.

But if you seriously don't see the difference between this and the hiring of thousands of teachers around the country, then there isn't really much else to say.

Oh I see. Since I view things differently and have a different opinion than you I am wrong and there is no reason to discuss further. How typical this is becoming of you.