Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I thought I heard him say Syria was Iran's route to Lebanon, but I only caught snippets while doing errands.

That might turn a bad situation into a nightmare. Lebanon has a decent size christian pop there. Also a few in their gov't structure. Heck its a step closer to Isreal to.

 Peregrine wrote:

And then once you answer that question, answer it again with the knowledge that any war that could possibly require the use of such a large military would be almost guaranteed to go nuclear, at which point the only forces that matter are the ICBMs.

We're not talking about individual wars.

 RiTides wrote:

Demonizing the other side never got anything done, imo.

Saint Reagan disagrees.

 AustonT wrote:
I thought I heard him say Syria was Iran's route to Lebanon, but I only caught snippets while doing errands.

Oh, the actual quote is much worse.

Secondly, Syria's an opportunity for us because Syria plays an important role in the Middle East, particularly right now. Syria is Iran's only ally in the Arab world. It's their route to the sea

I also like how he tried to sound savvy by calling Syria Iran's only Arab ally.

HAH Frazzled voted! No more of this crappola.

 Frazzled wrote:
HAH Frazzled voted! No more of this crappola.

*joins Frazzled in the "I voted so Zero feths given" lounge for the remainder of election year*

 Manchu wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
What happened to the positive man I voted for?

He has had to deal with hysterical, cynical, treacherous Congressional Republicans for four years, and especially in the last two. There's nothing "independent" about switching horses in the middle of the river.

This is not the middle of the river, Manchu... it's the end of a term, where I again choose who to vote for, and who not to.

Thinking about this today, I actually am not totally sure who I am voting for still... 60/40 to Romney atm, I guess... despite my post from last night. I just really like Obama, too...

Not that most people really care, probably . But, I really do try to consider these issues deeply, and especially which candidate would be best for the economy, and I honestly don't think anyone truly knows.

If we'd known the crisis/bubble was coming, we would've avoided it... and who knows what is coming next.

A little disappointed by the responses to my post, I'll be honest... but that's why I hardly ever venture in here, despite frequently discussing these issues in-person. But, I am an independent voter, and would like to think I reflect what a decent number of independents who are actually still considering both candidates are thinking. Unfortunately, that's not necessarily true... as most undecideds are simply not paying any attention / are making decisions off very little information, and didn't watch the debates, for instance.

Oh well, just figured I'd share my thoughts in here briefly, now to vacate OT for another year or so

 RiTides wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
What happened to the positive man I voted for?

He has had to deal with hysterical, cynical, treacherous Congressional Republicans for four years, and especially in the last two. There's nothing "independent" about switching horses in the middle of the river.

This is not the middle of the river, Manchu... it's the end of a term, where I again choose who to vote for, and who not to.

But in the political reality of the American Presidency this is the middle of the river. For a sitting president it is more of a review and not a new interview.

For me, it's a new interview... I wasn't all that happy with the second term of our last 2-term president! I'm not going to automatically vote for a candidate simply because I did 4 years ago... they have to earn my vote with the plans for what they will do, not only what they've done, etc. Although what they've done is obviously a big factor...

 RiTides wrote:
For me, it's a new interview... I wasn't all that happy with the second term of our last 2-term president! I'm not going to automatically vote for a candidate simply because I did 4 years ago... they have to earn my vote with the plans for what they will do, not only what they've done, etc. Although what they've done is obviously a big factor...

Recognizing that a political reality, like this being a mid point for a sitting President more than an end point, is nowhere near the same thing as advocating voting for a sitting President merely because he/she is the sitting President. An election with an incumbent isn't about electing two fresh faced fellows, but about deciding whether the incumbent keeps his job or is fired. President Obama already has the job, you are deciding whether he keeps it.

Obama has had to face the single worst economic fall out since the great depression.

It was just not possible to face that down and have the good times rolling again in 2 years, we are starting to see recovery now and I'm glad about that.

I fear Romney will return us to the same hi-jinks that got us there.

And it's not just about Romney or Obama, it's their parties and what they will bring, Romney brings with him a Republican party so far swung to the right and in the grips of the extremists in the Tea Party that wish to implement hard line social conservatism whilst touting the notion of 'personal freedoms'. They cry out about 'big government' getting into your healthcare but want that same government to decide on your rights to reproduce or who you marry in federal law. They wish to bring about a theocratic government that is against the principals of the founding fathers. They wish to erode and undermine scientific education and encourage individual selfishness as a virtue. All the time making the super rich richer and the average worker poorer and poorer.

I hope Obama gets voted into a second term, he's earned it.

 Manchu wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
What happened to the positive man I voted for?

He has had to deal with hysterical, cynical, treacherous Congressional Republicans for four years, and especially in the last two. There's nothing "independent" about switching horses in the middle of the river.

Manchu... the Obama and the House/Senate Democrats had both chambers in the first 2 years.

They flubbed it so bad, they lost their collective asses during the Midterm...

 whembly wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
What happened to the positive man I voted for?

He has had to deal with hysterical, cynical, treacherous Congressional Republicans for four years, and especially in the last two. There's nothing "independent" about switching horses in the middle of the river.

Manchu... the Obama and the House/Senate Democrats had both chambers in the first 2 years.

They flubbed it so bad, they lost their collective asses during the Midterm...

horse gak.

They were faced with an economic disaster and the voting public were outraged they suddenly didn't wave a magic wand and fix it, coupled with the height of the 'he's a secret muslim communist nazi where's his birth certificate!!', so they voted in a group of Republicans who then set about blocking any and all actions to the detriment of the nation's well being.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
What happened to the positive man I voted for?

He has had to deal with hysterical, cynical, treacherous Congressional Republicans for four years, and especially in the last two. There's nothing "independent" about switching horses in the middle of the river.

Manchu... the Obama and the House/Senate Democrats had both chambers in the first 2 years.

They flubbed it so bad, they lost their collective asses during the Midterm...

horse gak.

They were faced with an economic disaster and the voting public were outraged they suddenly didn't wave a magic wand and fix it, coupled with the height of the 'he's a secret muslim communist nazi where's his birth certificate!!', so they voted in a group of Republicans who then set about blocking any and all actions to the detriment of the nation's well being.

And I call horse gak on that...

You just denigrated those who voted out the Democrats... good job MGS!

Obamacare/ACA that was rammed through both senate and house that was democratic control did pissed quite a few people off.

 Jihadin wrote:
Obamacare/ACA that was rammed through both senate and house that was democratic control did pissed quite a few people off.

They could have passed a republican created plan and it still would have pissed people off. Oh wait...

 Ahtman wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Obamacare/ACA that was rammed through both senate and house that was democratic control did pissed quite a few people off.

They could have passed a republican created plan and it still would have pissed people off. Oh wait...

No... the "way" it was passed... and they things it mandated pissed the people off...

The ACA bill was advertised to keep cost down and ensure access for everyone... that couldn't be farther than the truth.

Of course th Super Committe was a goat rope session. Either you (Ahtman or Dogma) posted their educational background and believe three of them actually had someting of an idea to them actually doing it. Rest was....fodder.

Curious when sequestion hits. Since Clinton geared the US military towards being able to fight two front wars are we still capable of maintaining that military strength or we going below ten divisions. Also as a side note. Bayonets are still heavily employed in all ground forces.

Romney was right on this one about GM. Why are we doing loans instead of garauntee's(sp) since economic class for was 20+ yrs ago...whats the difference

Drones. Yes Bush started it and it expanded under Obama. I'm for it and the Hellfire is to be replaced soon...think Javelin version

Why are we still dicking around with the keystone Pipeline.

I'm OT...on Vicaden, lunesta, antivan, and minipress......why does Manny HATE ME actually just kidding.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

I hope Obama gets voted into a second term, he's earned it.

That and the shifts in the supreme court that could take place with a republican controlled presidency over the next four to eight years could spell anything between a decades long setback to a total deathblow for the progress of human rights and the equality of American citizens going forward.

Dream Act that...well some portions that went forward on Executive Orders. That irks me somewhat. How many executive acts did he end round on congress to get something to happen?

 Jihadin wrote:
Dream Act that...well some portions that went forward on Executive Orders. That irks me somewhat. How many executive acts did he end round on congress to get something to happen?

When Republican priority is to oust him, above and beyond repairing the country, what is he to do?

He had been offering the olive branch, asking to work together and instead received this:




These people are not fit to govern, they place partisan prejudice over the well being of the nation.

I didn't watch the video because I going to say he pretty much got slammed. There's always a middle ground to be found somewhere that both sides can agree to. Perception I have is no one wants to bipartisan it. Being an NCO I don't care but I learn to embrace the suck. It needs to get moved forward and hammered out. In a lock room...with water and blimpie sandwiches to sustain them. I even go crueler and give them MRE's till they come up with something. give it to us NCO and we have a workable plan within three days.

edit
watched the 8 secs. SO I wonder what drove the republicans to stance. Not much can be done now with two weeks left before election. If he wins a second term and its a republican house and senate how bad has Obama burnt those bridges.

 Jihadin wrote:
There's always a middle ground to be found somewhere that both sides can agree to.

Sure, there's always a middle ground that both sides could agree to. The problem is that one party is legitimately trying to govern the country, while the other party has openly admitted that making Obama a one-term president is the most important thing. Just look at stuff like the debt limit fight, it's an issue that both parties have always just quietly voted to eliminate every time it comes up, but suddenly once the republicans sensed Obama might be vulnerable on it they discover how serious an issue it is. And time after time the democrats tried to compromise, while the republican response was to reject the compromise and demand even more. In the end the country paid the price, while none of the republicans seemed to care.

So all three sides lack actual leaders. No one willing to go "Lead, follow or get the Hell out my way" to drive some issues. This is where my leaning towards everyone that holds a political office need to do a stint in the military.

 Jihadin wrote:
Dream Act that...well some portions that went forward on Executive Orders. That irks me somewhat. How many executive acts did he end round on congress to get something to happen?

Less per 4 years than any previous president.

 d-usa wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Dream Act that...well some portions that went forward on Executive Orders. That irks me somewhat. How many executive acts did he end round on congress to get something to happen?

Less per 4 years than any previous president.

He signed something like 120 EO...

Which I find funny but as Senator, he campaigned against using EOs...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
So all three sides lack actual leaders. No one willing to go "Lead, follow or get the Hell out my way" to drive some issues. This is where my leaning towards everyone that holds a political office need to do a stint in the military.

I'd go with that... problem is... you'd have to Amend the Constitution to enable that requirement. Not easy... (for a good reason)

 Jihadin wrote:
So all three sides lack actual leaders. No one willing to go "Lead, follow or get the Hell out my way" to drive some issues. This is where my leaning towards everyone that holds a political office need to do a stint in the military.

Go all the way, service guarantees citizenship!

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Obama has had to face the single worst economic fall out since the great depression.

Which made it rather unwise to promise massive improvement during his first term if elected, no?

 Jihadin wrote:
So all three sides lack actual leaders. No one willing to go "Lead, follow or get the Hell out my way" to drive some issues. This is where my leaning towards everyone that holds a political office need to do a stint in the military.

The military in this country is under civilian leadership. I'd greatly prefer if we could stop being the world's largest exporter of war, and start, as the founding fathers wished, return to being a country that does not seek out monsters to destroy.

That being said, the benefits of a military background as far as presidential efficiency are tenuous at best. Some of of greatest presidents were military men, and some of our very worst were also.

 Jihadin wrote:
Also as a side note. Bayonets are still heavily employed in all ground forces.

Due to drops in Budgeting we decided to just get rid of that whole "gun concept" and just stick with the Bayonets(get it? "stick", I'm such a funny person)

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Dream Act that...well some portions that went forward on Executive Orders. That irks me somewhat. How many executive acts did he end round on congress to get something to happen?

Less per 4 years than any previous president.

He signed something like 120 EO...

Which I find funny but as Senator, he campaigned against using EOs...

But he signed less than previous presidents (at least back until Reagan) per term, which is funny considering that people love to paint him as the "EO President".