Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

JaysRage (94.20)

My take on the second debate

Recs

11

October 17, 2012 – Comments (41)

For my thoughts on the first debate and voting history, please refer to my previous blog. 

http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/my-take-on-the-debate/765610

Like I went into the last debate wanting to hear more about Romney's tax plan, I went into this debate wanting to hear how Obama re-architected his attacks on Romney's plan.    In addition, I wanted to see how Obama would respond to the new pressure regarding the failed handling of the Libyan terrorist attack and response.  

1)  Economic plans -- I didn't think that Obama really came to the table with any new ammunition regarding the tax plans or new ideas regarding the economy.   I think that Romney added a miniscule amount of new detail on how the program might work.   Overall, not much new information here....not much additional pressure on Romney.   I came out with pretty much the same opinion as I had going in.  Romney continues to show and build upon his strength in understanding economics and job growth and continued to successfully point out the current weak economic environment --Slight Advantage Romney

2) Libya -- I thought this was a stunning success for Obama.   With recent coverage and events seemingly serving up a variety of possible ways that Romney could capitalize on failed leadership and poor communication from the administration, instead, Romney got completely turned around by word semantics on what exact words that Obama used "in the rose garden" on the day after the event.   Obama ended up looking like a capable, accountable, sensitive military commander and Romney ended up looking like a stammering idiot.    I have taken time to be informed on this event, so it is still a black mark on Obama's leadership, but he did an *AMAZING* job of damage control last night.   Not only did Romney not inflict any additional damage, he ended up somehow hurting his own case with his shell-shocked demeanor after being "corrected" on semantics by the moderator.  Stunning.    HUGE ADVANTAGE OBAMA

3) Adaption to Format -- Both candidates looked uncomfortable in this format.   It's pretty clear that neither candidate spends significant time relating to everyday people.    Both answered whatever questions they felt like answering, instead of tailoring their questions to the person who asked it or to the average undecided voter at large  -- Slight Advantage Obama

4) The misperception question -- What an incredible softball question!   A chance to set the record straight!   Romney missed another huge opportunity to correct the perception that he's a rich guy that only cares about himself and other rich people.  He spent far too much time attacking Obama during that segment, when he could have used that time helping people to see how down-to-earth and likable he "really is".   Obama was slightly more effective with a first time attempt to show that he understood that businesses create jobs.   He also spent too much time attacking, but his attacks directly refuted what Romney should have built as a personal safe haven.   If Romney would have done his job with the question, Obama would have looked like a jerk for attacking him.   This is not what happened.    Slight Advantage Obama

To me, Obama was the clear winner of last night's debate.     This debate will most likely win Obama the election.  Romney missed huge opportunities to make perceptional ground in the areas of likability and foreign policy, despite being given ample opportunity to do so.   Instead, Obama took back some momentum in those areas.   

41 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On October 17, 2012 at 10:30 AM, drgroup (68.41) wrote:

Jay... where do you take into account the candy crowley affect? obama can not win any debate without having the moderater in his back pocket. Regardless of whether Romney stuttered during the Libya comments does not release obama form the fact that he lied to the entire nation. Your view on #4 reflects your feelings on (rich people). How many poor people do you know that own businesses and hire people? Amazing... 

Report this comment
#2) On October 17, 2012 at 10:32 AM, kbtoys99 (< 20) wrote:

I think this debate was a draw. The first debate had higher viwership. This was a real enterntaining street brawl but I dont think it changes the dynamics of the race.

Report this comment
#3) On October 17, 2012 at 10:55 AM, JaysRage (94.20) wrote:

Candy Crowley was out of line with her "fact check".  However, ultimately, it's up to Romney, not the moderator, to set the record straight and to point out that Obama was using word-choice semantics to cover up that his adminstration either did not know or did not want others to know that this was an orchestrated, planned terror attack on a 9/11 anniversary.   Like I said, I'm informed on the Libya incident, but I don't think most people are.   Romney let Obama off the hook big time.  

Be careful reading too much into my own perceptions, based on #4.  I am portraying what I hear most as a criticism of Romney, not my personal views.    I personally find Romney to be quite likeable.   I know a number of people that own businesses and hire people.  Some are more successful than others.   I also knew some of them when they started out.....and all of them sacrificed to make their businesses work, and some of them lived on quite a meager budget during their early lean years.     

Report this comment
#4) On October 17, 2012 at 11:08 AM, suqingkkkk (< 20) wrote:

good,good,very good

Report this comment
#5) On October 17, 2012 at 11:09 AM, davejh23 (< 20) wrote:

I'd argue that the debate was a draw as well.  Overall, I think Obama came out far more cool and collected that he did in the first debate.  However, the news that he took half a week off from his job as commander in chief to prepare doesn't improve my perception of him. 

Concerning point 2, the moderator was misinformed, clearly spoke out of place, and admitted it after the debate.  When all is said and done on this point, I would say "HUGE ADVANTAGE ROMNEY".  I watched Obama's full rose garden statement last night.  He refers to religious tolerance, presumable refering to the YouTube video that may or may not exist, when speaking of the attack in Benghazi.  He uses the term "act of terror" later in the statement, but it's after a reference to 911 and not in the context of the killings in Benghazi.  The discussion during the debate showed millions of potential voters a clear media bias, and while Romney could have handled it better, it painted Obama as a liar...a deliberate twister of truth at best.

Report this comment
#6) On October 17, 2012 at 11:16 AM, edwjm (99.83) wrote:

I, personally, did not see a clear win for either candidate.  While the President did much better than he did in the first debate, he still has room for improvement.  Romney was consistent is the best I can say for him.

Report this comment
#7) On October 17, 2012 at 11:19 AM, davejh23 (< 20) wrote:

Concerning point 4, I would like to hear the opinion of the man that asked the last question.  In my opinion, Romney at least spoke to the question.  Crowley didn't remind Obama of the question, so maybe she's partly to blame, but Obama just gave his closing statement without any reference to the question.  If I was undecided and had asked that question, Obama's non response would have sealed the deal for me.

Report this comment
#8) On October 17, 2012 at 11:27 AM, L0RDZ (73.52) wrote:

"'Bind her? I barely knew her!'

Do the facts even matter ?  

When Obama  is  subjected to vulnerablities such as the poor handling  and  the deaths of  the first  US  ambassador  in like what 30 years ?  He  hides behind or more so on top of the high ground envoking  Presidential  priveledge  that  I am beyond  reproach  and  to suggest  that maybe I once again screwed up on something  is  offensive.  That somehow to state the truth of this matter is unpatriotic that to be critical of this failure is so wrong.

Fact  for the first 14 days,  the white house and this president was ready to bow down &  apologize  because somehow our  US ambassador  got  one eight sevened  not because there are crazy militants out  there to do us harm,  not because it was the 11 th anniversary  of the worst  civilian assault upon our shores,  but  because of  some criticism towards  the muslim faith ~  by some unknown you tube short film. 

Fact  Our people  in  Libya  were begging ~  pleading that they needed more security ~  that is beyond  reproach, beyond question.

Fact it  was more or less  an assasination of  an unprotected target  our  ambassador in Libya,   but   that was just an inconvienent truth  because we are  winning the war against terror  and  those militant muslims are no longer  a  threat since we  put a bullet thru  Osama's  head. Game over right ?

Fact:  Obama  is more or less having Secretary Clinton fall upon her own sword  and take the blame for  what happened in Libya.  Why ?  because  why not ?  why not let her shield  the president's  failings in foreign policy.

Some would say  that this is an non issue  that the fate of the election has been already decided  and that no one really cares about  this.  That it is somehow  really the other party's fault.

Bottom line is that this November  those of us who will be voting will have to choose  between 4 more  years  of the same or maybe just maybe we'll let  the other man the chance to make things better.

Obama  had his chance  and he blew it, when he had the chance to do what ever he could have wanted with control of congress,  what did we get ?  he basically  told the other party to stfu  you guys lost,  we  are in control,  he gloated and rammed down his Obama health care legislation without any concerns.

When dis-satisfied voters  threw out many a foolish democratic legislators 2 years later essentially losing control of the congress:  he suddenly  now needed  the other party he only  months ago shunned.

Say what you will,  but it's  time  for this guy to go...

Much like Victor  Pandit... don't let the door hit you in the behind on the way out.

Report this comment
#9) On October 17, 2012 at 11:35 AM, JaysRage (94.20) wrote:

There is an interesting point that I had not thought about.  

The fact that everyone is talking about Libya today is not good at all for Obama.   If the "fact check" controversy continues to getmore people looking into exactly what happened with this incident, it cannot end well for the POTUS.   

Report this comment
#10) On October 17, 2012 at 11:54 AM, L0RDZ (73.52) wrote:

Libya  !

Libya !!

Libya !!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obama-still-wrong-on-libya-crowley-blows-it/2012/10/17/b2e7eede-1841-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_blog.html

Notwithstanding all of that and even facing two opponents, both wrong, Romney should certainly have moved in for the kill. If Obama had said it was terrorism on Sept. 12, than why did Susan Rice tell the country a different story on Sept. 16? Certainly then Obama should not have continued to link the anti-Muslim video to the attack in his Univision appearance on Sept. 20 (“ What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests”) and in his United Nations speech on Sept.25. And why did Obama not make clear it was a terrorist attack on “The View” that same day?(“We are still doing an investigation. There is no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet, so we are still gathering.”)

But what Romney forfeited on debating points remains a gnawing, deepening problem for the president. What did he know and when did he know it? Why was he seemingly oblivious to the deteriorating security situation in Libya months earlier when, among others, the International Red Cross, pulled out of what was fast-becoming a jihadist haven?

This controversy is not going away and will continue to dominate the headlines, soak up the political oxygen and make it increasingly difficult for Obama to recapture the momentum.

Romney could use some sharpening on foreign policy to put Obama away next Monday, although each debate is of less significance. Romney would do well to simply recite the timeline to viewers, making clear the president was either dissembling or out of the intelligence loop (which quickly discarded the spontaneous video protest theory because, of course, there never was a protest).

Romney was entirely on the mark on one count: Libya is indicative of a failed Middle East policy in which Obama has repeatedly misjudged our enemies, kicked our friend Israel and left the United States less influential than ever. (“Look what’s happening in Syria, in Egypt, now in Libya. Consider the distance between ourselves and Israel, where the president said that — that he was going to put daylight between us and Israel. We have Iran four years closer to a nuclear bomb. Syria — Syria’s not just the tragedy of 30,000 civilians being killed by a military, but also a strategic — strategically significant player for America. The president’s policies throughout the Middle East began with an apology tour and pursue a strategy of leading from behind, and this strategy is unraveling before our very eyes.”) Not even Candy Crowley can fudge that.

Report this comment
#11) On October 17, 2012 at 12:09 PM, DoctorLewis4 (< 20) wrote:

Obama won the debate.  Period.  He made Romney look foolish several times.   What a lost opportunity for Romney.  His "binders full of women" will be one of those lines that debate watchers will remember for a long time.

Report this comment
#12) On October 17, 2012 at 12:58 PM, awallejr (80.15) wrote:

This election is not going to be determined by Libya.  Kudlow is trying to make it sound like there is some kind of "watergate comparable" conspiracy here. While there was fumbling on the intel side, in the end that isn't what I am interested in.  What I want is nailing the murdering bastards.  I thought Obama was powerful with his "offensive" comment.

Crowley was right.  Romney tried to bully her and tried to play cross-examining lawyer both on "acts of terror" point and his "oil lease" harangue and both times he ended up looking foolish and disrespectful.

I know the point he was trying to make about the leases.  He wanted it to look like Obama was hindering growth.  But he made the mistake of letting Obama answer.  And his answer was spot on, they took back the leases the oil companies were just sitting on.  That is just good business.  An old saying regarding cross-examination.  Never ask a question you don't know the answer to.

Finally Obama did mention in passing that many jobs lost to China are not going to come back.  I have argued that here and argued that that is a GOOD thing.  I don't want  job growth for low wage assembly line jobs.  Schools need to start concentrating on educating and training our kids for meaningful and available jobs.  I want concentration on skilled labor, something I honestly don't think Romney cares about.

I don't expect any details on Romney's 5 point plan that will magically create 12 million jobs.  Saying it will happen is meaningless to me.  Showing is another matter.  But he can't, so he uses the line "trust him, he knows how to do it"  afterall running an olympics is on par with running a Country.

So far this week we have actually been gettting good economic data.  Things really are getting better.  I know we would all love 4-5% annual GDP but people keep forgetting the mess we are in was the result of a tremendous financial meltdown. The only other comparable time was the Great Depression and that took decades to overcome.

Report this comment
#13) On October 17, 2012 at 1:29 PM, AFMS (65.86) wrote:

Obama cleary did NOT win the debate. It only appeared that way to certain individuals (a better word) because he only had room to gain due to his, in my opinion true colors performance from the last debate.  Anything he stated was irrelevent and all Romney had to due was keep reiterating the facts and 4 year failure and circus created by this new type modern day administration filled with being "cool" hip-hop associated, lieing , cheating, covering-up, Joe bidenism false leadership. I mean the target support crowd says it ALL.  Are democrats blind? to not be ashamed of there own fellow supporters of this man?  People against success, moron kids, people with half a brain, and racism, who accuse republicans of such.  Dems should be voting him out and hoping for a qualified democrat one day, not being apart of this insane asylum.  What move forward? What plan?  Time's up Obama, your shot at ceo was an embarassing failure to this country, ignorant supporters, and unfortunate BS bought supporters who now are voting against you.

Report this comment
#14) On October 17, 2012 at 1:31 PM, AFMS (65.86) wrote:

Obama cleary did NOT win the debate. It only appeared that way to certain individuals (a better word) because he only had room to gain due to his, in my opinion true colors performance from the last debate.  Anything he stated was irrelevent and all Romney had to due was keep reiterating the facts and 4 year failure and circus created by this new type modern day administration filled with being "cool" hip-hop associated, lieing , cheating, covering-up, Joe bidenism false leadership. I mean the target support crowd says it ALL.  Are democrats blind? to not be ashamed of there own fellow supporters of this man?  People against success, moron kids, people with half a brain, and racism, who accuse republicans of such.  Dems should be voting him out and hoping for a qualified democrat one day, not being apart of this insane asylum.  What move forward? What plan?  Time's up Obama, your shot at ceo was an embarassing failure to this country, ignorant supporters, and unfortunate BS bought supporters who now are voting against you.

Report this comment
#15) On October 17, 2012 at 1:31 PM, AFMS (65.86) wrote:

Obama cleary did NOT win the debate. It only appeared that way to certain individuals (a better word) because he only had room to gain due to his, in my opinion true colors performance from the last debate.  Anything he stated was irrelevent and all Romney had to due was keep reiterating the facts and 4 year failure and circus created by this new type modern day administration filled with being "cool" hip-hop associated, lieing , cheating, covering-up, Joe bidenism false leadership. I mean the target support crowd says it ALL.  Are democrats blind? to not be ashamed of there own fellow supporters of this man?  People against success, moron kids, people with half a brain, and racism, who accuse republicans of such.  Dems should be voting him out and hoping for a qualified democrat one day, not being apart of this insane asylum.  What move forward? What plan?  Time's up Obama, your shot at ceo was an embarassing failure to this country, ignorant supporters, and unfortunate BS bought supporters who now are voting against you.

Report this comment
#16) On October 17, 2012 at 1:35 PM, AFMS (65.86) wrote:

sorry didnt mean to wite 3 times.. i cant delete

Report this comment
#17) On October 17, 2012 at 1:41 PM, L0RDZ (73.52) wrote:

Obama hindering growth ???  surely  you jest ?

Oh wait...  just  ask any struggling or small or want to be  business start up about all the certainty  in the  destruction that  Obama care has done ?  will it lead to job growth and greater prosperity ?  most if not all will answer  NO !!!!!!!!

Than there's the uncertainty of what  tax  rates will be ?  Dodd FRank  ?  EPA  regulations ?  the outlawing of  any carbon being allowed to escape into the atmosphere as its obviously  a pollutant.

What about the new army of  IRS agents to enforce the purchase or punishment onto persons  for the failure to have purchased  individual health insurance.

Lets not even go into the possible out-right bann on the latest technology that has allowed us to produce more oil and natural gas here in the good ole United States of America ?  FR-acking am  I even allowed  to use  that  F word here on TMF ?

What plan have we heard  from Obama ?  besides the I want to give more money to my protected selective union class of  gov-ment paid  ( tax payer taken )  teachers,   something about  taxing and spending  for an additional 100,000 new teachers ?  trickling down to I think I heard  something about 2,000,000 more auxilary  part-time education related jobs.

Obama is offering more of the same,  over-spending,  more grid-lock, non-existent interest rates,  non-existent loans available only to the common person from gov run TBTF gov controlled bankers  who will only  lend provided the gov back stops and will pay for anyone who would default.

Obama's  idea of prosperity ?  Big  trickle down government where we punish  the most sucessful after all they really should be great-ful that the  all powerful gov-ment allowed them  to use the gov-ment  created infra-structure and that they did not tax  them all of the profits  that the gov-ment allowed them to work for under the all powerful protection of the gov-ment.

Obama's idea of winning  against Romney ?  Taking credit for all the good things while ignoring all the costs ?

Painting  Romney  as someone to fear and run-away from rather than tout his own record ?  I guess when your record is poor  that just won't do.

Obama like to point out that somehow he is responsible for creating millions of new jobs  but  cherry picks those numbers and fails to  disclose that when you also count all the  hundreds of thousands of  jobs continued  to  disapear during those early years in his administration  at best  after spending  trillions of dollars   the net  job  growth isn't even enough to keep up with whats needed to allow all the new adults  to obtain  their original jobs in whats the new normal of  hopelessness.

I think I read that when you count the jobs lost ?  along with the statistics of the newly created jobs ?  at best  with still all the bogus over spending stimulus we are like really only  net  200,000  jobs ?

I'm not big on exactly how many zero's are in a trillion dollars but I know its many ?  if  you were to divide say a trillion by the 200,000  job  figure.

I'd say it cost a lot to  enable those jobs.

But hey thats just me...

I'd more trust the alleged lies that are coming of  a real job  real world  job maker business person  than  the made to believe truths out of some community organizer who faked his way  into the white house upon promises made he never delivered in his first full term as POTUS.

 

Report this comment
#18) On October 17, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Costanzawallet (< 20) wrote:

Anyone can say they will create 12 million jobs. Here I'll say it, I'm going to create 12 million jobs. Romney keeps saying he is going to lower taxes for everyone (yet he wants to reduce the deficit), and remove loopholes and stimulate small businesses to generate the revenue. Hey, why didn't I think of that? Brilliant! His comment about eliminating capital gains tax for those making under $100,000 is also laughable. Most people in that bracket are using every penny they have to stay afloat and are not in the stock market to any degree that they can take advantage of any substantail capital gains. Romnys office is filled with smoke and mirrors, the old bait and switch used by carpetbaggers

He gave himself 8 years to accomplish his so called agenda, but is only willing to give this administration 4.

His comment about Obama checking his pension shows just how out of touch he is. Many people today have no pension left at all to look at becaue of the wreckless policies his party espouses. I'd like to see his deficit estimates when he gets us into another war in Iran or Syria.

A slick snake oil salesman is what we are looking at. Those on this board should use their fool skills to analyse his P/E ratio and see that this stock is overvalued and overinflated ad shouls be on the pink sheets. Slow and steady wins the race, this is not time to bail out when America is about to surge ahead with a steady hand.

Report this comment
#19) On October 17, 2012 at 2:34 PM, kbtoys99 (< 20) wrote:

Both of these candidates are living in a bubble. I would not want to grab a beer with either of these fellas. they are both technocrats of the worst kind.

Report this comment
#20) On October 17, 2012 at 5:09 PM, rofgile (98.99) wrote:

I think it is a terrible loss that 4 people died in Libya, but how is this even close to a major election issue?  How many people are dying each week in Afghanistan- why weren't there ANY questions about how each candidate is going to wind up this conflict and bring troops home?

I liked the questions though, overall.  I liked the question about what candidates will do for improving the inequality of women, and the AK47 question (which neither candidate directly answered).  Romney seemed to get sidetracked and blame gun violence on single parent families?  I was very confused with his answer.  Banning sales of AK47s seems like an answer both candidates would say "OF COURSE!!" .  American politics is bizarre sometimes (in that they have to cowtow to the NRA so much).

Also, Romney first says he is going to make 12 million jobs, then he later says government doesn't make jobs.  I thought that was quite ironic!

---

The economy continues to strengthen in the US.  Look at new home construction and consumer spending, and decreases in consumer debt.  Whoever wins the next election will look like their policies fixed the US economy.  That's my two cents.

 -Rof 

Report this comment
#21) On October 17, 2012 at 6:49 PM, awallejr (80.15) wrote:

Ah Bizarro Alstry as with your other account you prefer not to follow arguments but just spam allegations.  Sorry but this thread isn't about you.  I knew it was a matter of time before you started doing your multiple !s and ?s.

Report this comment
#22) On October 17, 2012 at 9:01 PM, JaysRage (94.20) wrote:

I think people are concerned about Libya for multiple reasons..

1) We were part of an unapproved conflict that ousted the previous regime, so we are somewhat accountable for the current state of affairs. 

2) An American diplomat died for the first time in 30 years

3) There is the appearance that Obama cares a great deal more about campaigning than attending to matters of national security.  

4) This is a terror attack the anniversary of 9/11, which makes it an incredibly symbolic victory for the enemy.    

I would also like to hear what the detailed agenda is from each candidate on Afghanistan, but Libya is certainly relevent. 

Report this comment
#23) On October 18, 2012 at 2:07 AM, awallejr (80.15) wrote:

Sorry Jay, as usual I disagree.  What matters is catching the bastards that killed our people.  Whether there was miscommunication, or fumbling of intell is secondary.  This is not watergate.  President Obama was right when he said directly to the face of Rommey that suggesting some kind of political coverup IS offensive.  There WERE two things happening simultaneously which both issues were addressed.

The only thing relevant about Libya, as I said, is to nail the murderers.

Report this comment
#24) On October 18, 2012 at 7:41 AM, AFMS (65.86) wrote:

Catching and killing the people responsible are most important and high priority.  But the fact is there was a coverup.  You don't actually think Obama would admit that do you? Of course he's going to once again try to flip it like they always do.  Obama jumps all over taking credit for "killing bin laden" but won't take responsibility for the death of the ambassador and other Americans.  There were miscommunication and other messes but American's want the truth.  It's how they handled it.  Biden laugh's about it, Obama calls it a bump in the road and fly's to Vegas the next day all while knowing in 24 hours it was a terrorist attack but for 14 days blame it on that video and apologize and sympathize to the poeple that did it while they burn our flags and take over 4 embassys and hang there flags on American soil.  They denied requests for extra security for Ambassador Stevens and then lied about denying it.  This is not leadership this is not who I want as chief and commander and niether should you I can go on forever.  They lied to you and if you claim they didnt there incompetent and can not do there job correctly it's a huge issue and not to be takin lightly.  So why anyone sticks up for people that lie to you and fail to keep you safe and fail to make a strong response to it is beyond me

Report this comment
#25) On October 18, 2012 at 10:59 AM, JaysRage (94.20) wrote:

Yes, by all means, catch the butchers and let justice be served. If Obama pulls that off in the weeks before the election, I'll give him due credit (ain't gonna happen) 

There are multiple choices.  Obama is covering something up or he's a foreign policy IDIOT or he doesn't give a crap.   Any way you stretch it, he loses Commander-In-Chief points in my eyes. Feel free to have blind trust.   I will weigh this information carefully.   

It was obvious that this was a planned attack to educated and experienced foreign policy experts.  For example, Senator McCain said immediately (LONG before the Obama adminstration admitted that it was a planned attack) that there was no way this was spontaneous due to the types of weapons involved and the nature of the attack.   He said that anyone with knowledge and understanding of war and combat would have easily come to that conclusion (WITHOUT ANY INTEL AT ALL).   

It's time to admit that Obama is below average at foreign policy....still nieve and inexperienced despite 4 years in the head job.    He's living completely off of the fat of the Bin Laden operation, which began in the Bush administration.   

Romney is not experience in foreign affairs either and neither is Paul Ryan.   Are they a better choice?   Perhaps not, but to me, the gap is small.    Is Romney smart enough to have a strong Secretary of State instead of an equally poor one like Hillary?   Hard to say.   I'd love to see McCain as SOS, but I wonder if he'd be interested in the post.  

 

  

Report this comment
#26) On October 18, 2012 at 11:07 AM, JaysRage (94.20) wrote:

By the way, I am disgusted by the way Obama and Hillary went out of their way to apologize for a video that they have no business apologizing for.   It was a perfect opportunity to explain what freedom is and why we defend it.  Whether you personally agree with something or not, we defend the right of Americans to express their religious freedom.   You have the right to be a bonehead without fear of assault, persecution or execution in the USA.  

In other words, I agree with what Romney said.   His timing was stupid and nieve and opportunistic.   He deserved all the criticism that he received.   It was decidedly un-Presidential......but what he said.....I agree with.   

Report this comment
#27) On October 18, 2012 at 11:30 AM, AFMS (65.86) wrote:

I agree with the majority of what you just wrote.  Sure maybe Romney and Ryan are just as inexperienced with foriegn policy as Obama I really don't have any facts and I wouldn't lie. but I am confident in saying Romney would have handeled the situation better.. Peace through power and strong foreign relations with allies.  Now uneduacted people think that means Republicans are for war which is absurd and ignorant and even embarassing for them to state that.  It means we stand up for our rights and beliefs and will defend our country through force not saying sorry.  Not saying the video was disgusting and we, reject it. The video is irrelevent we don't care about it, we care you murdered Americans and burned our flags and we give these peoples country's millions of dollars in aid. The president approach has weakened us. With great power comes much responsibility and we once had it.  The world needs it, without it theres chaos and it shows.  I can tell you under Romney there would be no apology video, no sypathizing for people who act with terror, no security lacking when it was requested especially on 9/11 and when there has been many warnings of attack and other issues arising, no lieing or covering up stories. 

Report this comment
#28) On October 18, 2012 at 12:08 PM, JaysRage (94.20) wrote:

I agree with peace through power.   It is nearly always more effective to accomplish your goals through the threat of war than through the actual process of war.    

In war, I also believe in having clear objectives, calculating the cost (in money and time and lives), and having a clear exit strategy. Conflict should be as fast as possible, as efficient as possible, and as cost-effective as possible and it should accomplish the objective.     

If you have not already done so, reading "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu is a must read.   

In this context, we have already lost the war in Afghanistan.  We have no clear objective.  We have spent Trillions of dollars.   We have no clear exit strategy.   We continue to lose American lives.   The on-going conflict has inflamed new enemies.  

Report this comment
#29) On October 18, 2012 at 12:25 PM, AFMS (65.86) wrote:

Yes this is true.  I'm familiar with it but haven't gotten to getting the book.  I'm an avid reader and it's been on my list of must reads.  I don't think it's a winnable war to be honest.  Terrorism is always going to exist, the world will continually have threats for all eternity and just like an incurable disease all we can do is treat it or manage it and live with it.  War will be forever with these people they are passionate about there beliefs and passionate about showing there power through there rhetoric and incindiary ways.  They will never stop.  We must always show them we too are passionate and also will never submit to them.  But I agree i am destroyed knowing everyday our troops and allies are dieing for this fight and I want them home. So I don't know how to handle the situation.  And I am glad I'm not the person that has to make these tough decisions because I couldn't..

Report this comment
#30) On October 18, 2012 at 2:55 PM, awallejr (80.15) wrote:

Jay apparently you didn't listen to Obama's UN speech.  Here is a link to the video and a transcript:

 http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=youtube%20obama%27s%20united%20nations%202012%20speech&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedailybeast.com%2Farticles%2F2012%2F09%2F25%2Fdid-obama-stand-up-for-a-free-society-at-the-un0.html&ei=Pk2AUJ2QHqj30gHg4oGoCg&usg=AFQjCNGiVog9KzqA551_TMfSyfrQzEN0MA

And as for whether Obama called the Benghazi attack an act of terror here is another link:

 http://www.google.com/search?q=no+acts+of+terror+speech&hl=en&prmd=imvnsu&source=univ&tbm=nws&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=bk6AUIHiMMSx0AGw_oDAAQ&sqi=2&ved=0CB0QqAI&biw=1252&bih=750

Trying to keep this petty issue alive as to if or when Obama called something an act of terror is just silly.  Aside from maybe you, no one is going to vote for or against Obama based on that issue.  Just as no one is going to vote for or against Romney based on his insulting one of our closest allies (Great Britain) during the olympics.

However I will consider the concern if whether Romney/Ryan would draw us into another war after Obama has been ending 2 from his predecessor..

 

Report this comment
#31) On October 18, 2012 at 3:11 PM, awallejr (80.15) wrote:

Think I gave the wrong link for the second in #30, although it does give you a bunch of other links.  This is the one I meant:

 http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=no%20acts%20of%20terror%20speech&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CCoQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2012%2F10%2F17%2Fpolitics%2Ffact-check-terror%2Findex.html&ei=bk6AUIHiMMSx0AGw_oDAAQ&usg=AFQjCNE75pm0ZLbAKkkI13L9xePRVSOhxg

Report this comment
#32) On October 18, 2012 at 3:28 PM, getrichslowfool (< 20) wrote:

Obama sure has spent a long time ending the 2 wars from his predecessor. 

I'm guessing Obama came into office, discovered that we weren't doing anything in these wars except sitting there with our thumbs up our butts, yet still hasn't ended them?

I've discovered his devious plan!  Just to make sure that every Obama supporter hates Bush even more, he's let these wars drag on for no reason so that you zombies have something to moan about?

Report this comment
#33) On October 18, 2012 at 4:03 PM, AFMS (65.86) wrote:

Read this for the truth, plus it's much less than what 30 and 31 are.  I'm sure he did watch as did I have been closely watching the President and his posse deceive this country who he doesn't care for and only cares to keep his job.  And continue to keep his hypnotized supporters who in my opinion also dont care for there own country.  Supporters who have destroyed this country, change it for the worse, lead people to think working hard and making money on there own is bad, defends those radicals who burn our flags but not defend the christian religion, and makes it obvious he deosn't care for the overall goodness of America by his ways, and yet still has a strong support group but by individuals who don't deserve to vote in my opinion and should have to qualify as should everyone in this country from now on by maybe taking an exam, or otherwise people like barack obama get in the white house, not because he was a good candidate but because of his skin color all while accusing republicans of being racist.  If Obama took a dump on our flag i'd bet my life liberals would still vote for him.  And whats really funny is after all the lieing, cheating, scandals, extreme bias from the media, tv, newspaper, internet he's losing!  Just shows evil never prevails

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2012/10/18/fact-checking-obamas-libya-claims

Report this comment
#34) On October 18, 2012 at 4:33 PM, JaysRage (94.20) wrote:

Yes, his statements at the UN regarding US freedom were good and appropriate.   Those should have been the statements that were given in the "Rose Garden" on the day after the event....not apologizing for the video....which happened on that day....and not taking out an advertisement in Pakistan to apologize for the video.   Yes, he finally got it mostly right at the UN.   Third time is the charm, I guess.   

You'll also notice that Obama was still not talking about this as a planned terrorist assault at this point in the timeline.    

Report this comment
#35) On October 18, 2012 at 7:07 PM, awallejr (80.15) wrote:

(sigh)  OK Jay will it make you and Romney happy if Obama says "the attack on Benghazi which murdered 4 of our citizens was a direct act of terror."?  Because besides you Romney and Kudlow I suspect people understood what the President meant that day in the Rose Garden.  Not everyone is obtuse.

Everyone else wants the murderers brought to justice.

Report this comment
#36) On October 19, 2012 at 9:45 AM, JaysRage (94.20) wrote:

You state that "everyone knows what he said on in the Rose Garden", yet your own statement infers that he somehow was relating this event to a planned act of terror, which he was not. 

Any reference to terror was in the context of the original 9/11.

Please, I encourage you to read the transcript....as the President said.....

Let's keep the conversation to a mature level and refrain from the name-calling, shall we?    

You don't see this as a big deal....fine....then don't treat it as a big deal.   To me, this is an important window to how Obama operates as Commander-In-Chief.   I'm not impressed.   

 

   

Report this comment
#37) On October 19, 2012 at 9:54 AM, JaysRage (94.20) wrote:

Let's sum up the current foreign affairs situation

1) We are fully on the ground in Afghanistan

2) We are engaged in severe economic sanctions with Iran, who is close to obtaining nuclear capabilities.   Israel is seriously considering going to war to prevent that scenario.  

3) North and South Korea tensions are high.

4) We are politically tied to the Libyan unrest, due to our direct combat intervention in the conflict.

5) We are at a low point in near-term relations with Russia

There is the distinct possibility that tensions with Iran and North Korea come to a head during the next four years.    To me, I want to have confidence in the leadership at the top in these scenarios.   

Report this comment
#38) On October 19, 2012 at 1:51 PM, edwjm (99.83) wrote:

JaysRage:

And you think Romney-Ryan is better equiped to handle 1--5 ???

How weird !!!

Report this comment
#39) On October 19, 2012 at 2:04 PM, AFMS (65.86) wrote:

WOW... watching Biden alone proves he doesn't take Iran seriously or the threat of nuclear capabilities since when Ryan was saying how close they are to achieving such Biden laughed the whole time and said "they have no bomb to put it in" "hehe haha" Which proves this sorry excuse for an administrtation still do not take these people serious.  Saying they don't have anything to put it in and luagh it off is taking it way lightly no matter what is true.  At all times we need to think Worst Case Scenario!  These are terrorists the kill us at any chance they kill little girls in there own country and if they had a nuke they'd use it on isreal without warning and us if they were capable.. So you sound just a much as a poor excuse for an American as this cabinet.   I don't even need to get into Lybia that situation speaks for itself, which has been handled nothing short of abysmal. 

Report this comment
#40) On October 19, 2012 at 3:11 PM, JaysRage (94.20) wrote:

#38 -- Undecided at the moment....which is why I'm weighing every piece of information available.  

Report this comment
#41) On October 19, 2012 at 6:18 PM, awallejr (80.15) wrote:

Bengazi attack happened.  The very next day Obama says this:

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

Of course he was referring to the Bengazi attack.  Any other inference is illogical unless you are Kudlow.

But enough with this.  Romney would be unwise to push the issue again come their third debate.

P.S., AFMS the reason why I don't respond to your posts is because I don't read them.  They are "walls of words." You might want to break them up into more paragraphs.  This is not meant to be nasty since I encourage debate here and this site is way too quiet.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement