stlouiedipalma;1271103 wrote:So does this mean a Romney Presidency would only involve pressers with softballs lobbed by his buddies at Fox News?

You want to be President, you answer the tough questions.

The irony of this statement is just a tad bit overwhelming. President Obama took and answered zero questions, tough or otherwise, when he made his initial remarks. This is a guy who rarely offers himself for questioning from the media, and when he does it's a manufactured puff piece with an adoring cheerleader from one of the major networks.

You want to be President, you realize that when dealing with world affairs you don't "shoot first, aim later".
You want to be President, you have to understand that world opinion, market levels and many other things hang on the words you choose.

Romney didn't come across as Presidential at all, just like some hack out to score points with his base, the true believers who wouldn't know diplomacy if it fell out of the sky and hit them squarely on their tin hats. BTW, you wouldn't have a headache, would you

If his base includes people who like the First Amendment, then yes he scored points with me. Romney made it clear that he supports free speech- period.

How about Obama's diplomacy and the Cairo speech in 2009? How exactly has that worked our for us?

You made the point about Romney being asked tough questions, then you want to turn it around to Obama. I'd like to see you man up and defend Romney's inability to answer tough questions. Better yet, how about Romney's inability to answer a straightforward question posed by David Gregory on Meet The Press about what loopholes he would close in his tax plan?

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/09/09/816841/romney-says-his-plan-to-cut-taxes-on-the-rich-doesnt-actually-cut-taxes-on-the-rich/?mobile=nc

The answer is that either Mitt has no clue what he's proposing or that he's afraid that he'll piss off a part of the electorate and would rather play the "trust me" game with the voters. Clearly he is out of his element. Perhaps he needed a TelePrompTer to keep on message.

The bottom line is that your boy doesn't have what it takes to deal with foreign affairs. He never had it and he never will.

"The bottom line is that your boy doesn't have what it takes to deal with foreign affairs. He never had it and he never will."

LOL StLouie, I'll give you credit. You've got some serious sack to make that comment after this week. I really enjoyed going through extra security at my City club this morning to work out.

If people haven't realized by now Obama is a failure on every level (foreign affairs, economy, internal peace and unity) then they never will. One might not like Romney, but holy crap I never thought I'd see our country in this state. Does Democratic Underground pay you to post here? I don't get it. We're a nation in turmoil and people still think Obama deserves election?

Manhattan, you've been overseas way too long. Do you really believe that a Romney Presidency, with John Bolton as Secretary of State, will make the security measures you endure simply go away? Hell, if that comes to pass you'll probably have to be packing heat to ride in a cab, because this idiot knows only one thing, and that's attack, attack, attack. He dumped the Bush administration because he thought they weren't tough enough. You need to spend more time stateside. It's not as bad as you and others would have us think.

After digesting it for a day it is clear Romney was absolutely right on. We are fortunate he will be the next president because this republic simply could not survive 4 more years of the empty suit in the WH today.

I knew it was going to be bad under obama, but I had no fu@#$ng idea he could possibly be this bad.

I guess you'll have to fall into the "woulda, coulda, shoulda" category, because Mitt screwed the pooch this week. A desperate act by a desperate man, in keeping with the principles set by John McCain in 2008.

Mr. Romney presented well; only liberal apologists deem otherwise, which is fine by me. The media has nothing to latch on to because of the horrific record of obama; the world is melting down and the empty suit has no answers. In fact, he runs to raise money while Americans in caskets are being flown home. He is now a world embarassment, brought to us by the radical left media. But now we all know who he is, and he is finished. THANK GOD !!

QuakerOats;1271306 wrote:Mr. Romney presented well; only liberal apologists deem otherwise, which is fine by me. The media has nothing to latch on to because of the horrific record of obama; the world is melting down and the empty suit has no answers. In fact, he runs to raise money while Americans in caskets are being flown home. He is now a world embarassment, brought to us by the radical left media. But now we all know who he is, and he is finished. THANK GOD !!

You obviously weren't watching the coverage this afternoon, where our President was there when the remains came home. Of course, you can't be blamed for your revisionist views of the world.

BTW, the embarrassment is Romney's alone to bear. He showed his true colors this week, opting to exploit a national tragedy for personal political gain. He and his followers have no shame.

stlouiedipalma;1271294 wrote:Manhattan, you've been overseas way too long. Do you really believe that a Romney Presidency, with John Bolton as Secretary of State, will make the security measures you endure simply go away? Hell, if that comes to pass you'll probably have to be packing heat to ride in a cab, because this idiot knows only one thing, and that's attack, attack, attack. He dumped the Bush administration because he thought they weren't tough enough. You need to spend more time stateside. It's not as bad as you and others would have us think.

Yeah its great if you're on the government dole, and now we have QE3, awesome! My wife was stateside the past two weeks. If anyone think the U.S. is going in the right direction currently they are delirious or an Obama stooge. The latter may also be delirious considering we elected the least qualified President in history in '08 who continues to let us down and be incompetent. On the shuttle to the club this morning I sat next to a (older) friend from the Bay Area who am 99.9% sure is a Democrat, like most Bay area folks. We talked about QE3, what it meant for their savings, and how their 23 year old daughter (ironically the same age as my sister-in-law) cannot find a job anywhere. I'm freaking going to apply a visa for my sister-in-law to Singapore for a January '13 arrival where she can stay 90 days with us and maybe intern somewhere for free.

Its not as bad as you and others would have us think. It is far, far worse. Take the DONK blinders off.

Most you have no idea how it actually works and are blinded by rhetoric, whatever.
But, my question, has Romney offered any solutions or any pragmatic solutions or ideas?

Keep in mind nearly all of his foreign policy advisers are former Bush neoconservatives who still wish to continue the policies of the Bush years from 2001-2006, which resulted in huge failures.

I haven't heard a damn thing as to what Romney would or would not do.
It is one thing to say the other guy sucks, but another to actually propose a solution.
And is I remember right, most of you in 2008 blasted Obama for doing the exact same thing. I guess since it is your guy, it is alright and different.......

ptown_trojans_1;1271647 wrote:Most you have no idea how it actually works and are blinded by rhetoric, whatever.
But, my question, has Romney offered any solutions or any pragmatic solutions or ideas?

Keep in mind nearly all of his foreign policy advisers are former Bush neoconservatives who still wish to continue the policies of the Bush years from 2001-2006, which resulted in huge failures.

I haven't heard a damn thing as to what Romney would or would not do.
It is one thing to say the other guy sucks, but another to actually propose a solution.
And is I remember right, most of you in 2008 blasted Obama for doing the exact same thing. I guess since it is your guy, it is alright and different.......

It's not as though Obama is immune from huge failures.

And spare us the "most you have no idea how it actually works" lectures. I'd say most of us are reasonably politically astute even though we aren't necessarily collecting a payroll check either directly or indirectly from the Beltway Buffoons.

Obama is an unmitigated failure of a president. That cannot be denied by anyone with half a brain.

Romney may or may not be yet another neo-con but I have no doubt in my politically naive mind we'll be better off with him in the White House.

I'm reasonably confident the Romney campaign is keeping a low-profile on most of these issues because they know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the assholes in the mainstream media are desperate to take anything he says and spin it into absurd nonsense to make their candidate look less inept.

Frankly it's a smart move on the part of Romney to say nothing at this point. Even if his policies turn out to be just more supposed neo-con "failures", I'll be more than happy to live with that compared to what we currently - um - enjoy.

But then again I don't know what I'm talking about.

believer;1271857 wrote:Obama is an unmitigated failure of a president. That cannot be denied by anyone with half a brain.

Plenty of reasonable, intelligent, successful, producing, non-moocher-class-belonging-too, people disagree with this statement. And, if the election were today, Obama would be the president again for four more years despite it being so evident in your mind that he's an unmitigated failure; in large part due to Romney making a fool of himself (even in the minds of several Republican/Conservative pundits).

Now, that aside, who knew that there were KFC's and Hardee's to burn down in Lebanon???

BoatShoes;1271864 wrote: Now, that aside, who knew that there were KFC's and Hardee's to burn down in Lebanon???

Bring 'em over here and they can help terrorize the obese in Michelle's war.

Aah, don't you just love it when fear begins to permeate the right-wingers? They resort to insulting the First Lady, denigrating those who work in the government and try with all their might to convince themselves that things are going to hell in a handbasket.

Folks, it's not our fault you nominated such a putz. Now that the election is slipping away your blind devotion to returning to the 50's won't even open your eyes to the fact that you are blowing, yes blowing, another election.

stlouiedipalma;1271319 wrote:You obviously weren't watching the coverage this afternoon, where our President was there when the remains came home. Of course, you can't be blamed for your revisionist views of the world.

BTW, the embarrassment is Romney's alone to bear. He showed his true colors this week, opting to exploit a national tragedy for personal political gain. He and his followers have no shame.

True colors, eh? The President's and David Axelrod's twitter accounts were busy this week- during the ceremony for the transfer of remains. Nothing says "patriotic" like that.

http://www.nationalreview.com/media-blog/320621/obama-and-axelrod-tweet-during-transfer-remains-ceremony-greg-pollowitz

This is just unbelievable, especially in light of the Defcon 1 attack the MSM put on Romney for responding to a tweet from the US Embassy in Cairo without waiting some unspecified period of time. Will those same MSM bobble-head dolls criticize the president and his most trusted adviser for tweeting during a funeral?
Here’s the first one from the president’s account, not from him personally:

Look at the time-stamp. This is literally in the middle of the ceremony. Buy a sweatshirt! The Arab Spring is now the Arab Winter! Brrrrr!!!
But not to be undone, David Axelrod also couldn’t wait to speak up:

At least Axelrod waited for the ceremony to end — by about 4 minutes, according to when Mark Knoller’s tweeted the doors to the hearses closing:

Hat-tip to @cuffymeh for catching this.

ptown_trojans_1;1271647 wrote:Most you have no idea how it actually works and are blinded by rhetoric, whatever.
But, my question, has Romney offered any solutions or any pragmatic solutions or ideas?

Keep in mind nearly all of his foreign policy advisers are former Bush neoconservatives who still wish to continue the policies of the Bush years from 2001-2006, which resulted in huge failures.

I haven't heard a damn thing as to what Romney would or would not do.
It is one thing to say the other guy sucks, but another to actually propose a solution.
And is I remember right, most of you in 2008 blasted Obama for doing the exact same thing. I guess since it is your guy, it is alright and different.......

I'll settle for this over Obama apologizing for America and pretending that his magnanimous persona and Muslim family history will magically heal the US relationship with MENA nations :

America will not tolerate attacks against our citizens and against our embassies. We’ll defend also our constitutional rights of speech, and assembly, and religion. We have confidence in our cause in America. We respect our Constitution. We stand for the principles our constitution protects. We encourage other nations to understand and respect the principles of our constitution, because we recognize that these principles are the ultimate source of freedom for individuals around the world

Romney nailed it. He can work out the details later, but that's a 100% better foundation to build upon than Obama's.

Oh for Christ's sake, the President has not been on an apology tour. If you examine, in-depth, the Obama policies, it is anything but. But, go ahead and think that.

And that's nice for Romney to say but I fail to see any solution to the problem. He says a nice campaign speech, but has jack in terms of policy.
And Obama has said the same, generally, over the past 4 years. Hell, his Oslo speech said generally that.

ptown_trojans_1;1273184 wrote:And that's nice for Romney to say but I fail to see any solution to the problem. He says a nice campaign speech, but has jack in terms of policy.

I tried to explain that above. If the MSM had vetted Obama as stridently as it has Romney (well - it didn't vet Obama at all 4 years ago), perhaps we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

ptown_trojans_1;1273184 wrote:And Obama has said the same, generally, over the past 4 years. Hell, his Oslo speech said generally that.

Well, Obama is also great at campaign speeches.

PT1 You come on this thread 09-13 can’t defend nor answer question directed to you or the subject matter for the Obama handing of the situation. Drop off for 40 plus hours only to come back to direct the talking points to Romney. Is this how it works covering Obama ass, divert the truth and avoid the issue at hand. Is that what a Think Tank does? At what point will you start to think for yourself and not take the regurgitate views of the Obama caretakers.

Obama should keep the day job of sell sweatshirt and get the hell out of being a failure leader.

PT1 I always enjoyed your writing and views but this time you’re in damage control mode via direction of the Administration and that not what free individuals do. Think for yourself …. Really is this the guy and the work ethic and the agenda that you want for America … I will wait between 16 and 40 plus hour for your reply

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-09-15/asia/world_asia_afghanistan-fatal-attack_1_afghan-police-insider-attack-isaf-spokesman


d By "4 coalition troops" they mean 4 United States Marines...including the CO were killed in this attack. 6 Harriers were destroyed along with 4 lives. This administration is a failure.

stlouiedipalma;1272429 wrote:Aah, don't you just love it when fear begins to permeate the right-wingers? They resort to insulting the First Lady, denigrating those who work in the government and try with all their might to convince themselves that things are going to hell in a handbasket.

Folks, it's not our fault you nominated such a putz. Now that the election is slipping away your blind devotion to returning to the 50's won't even open your eyes to the fact that you are blowing, yes blowing, another election.

Oops, I forgot to add your obsession with the national media. When all else fails (and Mitt is failing, believe me) blame those pinko sympathizers in the media.

ptown_trojans_1;1273184 wrote:Oh for Christ's sake, the President has not been on an apology tour. If you examine, in-depth, the Obama policies, it is anything but. But, go ahead and think that.

I'll be eagerly awaiting an apology from the State Dept for your blatant disregard for my religious sensibilities. But then again, I don't plan on burning anything or creating violence of any sort, so nevermind.

One need not use the word "apology" to in fact apologize. Peter King hit the nail on the head today:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/09/17/congressman-king-schools-soledad-obrien-obamas-apology-tour

[LEFT]KING: I would say when he was in Cairo in 2009, when he was basically apologizing for American policies, saying American policies sometimes have gone too far --

O'BRIEN: Never once in that speech, as you know, which I have the speech right here. That was -- he never once used the word apology. He never once said I'm sorry.

KING: Didn't have to. The logical -- any logical reading of that speech or the speech he gave in France where he basically said that the United States can be too aggressive --

O'BRIEN: That was on April 3rd in 2009. Right. But that's not apology. People --

KING: It is. I do consider it -- we're apologizing for -- we have nothing to apologize to the Muslim world at all. We have not sacrificed our ideals.

He was overseas criticizing American officials and the CIA and others when he says that we lost our ideals. These are the people who kept us safe for eight, nine years against Islamic terrorists.

[LEFT]O'BRIEN: Everybody keeps talking about this apology tour and apologies from the president.

KING: It is.

O'BRIEN: I'm trying to find the words I'm sorry, I apologize in any of those speeches. Which I have the text of all those speeches in front of me. None of those speeches at all, if you go to factcheck.org which we check in a lot, they all say the same thing. They fact check this.

KING: I don't care what fact check says.

O'BRIEN: There are fact checks. You may not care, but they're a fact checker. I'm reading the speeches.

KING: No. Soledad, what I'm saying is any common sense interpretation of those speeches, the president's apologizing for the American position. That's the apology tour.

That's the way it's interpreted in the Middle East. If I go over and say that the U.S. has violated its principles, that the United States has not shown respect for Islam, that's an apology. How else can it be interpreted?
[/LEFT]

[/LEFT]

From Obama's speech in Cairo 2009:

[LEFT]With that in mind, here are some excerpts from the President's June 4, 2009, Cairo address. You decide if they are nuanced or apologies:

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: We meet at a time of great tension between the United States and Muslims around the world -- tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

Sound like an apology to you or "nuance?" How about this, which reads to me as an apology for the Iraq War:

OBAMA: Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. (Applause.) Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."

Again - apology or "nuance?" And how about this:

OBAMA: And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter or forget our principles. Nine-eleven was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.

Or this: "In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government."

Or this: "The struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life."


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/09/17/congressman-king-schools-soledad-obrien-obamas-apology-tour#ixzz26lFBLiKX[/LEFT]

jhay78;1273602 wrote:From Obama's speech in Cairo 2009:

Nuance.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443816804578002651859024198.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories