believer;412370 wrote:
Not that I'm defending Romney, but out of curiosity, what are Obama's positions on these issues? Anyone know? Does BHO even know?

ptown_trojans_1;412378 wrote:Unlike Romney, who I'm sure hasn't read the 200 some pages.

Mr. 300;412377 wrote:So,Ptown is a single issue voter???? Would have expected more, but hey, you learn something new everyday!!

believer;412388 wrote:Fair enough but I have a hunch that Obama also had no clue about it going in. I'm confident that if Romney were put in a position to do the same decision-making he'd do his homework first. And while BHO may have had our nation's strategic security in mind, I would still sleep better at night having Romney overseeing these issues than BHO...I just would.

Mr. 300;412356 wrote:Anyone, and mean ANYONE will be more qualified than who was elected in 2008, so experince means nothing. It's all about electability and who turns out after getting jazzed up by the party. The moderates will be jumping from Obama's camp after what he's done to prolong the economic downturn.

ptown_trojans_1;412362 wrote:This whole article is why I won't vote for Romney. It makes no sense.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/05/AR2010070502657.html

1. Missile defense is not limited in any conceivable way. The only missile defense systems that would possibly be limited is the pie in the sky 100billion ones that is a decade away (when the treaty expires).
2. Regional missile defense against Iran and North Korea is not limited in any way shape or form. The Russians are not going to strongly object and pull out of the treaty for these systems as they pose no direct threat to them.
3. The BCC that he mentions is a mainstay in all Arms control treaties. It was in the 1st START and is just a continuation of the previous committee. (If he read the treaties he would see that)
4. Rail based ICBMs are covered as the language of the treaty is broad enough to include any launcher that can deliver an ICBM. If the Russians do decide to do this, it would be covered, head to the BCC and be under inspection by us.
5. The treaty does not favor the Russians. Yes, Russia is already near the 700 launcher limit, but they are far above the warhead limit and this treaty brings them from their 2,500 to 1,550. Yes tactical and MIRVs are not covered. But, that was not the focus of the treaty. It is a bridge to future treaties which will cover those areas.
6. Tactical weapons, I highly doubt Russia will launch tactical weapons as that would spark a thermonuclear war and thus far Russia has not been stupid enough to do that. Deterrence has held.
7. Finally, he mentions putting ICBMs on bombers? That is crazy. The warheads are completely different and would take years to engineer for a bomber. Besides, bombers are useless today as Russia's are large and slow, easily picked off by our radars. It makes no sense for the Russians to put all their eggs in bombers instead of mobile missiles.

This article is everything I don't like about Romney. It is partisan talking points without reading the treaty and its context.

Paladin;414050 wrote:I keep getting alot of e-mail from Far Right friends trying to impune Obama and trashing his policies. Yet, they don't have a candidate that can beat him. And if they find a candidate, he'll run from the Far Right and Moderates won't vote for him. The demographic tidal wave coming also works against them as years of hating against women, gays, minorities, the elderly, youth & the middle class/poor leave these folks to despise Rs & their policies. The lowest party rating is still in the toilet. Obama sure looks like a two termer.

CenterBHSFan;414549 wrote:I'm thinking that Obama is pretty much kicking his own ass. If he/his administration keeps up with the shenanigans, a random amoeba will be able to take his place.

I have nothing against Massachusetts politicians running for president. But the world's most important elected office carries responsibilities, including the duty to check your facts even if you're in a footrace to the right against Sarah Palin. More than that, you need to understand that when it comes to nuclear danger, the nation's security is more important than scoring cheap political points.

Paladin;414050 wrote:I keep getting alot of e-mail from Far Right friends trying to impune Obama and trashing his policies. Yet, they don't have a candidate that can beat him. And if they find a candidate, he'll run from the Far Right and Moderates won't vote for him. The demographic tidal wave coming also works against them as years of hating against women, gays, minorities, the elderly, youth & the middle class/poor leave these folks to despise Rs & their policies. The lowest party rating is still in the toilet. Obama sure looks like a two termer.

fan_from_texas;415538 wrote:Obama looks like a two-termer to me. I think many on the far right are overplaying their hand and reacting too vehemently about everything. Sure, stuff isn't great, but the entire universe is not collapsing because Obama is the President. The constant debbie-downer chicken-little act probably does more to turn off moderates than it does to rally and shore up the base. Losing the moderates/Rockefeller Rs makes it difficult to win a national election, as we saw in 2008 when many of those voters swung to Obama.

believer;415559 wrote:You assume "moderates" are likely to stand by Obama's failing "spend our way out of economic malaise" policies rather than switch mid-stream to a Republican who will likely espouse typical "less government is better" policies? We'll see.

Even the Dems who I work with are questioning Obama's abilities to get the job done.

Ask Jimmy Carter if he thought he'd be a one-termer.

fan_from_texas;415579 wrote:The general consensus is that no one realistically expected Obama to turn everything around in a year and a half. The economy has taken quite a hit (which is largely the blame of ordinary Americans who overspent, not past presidents), and it'll take some time to get back on its feet.

fan_from_texas;415579 wrote:Had McCain won, we would've wanted people to show him some grace as the economy rebounded, and I think it's only fair to extend the same courtesy to Obama. The economy is by no means roaring, but it does look like we're pulling out of this recession.

believer;415623 wrote:If you are referring to Federal policies "encouraging" lending institutions via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to extend loans to unqualified borrowers then I wholeheartedly agree.

The financial markets are slowly rebounding but when employment starts to dip significantly (like from 9.7% down to at least 7%) then I'll agree that we're "pulling out of this recession."

fan_from_texas;415733 wrote:I guess we view this differently. I think most of the blame lies with people who greedily bought more house than they could afford, not with the lenders for letting them do it. That's not to say that Fannie/Freddie/the banks weren't reckless as well, but at the end of the day, I'm in the "personal responsibility" camp. If you borrow money to buy a house, it's on you to understand what you're doing and make the best decisions for yourself, not the government or the lender. I would expect you and most other conservatives to also be in the personal responsibility camp.




Employment is a lagging indicator. When confidence returns and businesses feel safe, they'll start hiring again. The economy appears to have turned the corner, even if there are still some double-dip fears. It will take awhile for jobs to come back--we can't anticipate that decades of overspending can be remedied by a year or two of pain. It's going to take some time, regardless of who is in the Oval Office. The housing markets are already starting to stabilize. I think we would've had a faster bounce back if the gov't had allowed more short-term pain, but either way, this was going to hurt.

fan_from_texas;415733 wrote:I guess we view this differently. I think most of the blame lies with people who greedily bought more house than they could afford, not with the lenders for letting them do it. That's not to say that Fannie/Freddie/the banks weren't reckless as well, but at the end of the day, I'm in the "personal responsibility" camp. If you borrow money to buy a house, it's on you to understand what you're doing and make the best decisions for yourself, not the government or the lender. I would expect you and most other conservatives to also be in the personal responsibility camp.