Foreign Policy Debate

Moderator: Super Moderators

HB3
Moderator
Posts: 11919
Joined: 11-02-2000 03:00 AM

Post by HB3 » 10-22-2012 10:21 PM

CNN has it 40-48.

User avatar
Riddick
Pirate
Posts: 13451
Joined: 11-01-2002 03:00 AM
Location: Heartland USA
Contact:

Post by Riddick » 10-22-2012 10:30 PM

That's interesting - Obviously, CNN & CBS must have different "scientifics" when it comes to picking polling samples eh!

In any case, I honestly can't see this debate being a "game changer" regardless of whether there's any agreement on who 'won' or not... For the most part, so far as any major 'take-away' moments I'd say essentially there were none.

User avatar
kbot
Pirate
Posts: 7265
Joined: 03-12-2008 05:44 AM

Post by kbot » 10-23-2012 05:48 AM

BenSlain wrote: and then there's this....


A year-long investigation by the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) has found that scores of known radical Islamists made hundreds of visits to the Obama White House, meeting with top administration officials.


http://www.investigativeproject.org/377 ... hite-house


Interestnig article, to say the least.........

Cherry Kelly
Pirate
Posts: 12852
Joined: 07-29-2000 02:00 AM
Contact:

Post by Cherry Kelly » 10-23-2012 09:52 AM

CNN later changed their who won bit - saying it was essentially a tie.

As for CBS - typical.

===
fact checks coming out ... again coming out Obama's 'false' figures high. still waiting for more groups.

---
SO ok what is Trump coming out with on Wed?

---
Thought this was best moderator.

User avatar
Doka
Pirate
Posts: 6478
Joined: 09-02-2009 08:15 PM

Post by Doka » 10-23-2012 11:06 AM

OBAMA GETS MILITARY TECK ALL WRONG IN DEBATE

I found this article this morning. It is interesting in the fact, that I don't know that much about the subject matter, but I bet our current military and veterans do.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012 ... Submarines

User avatar
Diogenes
Pirate
Posts: 5784
Joined: 07-14-2011 03:01 PM

Post by Diogenes » 10-23-2012 12:14 PM

Doka wrote: I don't know who won. But one thing is sure for me anyway, is Obama flubs on the truth so much, but still can make one think he is "honest John", I swear he is like an "alien Chameleon", it's crazy makin stuff. Well ,not that I have met many alien chameleons, but I do know a couple of "crazy makin" people.:D


Doka,

I understand what you are saying - it's the old mixed messages and this President is very good at that. You are sitting there listening to him and he is saying something and you think to yourself "wait a minute" you just said a day, weeks ago the exact opposite.

I have worked with a few folks like that in my time and I can remember when I was younger it was so frustrating because I would think, naively, they forgot or made a mistake but in my "maturity" I recognized it for what it was - a tactic to divert and confuse.

Am I getting too deep:D
A man's character is his fate

HB3
Moderator
Posts: 11919
Joined: 11-02-2000 03:00 AM

Post by HB3 » 10-23-2012 01:06 PM


User avatar
Diogenes
Pirate
Posts: 5784
Joined: 07-14-2011 03:01 PM

Post by Diogenes » 10-23-2012 03:52 PM

FINALLY something to compete with "binders of women".

Thank you
A man's character is his fate

User avatar
Diogenes
Pirate
Posts: 5784
Joined: 07-14-2011 03:01 PM

Post by Diogenes » 10-23-2012 03:54 PM

Riddick wrote: That's interesting - Obviously, CNN & CBS must have different "scientifics" when it comes to picking polling samples eh!

In any case, I honestly can't see this debate being a "game changer" regardless of whether there's any agreement on who 'won' or not... For the most part, so far as any major 'take-away' moments I'd say essentially there were none.


I agree - however there was that moment when the President was referring to Tunisia and something which was implemented and he said it was "ME" and of course the sarcastic bows and arrows comment which I thought was petulant and not worthy of the President but then this is his personality - folks who know him and write about him will tell you he is thin skinned and petulant.

No game changer.
A man's character is his fate

User avatar
Diogenes
Pirate
Posts: 5784
Joined: 07-14-2011 03:01 PM

Post by Diogenes » 10-23-2012 09:05 PM

So now breaking news - there is finally an email paper trail the administration knew the attack was by Ansar al Sharia in real time - no video or other blah blah blah.






http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Zinjibar
A man's character is his fate

User avatar
kbot
Pirate
Posts: 7265
Joined: 03-12-2008 05:44 AM

Post by kbot » 10-24-2012 11:39 AM

Doka wrote: OBAMA GETS MILITARY TECK ALL WRONG IN DEBATE

I found this article this morning. It is interesting in the fact, that I don't know that much about the subject matter, but I bet our current military and veterans do.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012 ... Submarines


And this is what you get when your Commander-in-Chief has absolutely no military experience. The basic knowledge-base just isn't there, and so the expression "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". Obama is clearly out of his element when discussing the military, and I am sure needs to be briefed constantly on the military before making a statement. In this case, he probably received only a superficial briefing by someone ni his administation that has only slightly more knowledge than Obama has and, and this is what you get. Spoken like a true theoretical academic......

User avatar
Riddick
Pirate
Posts: 13451
Joined: 11-01-2002 03:00 AM
Location: Heartland USA
Contact:

Post by Riddick » 10-24-2012 05:26 PM

2008 Called. It Wants to Know What Happened to Barack Obama.

From John Cook at gawker.com:
  • One of the many little thrills of being a part of the Obama campaign four years ago was a deep and abiding sense that, finally, a political leader had come along who could live up to our highest aspirations. Yes, Obama was cool and played basketball and was conversant in ironical youth culture, but when it came down to it, he was overwhelmingly serious. The other guys were hauling unlicensed plumbers onstage and suspending their campaign at the drop of a hat, but Obama kept his eyes on the prize and played the grown-up. Now he's talking about "Romnesia."

    If anything, Obama's 2008 campaign promised a president who would actively repudiate the frenetic, aggressively stupid cable-news culture that had engulfed political reporting. His campaign manager David Plouffe was openly derisive of Time's Mark Halperin and Politico, the two chief avatars of empty-calorie bitch-slap politics: "If Politico and Halperin say we're winning, we're losing." Obama himself confidently mocked the cable-news conflagration that was the Tea Party summer—people were getting "all wee-wee'd up" for no good reason.

    His inaugural address—a deeply depressing read in light of the last four years—contained a stern admonition to those who insisted on sweating the small stuff: "On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises.... n the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things."

    That's the same guy who let loose last night, in the midst of a debate that was ostensibly about how many people we are going to kill over the next four years and under what circumstances, this little nugget: "The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back."

    That's a middling joke. It should by no means be coming from the president of the United States, let alone one who promised to put away childish things. It's a dumb "zinger," transparently crafted to appeal to the Mark Halperins and Politicos of the world.

    That's not to say that humor has no place in political rhetoric or that Obama betrays his promise every time he deigns to insult his opponent. But to graft a pre-planned VH1 Best Week Ever-level joke onto a nationally televised discussion about life and death and our role on the world stage is scarcely less pathetic than the desperate flailings of the McCain campaign that I smugly scoffed at four years ago.

    It's not just that joke. Obama has taken to using "Romnesia" to describe Romney's inability or unwillingness to hew to a policy position for more than two weeks. "He's forgetting what his own positions are, and he's betting that you will, too," Obama said at a rally in Virginia last week. "We've got to name this condition that he's going through. I think it's called 'Romnesia.'" Today, summing up the debate, Obama called Romney's performance "at least Stage 3 Romnesia."

    This is very, very dumb. Maybe "Romnesia" is a funny, handy term that usefully carries an important anti-Romney message. But even if it is, it is just too juvenile and jokey to be coming from the president. He shouldn't be making jokes based on his opponent's name. That's what vice presidents are for. Put it in John Kerry's mouth. He'll say anything.

    But when Obama says it, it comes off as unserious and jocular. It's the kind of joke that, had a speechwriter proposed it four years ago, 2008 Obama would have smirked at and said, "OK guys, let's get down to work." The term, it bears noting, was apparently coined on Twitter by a guy going by the name of @breakingnuts. This is not how you put away childish things.

    Nor is it by holding up a binder at your stump speech, as Joe Biden has taken to doing in mockery of Romney's "binders full of women line." The "binders" meme is just that—a funny little Twitter and Tumblr belch, an acerbic diversion. For the vice president of the United States to pick up on it and amplify it in an attempt to harvest a perceived opportunity is to confuse dumb gags with arguments.

    It's what John Ellis calls the "trending on Twitter" campaign, and it's beneath Obama. Twitter—as with other social media that both campaigns are desperately working—is just as empty and mindless as the cable news void Obama decried so effectively four years ago. For his campaign to routinely venerate its judgments today is fundamentally at odds with Obama's sense of himself as the adult in the room.

    So stick to the serious stuff and let dumb bloggers make the jokes, Mr. President. That's what we're here for. You're getting all wee-wee'd up.

User avatar
kbot
Pirate
Posts: 7265
Joined: 03-12-2008 05:44 AM

Post by kbot » 10-24-2012 06:29 PM

"One of the many little thrills of being a part of the Obama campaign four years ago was a deep and abiding sense that, finally, a political leader had come along who could live up to our highest aspirations. "

I still say that a president gets elected with an agenda. For some period of time, maybe 1 -3 months, there's a honeymoon period. Then he has a meeting with "his major backers". And, it's at this meeting (and maybe more) that the president is finally told in no uncertain terms that while he may have his own agenda and pet projects that he wants to work on, he's provided another agenda. Call it CFR/ Bilderberg, Trilateral, Big Oil Big Pharma, Big Agriculture, whatever.... It's then he finds that he's just a useful tool.......

Doesn't matter who's in office...... Vote Libertarian. Or vote Green Party, but please don't vote Democrat or GOP.......

User avatar
Riddick
Pirate
Posts: 13451
Joined: 11-01-2002 03:00 AM
Location: Heartland USA
Contact:

Post by Riddick » 10-24-2012 06:54 PM

Personally, I tend to think candidates already know ahead of time that there's an agenda waiting for them when they're elected president.

The agenda they bring with them to the job, so much as it doesn't jibe with the one that comes WITH the job, will always play second fiddle.

If they try too hard to push anything through that's all too contrary to anything on the approved agenda, they can probably figure on being a one term president...

If they don't learn that the easy way, they could then learn it the HARD way, and very well wind up serving LESS than one term! :eek:

User avatar
kbot
Pirate
Posts: 7265
Joined: 03-12-2008 05:44 AM

Post by kbot » 10-24-2012 08:06 PM

Riddick wrote: Personally, I tend to think candidates already know ahead of time that there's an agenda waiting for them when they're elected president.

The agenda they bring with them to the job, so much as it doesn't jibe with the one that comes WITH the job, will always play second fiddle.

If they try too hard to push anything through that's all too contrary to anything on the approved agenda, they can probably figure on being a one term president...

If they don't learn that the easy way, they could then learn it the HARD way, and very well wind up serving LESS than one term! :eek:


From what I have been able to find over the years is that most presidents either have been, or quickly become members of groups such as the CFR, Trilaterals, Bilderberg groups..... So, you're most probably correct in that they already have another agenda from their publicly-proclaimed/ fan-approved agenda (platform) that got them elected.

Post Reply

Return to “Politics and Government 2010-2013”