The Goat Pen

I dont know which is worse, that Romney didn't know that the Iranian navy is one of our bigger headaches in the Persian Gulf or that Obama didn't even swing at the hanging curve.

If only we still had that mighty sailboat fleet (or were they still using oars for propulsion?) from 1917 that Romney mentioned, our troubles in the region would be over...

I saw it reported that after that navy exchange last night, John Kerry tweeted "I think POTUS just sank Romney's battleship"...

I hope you really dont think that we were using sailboats in 1917

ATM with the torpedo...

I admitted the possibility of oar propelled boats...

I wonder how the 1917 navy would fare against today's navy....

check out these "pranks" from Romney in High School

In one, he outsources the janitor, in another, he plays tricks on poor people by putting a dollar bill on a string and pulling it away from them. Wow

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012 ... ool-pranks

Neat

http://www.airfuelsynthesis.com/

LMAO do people really get taken in and invest in garbage like this?

The company proposes to use a “mist” of sodium hydroxide to capture carbon dioxide from the air. Hydrogen, having been stripped from the water is then mixed with carbon dioxide to make methanol. In turn this methanol is moved through a gasoline reactor to produce gasoline.

Let me help you out a little bit with this bullshit concept a bit....why do'nt you try getting this part of it right before you add on all this other bullshit.

sardis wrote:Wow, clearly a concerted effort by certain "powerful political influences" to suppress the vote of those who are most vulnerable, our elderly....shameful...just shameful.

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Feds-t ... index.html

Find out who in the private sector who is doing it and send them to jail. Not govt sponsored as other

hellish two days earning this scratch that keeps the mortgage paid and bellies full. I still owe IB some research. Haven't gotten to it yet, but will today, I expect.

I finally watched most of the debate and am even more annoyed by Romney. I just don't get it. It's unabashed reversals on positions he took as recently as weeks ago. I just don't get how voters could feel comfortable with that type of behavior. I guess it's just blind party affiliation or an "Anybody but Obama" philosophy...which is doubly ironic because Romney tacked right along with Obama's policies. I just don't get the electorate or the media sometimes. I really see it as a total failure in political integrity and it's just taken as it is, for the most part.

I think our foreign policy has morphed into a position that isn't as divided as domestic issues. I think Romney read that it is not a high priority issue with the public and decided that foreign policy is not worth battling Obama over. Just keep the conversation about the economy.

Good George Will article about George McGovern and how our foreign policy is gravitating to his positions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... ml?hpid=z2

sardis wrote:I think our foreign policy has morphed into a position that isn't as divided as domestic issues. I think Romney read that it is not a high priority issue with the public and decided that foreign policy is not worth battling Obama over. Just keep the conversation about the economy.

Good George Will article about George McGovern and how our foreign policy is gravitating to his positions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... ml?hpid=z2

I think Romney would lose on Foreign Policy.

He is gonna outkill Obama on Al-Qaeda? Is he going to promote bringing troops back to Iraq? He's a goddamned fool if he starts talking war with Iran and now that he the GOP nomination he won't go near that discussion. The only piece he has is unconditional support for Israel which doesn't make him GOP, it just makes him a paid puppet for IPAC.

The reason he played neutral on foreign policy is the same reason he play neutral in the GOP debates - he has the lead, don't risk losing it on any position.

Obama is more of a war hawk than half the GOP field. Romney would have to cross over into uncomfortable war mongering to out war Obama.

aTm wrote:

they kill anyone wearing wool socks

eCat wrote:

sardis wrote:I think our foreign policy has morphed into a position that isn't as divided as domestic issues. I think Romney read that it is not a high priority issue with the public and decided that foreign policy is not worth battling Obama over. Just keep the conversation about the economy.

Good George Will article about George McGovern and how our foreign policy is gravitating to his positions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... ml?hpid=z2

I think Romney would lose on Foreign Policy.

He is gonna outkill Obama on Al-Qaeda? Is he going to promote bringing troops back to Iraq? He's a goddamned fool if he starts talking war with Iran and now that he the GOP nomination he won't go near that discussion. The only piece he has is unconditional support for Israel which doesn't make him GOP, it just makes him a paid puppet for IPAC.

The reason he played neutral on foreign policy is the same reason he play neutral in the GOP debates - he has the lead, don't risk losing it on any position.

Obama is more of a war hawk than half the GOP field. Romney would have to cross over into uncomfortable war mongering to out war Obama.

I agree. Romney knew he couldn't differentiate himself from Obama's record on foreign policy because Obama has molded his policy to what the large majority of the citizenry want. People here complain about Romney changing his views, Obama has become more hawkish since his 2008 positions. You look at his use of drones, Guatanamo Bay, and his statement the other night on his support for Israel was the strongest I've ever heard from him. And what we did in Libya this past year? That's interventionism at its max.

"they kill anyone wearing wool socks"

I'm dead in that case...

sardis wrote:

eCat wrote:I think Romney would lose on Foreign Policy.

He is gonna outkill Obama on Al-Qaeda? Is he going to promote bringing troops back to Iraq? He's a goddamned fool if he starts talking war with Iran and now that he the GOP nomination he won't go near that discussion. The only piece he has is unconditional support for Israel which doesn't make him GOP, it just makes him a paid puppet for IPAC.

The reason he played neutral on foreign policy is the same reason he play neutral in the GOP debates - he has the lead, don't risk losing it on any position.

Obama is more of a war hawk than half the GOP field. Romney would have to cross over into uncomfortable war mongering to out war Obama.

I agree. Romney knew he couldn't differentiate himself from Obama's record on foreign policy because Obama has molded his policy to what the large majority of the citizenry want. People here complain about Romney changing his views, Obama has become more hawkish since his 2008 positions. You look at his use of drones, Guatanamo Bay, and his statement the other night on his support for Israel was the strongest I've ever heard from him. And what we did in Libya this past year? That's interventionism at its max.

Romney has lost on Foreign Policy, as he reversed policy positions he's taken in the past:

-Would not go into Pakistan to get bin Laden (2007). Praised the President for going after bin Laden and Al Qaeda leadership (Debate)
-Timetable for Afghanistan is horrible and equates to a "cut and run" (2011). Stands by the 2014 timetable (Debate)
-China is a prosperous tyrranny and a threat to its neighbors and us (2012). Wants to work and collaborate with China (Debate)
-Spoke openly about military action in Iran (2011). Lays down heavy on sanctions working...like what Obama is doing now (Debate)
-Opposes withdrawing troops from Iraq (2011). Praised the wind down of our war machine overseas and that we can't kill our way out of this (Debate)

That's just the stuff that has stuck in my head after watching it last night.

I also think Obama's policy is largely consistent. I don't think he took any position on drone attacks before coming into office. Gitmo he promised to close...and tried...and failed. He couldn't move any prisoners because Congress blocked sending prisoners to Leavenworth. He tried to try KSM in NYC and that got blocked. I don't know how you close Gitmo without some help from Congress.

WRT Israel, how strong of a statement does one have to make? It's just a statement. Israel has still been building settlements the last 4 years in disputed land and the US has done nothing to hamper Israel's desires in the region. They've even partnered with Israel to kill that scientist in Iran and also embedding viruses into the Iranian networks. I don't see the Israel issue as an issue that has changed in 4 years beyond Bibi drawing that Looney Toons bomb at the UN when speaking about Iran and indicating that he's not fully backed up by the US...although there is no evidence to show that's the case.

As a Libertarian the only differences I see in whether we end up with BHO or Donny Osmond are these:

With Obama we will continue to have Obamacare as a drag on our economy. With Donny we will have Obamacare Light.

With Obama we will get ultra left wing judges continuing to destroy our country. With Donny we will get moderate judges who we will never know how they will vote.

With Hussein we will continue to see us apologizing to the rest of the world for us being the greatest nation in the history of the world. With Donny we will at least get a little respect back.

With Mr. Patrick Ewing's hubby we will continue to see high unemployment as no business owner/CEO/Board of Directors will be expanding their companies with any major significance as long as he continues to show an ever expanding government. With Marie's brother we will see the economy slowly improve and definitely see oil prices moderate as he will look for more ways to get petro to market.

Other than that...yawn.