|
|
Post by inevitec on May 26, 2011 17:10:05 GMT -8
Maybe, but he got bin laden. Obama's problem is that he takes liberals for granted, because what Republicans offer, by contrast, is an anathema. He uses that horror against us. We will have to cure Obama of his smug position with regard to liberals. But Republicans will nominate and unknown or an idiot like Palin, because they are hostage to their own horror-the Tea party. Get it right please. The folks that got Bin Laden were the true professionals from the CT community writ large and the USSOCCOM operators who pulled it off. Obama gets credit for it being done on his watch and making some good top-level calls that were timely. I am confident that any president would have done the same thing. The folks that did the real work were the same folks from 2008 and before. I know a few of them. I see you like to talk in platitudes but please at least give credit where it belongs. I know the military. But you implied Obama was weak. That is an erroneous platitude as well. |
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on May 26, 2011 19:24:26 GMT -8
Get it right please. The folks that got Bin Laden were the true professionals from the CT community writ large and the USSOCCOM operators who pulled it off. Obama gets credit for it being done on his watch and making some good top-level calls that were timely. I am confident that any president would have done the same thing. The folks that did the real work were the same folks from 2008 and before. I know a few of them. I see you like to talk in platitudes but please at least give credit where it belongs. I know the military. But you implied Obama was weak. That is an erroneous platitude as well. Actually, I didn't. I stated clearly that he is spineless and frankly, you confirmed it. I said he doesn't stick to his principles and bends quite easily. You said essentially the same thing when you said: "Obama's problem is that he takes liberals for granted... We will have to cure Obama of his smug position with regard to liberals." It is actually the Clinton model. He was hard left his first two years, lost congress, got the Newt "Contract for America" and won the next election. Obama is doing the same thing but this time, he doesn't have a recovering economy to fall back on. His next step was to hire a social media snark to go after people who disagree with him publicly. Lets see how that plays in Des Moines... |
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on May 27, 2011 15:25:03 GMT -8
I know the military. But you implied Obama was weak. That is an erroneous platitude as well. Actually, I didn't. I stated clearly that he is spineless and frankly, you confirmed it. I said he doesn't stick to his principles and bends quite easily. You said essentially the same thing when you said: "Obama's problem is that he takes liberals for granted... We will have to cure Obama of his smug position with regard to liberals." It is actually the Clinton model. He was hard left his first two years, lost congress, got the Newt "Contract for America" and won the next election. Obama is doing the same thing but this time, he doesn't have a recovering economy to fall back on. His next step was to hire a social media snark to go after people who disagree with him publicly. Lets see how that plays in Des Moines... "Actually, I didn't" Actually, you did. Word parsing will not work with me. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2011 16:16:21 GMT -8
I saw an interview on the Charlie Rose show this week discussing Romney, Pawlenty and Huntsmann. Of the three the most intriguing propsective candidate to the three writers being interviewed was Huntsmann. I know next to nothing about Huntsmann, but found there thoughts intriguing. He sounds very similiar to G.H.W. Bush's in pedigree. Again, I haven't had time to research Huntsmann at all, and wondered what some of your thoughts where? Agree with the comparison to H.W., including intellectually. No Dubya, that's for sure. Still, I would assume Huntsmann is a Mormon and I don't think a Mormon is electable yet. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on May 27, 2011 16:37:17 GMT -8
I don't engage in misdirection - I engage in logical arguments that you don't bother to take the time to understand. =Bob -bob, I take the time to outline your strawman arguments and red herrings you constantly throw out, as well as how you totally misrepresent my psots. Feel free to counter with details sometime. In the meantime, I don't have the time to waste with your stuff these days. Sorry. Um, no you don't because you are so eager to take offense with what I write that you don't bother to really take a look at what I write. I offer my arguments in great detail but when I do all you can offer is some weak response about "logic" or some complaint that I'm warping your writing while never answering my arguments. If you want to troll in the same manner that Pooh trolls, feel free to do so, but please stop complaining that I'm hijacking a thread or engaging in mis-direction when I'm responding in a logical manner that you don't seem to be able to keep up with. I'm sorry that you think I'm somehow "cheating" or trolling, but I'm not. I am offering you reasonable arguments and I think highly enough of you that I expect reasonable arguments in response rather than whining about my "straw man" and "red herring" arguments that I have not made. Come on, Stu. I certainly understand that what you do doesn't leave you much time to argue, but please show me some respect when it comes to politics. I consistently defer to you when it comes to military matters - I would simply ask you do the same when it comes to foreign policy. What the F - you won't but I figured it was worth the asking. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on May 27, 2011 16:39:13 GMT -8
Pawlenty would stand a puncher's chance in this thing (at least if he goes and watches A Face In the Crowd first). Damn, that's sort of an obscure reference. One of my favorite movies. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on May 27, 2011 16:49:46 GMT -8
Lets see how that plays in Des Moines... He "won" Iowa last time. He'll lose it this time if the republicans don't give it to him again by picking another empty suit for VP. The Evangelicals control Iowa, Republican, primary politics. If Bachmann gets in the race she has a good chance of winning in Iowa and the Republicant Party will continue to decline. The Republican Party is at a cross-roads. It has relied upon the "Southern Strategy" since Nixon and it's no longer working because the "Reagan Democrats", living in the burbs, are fed up with the evangelical ideology that the Party has adopted. This country operates in the middle. The Democrats lost sight of that in the '70s and the '80s and the Republicans have lost sight of it now. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on May 27, 2011 16:59:21 GMT -8
I saw an interview on the Charlie Rose show this week discussing Romney, Pawlenty and Huntsmann. Of the three the most intriguing propsective candidate to the three writers being interviewed was Huntsmann. I know next to nothing about Huntsmann, but found there thoughts intriguing. He sounds very similiar to G.H.W. Bush's in pedigree. Again, I haven't had time to research Huntsmann at all, and wondered what some of your thoughts where? Agree with the comparison to H.W., including intellectually. No Dubya, that's for sure. Still, I would assume Huntsmann is a Mormon and I don't think a Mormon is electable yet. I'm not all that sure that Republicans that much of a problem with LDS these days, other than the insane evangelicals who refuse to see LDS as a "cult" rather than just another Christian sect. Hell, Pooh and I disagree on theology simply because he believes in Biblical prophesy and I believe in Methodist teachings. Outside of his conservative politics I have no problem with Huntsman. Aside from everything else, I wouldn't vote for him because of LDS engagement in Prop 8. In short, he and LDS are haters when it comes to gays ans lesbians and I really despise people who hate them. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on May 27, 2011 20:06:30 GMT -8
-bob, I take the time to outline your strawman arguments and red herrings you constantly throw out, as well as how you totally misrepresent my psots. Feel free to counter with details sometime. In the meantime, I don't have the time to waste with your stuff these days. Sorry. Um, no you don't because you are so eager to take offense with what I write that you don't bother to really take a look at what I write. I offer my arguments in great detail but when I do all you can offer is some weak response about "logic" or some complaint that I'm warping your writing while never answering my arguments. If you want to troll in the same manner that Pooh trolls, feel free to do so, but please stop complaining that I'm hijacking a thread or engaging in mis-direction when I'm responding in a logical manner that you don't seem to be able to keep up with. I'm sorry that you think I'm somehow "cheating" or trolling, but I'm not. I am offering you reasonable arguments and I think highly enough of you that I expect reasonable arguments in response rather than whining about my "straw man" and "red herring" arguments that I have not made. Come on, Stu. I certainly understand that what you do doesn't leave you much time to argue, but please show me some respect when it comes to politics. I consistently defer to you when it comes to military matters - I would simply ask you do the same when it comes to foreign policy. What the F - you won't but I figured it was worth the asking. =Bob OK, I'll play. Show me one reasonable response to one of my thought psots. One, Don't include any responses to your trolls. I just did a psot search and looked over my last 20 non-sports psots. I couldn't find one substantive response. PS, you may have a BA Poli Sci degree from 30 years ago but I have a Masters Degree in it and real foreign policy experience, non-military. You know that. You know I was a director at State Department in a real FP position in addition to another position I've had. Sorry, I had to play that card but you keep forgetting to mention that and act as if you are some sort of an expert and I have no clue. I'll be deleting this psot in a day so don't quote it please...I just needed to send that BS flag out. So, show me some of those psots you are talking about. Take it to PM if you want. Until then, stop non-answering. |
|
|
|
Post by azdick on May 28, 2011 12:47:17 GMT -8
Pawlenty would stand a puncher's chance in this thing (at least if he goes and watches A Face In the Crowd first). Damn, that's sort of an obscure reference. One of my favorite movies. Andy Griffith's finest role. =Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2011 9:21:59 GMT -8
I'm not all that sure that Republicans that much of a problem with LDS these days, other than the insane evangelicals who refuse to see LDS as a "cult" rather than just another Christian sect. Hell, Pooh and I disagree on theology simply because he believes in Biblical prophesy and I believe in Methodist teachings. Outside of his conservative politics I have no problem with Huntsman. Aside from everything else, I wouldn't vote for him because of LDS engagement in Prop 8. In short, he and LDS are haters when it comes to gays ans lesbians and I really despise people who hate them. Thanks for not scolding me on the spelling of Huntsman. Somebody else misspelled it first and I didn't notice until later he had misspelled it too. I really don't know much about the man but he strikes me as an articulate, fairly moderate Utah Republican. Since unlike most Democrats, I have trepidation about abortion, unlike them, I'm not turned off to politicians who would seek to limit abortion rights. (It will never be abolished nationally.) Nevertheless, I think a Mormon is currently unelectable not only because, as you say, the Evangelicals won't turn out to vote for him. (They won't vote for the Democratic candidate, either, but they won't vote at all if an LDS guy is the Republican candidate.) I think a Mormon is also unelectable because of the Mormon Church's adamant stand on gay marriage. That will have the opposite effect on the opposite side of the political spectrum. What the Mormon Church has done vis-a-vis gay marriage will galvanize the left wing of the Democratic party and motivate them to donate big time money and time. The result would be devastating for the Republicans in swing states. (Gonna be moot because Romney will again fail to get the nomination in 2012.) |
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on May 29, 2011 10:12:50 GMT -8
I'm not all that sure that Republicans that much of a problem with LDS these days, other than the insane evangelicals who refuse to see LDS as a "cult" rather than just another Christian sect. Hell, Pooh and I disagree on theology simply because he believes in Biblical prophesy and I believe in Methodist teachings. Outside of his conservative politics I have no problem with Huntsman. Aside from everything else, I wouldn't vote for him because of LDS engagement in Prop 8. In short, he and LDS are haters when it comes to gays ans lesbians and I really despise people who hate them. Thanks for not scolding me on the spelling of Huntsman. Somebody else misspelled it first and I didn't notice until later he had misspelled it too. I really don't know much about the man but he strikes me as an articulate, fairly moderate Utah Republican. Since unlike most Democrats, I have trepidation about abortion, unlike them, I'm not turned off to politicians who would seek to limit abortion rights. (It will never be abolished nationally.) Nevertheless, I think a Mormon is currently unelectable not only because, as you say, the Evangelicals won't turn out to vote for him. (They won't vote for the Democratic candidate, either, but they won't vote at all if an LDS guy is the Republican candidate.) I think a Mormon is also unelectable because of the Mormon Church's adamant stand on gay marriage. That will have the opposite effect on the opposite side of the political spectrum. What the Mormon Church has done vis-a-vis gay marriage will galvanize the left wing of the Democratic party and motivate them to donate big time money and time. The result would be devastating for the Republicans in swing states. (Gonna be moot because Romney will again fail to get the nomination in 2012.) I think you are missing a point. I doubt gay issues will have much sway if a person such as Romney or Huntsman get the nomination, the Left stands to lose the conservative democrat Latino vote if this is made a central issue. I would say the black vote would be in question but because Obama is the likely democratic candidate, that will not pull them away as it did in Prop 8. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2011 10:24:15 GMT -8
I think you are missing a point. I doubt gay issues will have much sway if a person such as Romney or Huntsman get the nomination, the Left stands to lose the conservative democrat Latino vote if this is made a central issue. I really don't think the conservative Democratic Latino vote matters much anywhere except in Florida. Certainly not on the issue of gay marriage. As an example, my PT secretary is a Latina. She and her husband are moderate Democrats who are very Catholic and very opposed to abortion. However, regardless of what the Pope may say, gay marriage doesn't bother them in the slightest. (Big difference between possibly murdering a human being and simply disregarding the "men shall not lie down with men" line in the Bible.) My sense is that sentiment is typical of Mexican-Americans. |
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on May 29, 2011 10:45:02 GMT -8
I think the hispanic vote is more mobile than that. As their influence grows outside of traditional areas (California to Texas), they seem to maintain their faith but also their independance. I speak with an interesting cross-section of hispanic Americans who join the military. Outside of the obvious, they are pretty independant and my observation has found they are more likely to be independant than more traditional constituencies. That will be an interesting demographic to watch in this upcoming election. Not saying how they will vote but that they are a group to watch.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on May 29, 2011 17:54:47 GMT -8
OK, I'll play. Show me one reasonable response to one of my thought psots. One, Don't include any responses to your trolls. Okay; you're in bold, I'm in italics: You expose your bias blatantly on the leading question. I, for one am very conservative but very moderate in most views. I certainly think that libertarian conservatives are pretty moderate as well. Ronald Reagan would be considered moderate by many standards and his strength of character was that he wasn't spineless and stuck to his values and core beliefs. If by "moderate" you mean spineless, you may want to look towards left-leaning libertarians and democratics.Would Reagan have made it through the primaries these days if he were to run as he did in '80? Let's face a simple fact; Barry Goldwater was the patron saint of the conservative movement that Nixon and Reagan advanced to gain the White House and in his last years Goldwater was vilified by the right because he came out in favor of gay rights. You claim to be moderate and knowing you I think that's a fairly accurate self-evaluation, but how many of you are left in the Republican Party? Certainly there is no one left in the Republican party my family believed in when I was a kid - the party of TDR, Henry Cabot Lodge and Nelson Rockefeller. The Southern Strategy worked longer than LBJ predicted, but it's become a rural party. That doesn't mean that Republicans can't win elections, be they Congressional, Senatorial or Presidential but it does mean that as long as the party has ideological litmus tests - and the Republican primary voters have a ton of them - the party will continue to marginalize itself because it eats all their young who might have a moderate idea that just might work.[/i] Where is the misdirection or troll in my response. You stated Reagan would be considered a moderate by many standards and in hindsight, given where the right stands today, I'd agree with you. But the subject at hand is whether any Republican is electable and I simply pointed out that by today's standards, I'm not sure Reagan could make it through the primaries. Again, this is the problem - you don't read what I write- you simply take immediate offense because you assume I'm engaging in tricks and trolls when I'm not doing so. And at the same time, in your response, you bring your definition of "spineless" into the discussion as a means of attacking the left. Who, exactly, is engaging in misdirection, Stu? =Bob |
|
