Obama's Failures

Yes, and that exactly is what Romney and his adviser has done recently, elect Romney and terrorism will stop because Romney will be perceived to be such a tough ass. That is pretty much what an adviser said recently and Romney remarks have reflected the same attitude. Part of what Obama has said is true. America is better respected by the world now a less antagonistic, America first policy has been implemented. But the terrorists hate America no matter who is in power, and no matter who is president, they will try to strike. They are not afraid of Obama and they don't respect him either, and Romney they won't be afraid of either and will have no respect for.

There is an interview Romney gave that is typical Romney, criticizing the President's policy in the Middle East, but basically saying he wouldn't do anything different except maybe talk tougher.

That is Romney on almost everything. I'll be better, don't ask me how.

But most of his advisers are neocons, many of whom worked for Bush who were itching to get into Iraq from day one. Many of them have advocated commiting troops for invasions in the Middle East. I doubt Romney would do that because I think he is all talk, unlike Bush, and instinctively cautious. But if he listens to some of his people, and it includes a certifiable loony who claims the Muslim Brotherhood has inflitrated the White House, we elect him and we can look forward to more unnecessary costly wars that could only be paid for by eliminating the safety net for everyone, like that pesky entitlement dependent 47 percent.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

Look, the issue here is not Romney, it's Obama.
I'm not a big Romney fan, matter of fact I think there is something robotic about him. I just know that I don't want what Obama allready showed us and I feel it will be more of the same if he is re-elected, if not worse, and I'm willing to give Romney a chance to do better.

Things go wrong sometimess. Mistakes happen.

So all the things that have gone wrong are an argument to elect Romney?

Man, I just can't stop laughing at this one.

Yes, and we all live in Tinkley Winkley Land with the Happy Little Elves.

We are better respected around the world? You watch way, way too much "mainstream" news.

__________________

Because none of your specific charges other than the program failed are facts. They are certainly alternate universe becaues if some of your non facts were true people would be in jail and president would be impeached.

Washington Examiner is real mainstream, a paper that only publishes conservative commentators and has a specific editorial policy to do that.

Yes, it is a real stiff paper

And you have that right. But a lot of people look at Romney and don't like the alternative.

Except there was a public court case. Or was there?

THAT IS WHY WE ARE UPSET because none of those repercussions are happening

Well it certainly boosts the case for electing him. Obama has had his shot and not only not delivered but shown a strong predesposition for making things even worse. I don't think that Romney would be worse.
He certainy has a better economic base and I think that his stance on foreign policy would be firmer and more resolute.

Almost all of my charges are encompassed by the statement "the program failed," so I'm not sure what you think you're claiming here.

Anything less than 100% established was described accurately; for example, my claim that Holder "probably lied" or at least misstated things can be found in the testimony itself, where Holder denies knowledge of the program, and then has to correct himself when documents prove otherwise. I can quote it directly if necessary, but the fact that I've asked for specifics five times without getting any makes me think you're just sort of fishing and determined to dispute this stuff whether you really have anything to say or not.

Er, no he wouldn't. Nothing I charged suggests that. Obama didn't testify and he invoked Executive Privilege, besides.

Leaving aside the hilarious implication that anything from a conservative source you can just completely dismiss without explaining why, I didn't link to any Examiner articles in relation to Fast & Furious.

Here it is, everyone. I found it. This is will's defense of the Obama administration's actions. A slightly longer version of "Whoops."

I know, right? It's like there's something that literally prevents him from understanding the complaint. Probably an inexplicably unshakable belief in the mainstream media. Which, by the way, is significantly less trusted these days.

“We have a rule: we never free a mind once it reaches a certain age. It’s dangerous. The mind has trouble letting go. I’ve seen it before and I’m sorry.” -Morpheus

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza

Well, polls show that. The world thought little of America when Bush was running the show.

This America first, either you're with us or against us, is not a great way to make friends and influence people.

No, you linked it to a bombshell article that Obama as an attorney defended a slum landlord! What a wowser story that was.

__________________
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo.

And people who point them out. And supporters who try to clumsily brush them off by saying things like "All administrations have failures."

But you'll still pathologically contradict them and then say you won't debate them when asked to back it up.

If you don't want to debate these things, that's your call. But that involves not feigning argument in the first place if you're just going to withdraw when questioned. Debate or don't, but don't waste my time with kneejerk denials you can't or won't defend.

You're all twisted up here. The question is not whether or not these actions would be impeachable if exposed. The question is whether or not the lack of impeachment somehow means there must be no merit to them, which is what you suggested. And the answer is: of course not, because the President won't release the documents.

Which begs the question: how can Obama not have known about the program and insist that the documents contain privileged Executive communications? Explain that, if you would.

Your insistence on valuing arguments purely on their electoral impact is staggeringly small-minded and, frankly, part of the problem.

Ugh. That first argument is terrible. Obama's not a liberal because people still shop and eat fast food? What?

The only argument here is foreign policy. He's certainly not been liberal there. But domestically, he absolutely has. The fact that Bill Maher wanted single-payer healthcare and just got a universal mandate doesn't mean the universal mandate isn't liberal, it just means Bill Maher had insane expectations. The fact that liberals thought they were going to get everything they wanted doesn't mean what they got isn't liberal. Of course it is. All Maher does here is refute the people who go over the top and act like he's completely dismantled American society. The fact that he's not a raging Marxist like the Michelle Bachmanns of the world think doesn't make him moderate. It's a big ol' straw man.

And boy, do we need to talk about that spending graph. Total bull. The problem, in a nutshell, is it uses 2009 as a baseline and then measures spending growth against that ridiculously high sum. It says that because the deficit was insanely high the first year he came in, that's the new "normal" and he's only increased it slightly from that insanely high point. What was unprecedented in 2009 (though he supported the things that drove it to that point, anyway) has become constant under Obama.

We've added about $6 trillion to the national debt during Obama's term. That's 60% of the total for all previous Presidents combined. In less than a single term.

Yeah, I am the problem. I am the reason Republicans nominated a candidate who is going to lose in a year he shouldn't.