The Commish
Footballguy
How'd this work for the country last time?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Presidential Debate Thread - Obama vs. Romney (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter bigbottom
- Start date
timschochet
Footballguy
There really is an awful lot wrong this analysis.FAILURES:His failed personal effort to bring the 2016 Olympics to Chicago. His failed personal effort to negotiate a climate-change deal at Copenhagen in 2009. His failed efforts to strike a nuclear deal with Iran that year and this year. His failed effort to improve America's public standing in the Muslim world with the now-forgotten Cairo speech. His failed reset with Russia. His failed effort to strong-arm Israel into a permanent settlement freeze. His failed (if half-hearted) effort to maintain a residual U.S. military force in Iraq. His failed efforts to cut deals with the Taliban and reach out to North Korea. His failed effort to win over China and Russia for even a symbolic U.N. condemnation of Syria's Bashar Assad. His failed efforts to intercede in Europe's economic crisis. "SUCCESSES":His successful personal effort to insult the head of state and prime minister of America's closest ally (as well as removing the bust of its wartime prime minister from the Oval Office); his successful personal effort to put daylight between the U.S. and Israel; his successful effort to ostracize Honduras for enforcing its constitution against a Hugo Chavez wannabe; his successful effort to become the first U.S. president to chair a UN meeting; his successful effort to ignore the efforts of Iranian citizens protesting the stolen 2009 presidential election and then ignore seriatim deadlines for Iran to accept his outstretched hand; his successful efforts to oppose Congressional attempts to strengthen Iran sanctions, while touting each round of non-crippling sanctions as the "toughest ever"; his successful effort to ward off pressure to visit Israel from liberal Israeli columnists, Jewish Democrats in Congress, and friendly rabbis; his successful effort to jettison a U.S. ally in Egypt and reportedly invite the new Pharaoh to the U.S.; . . . . his successful effort to delay executing an already-negotiated free trade agreement with the closest U.S. ally in Latin America; his successful effort to improve relations with Mexico by suing Arizona on its behalf; his successful effort to build a knee-slapping relationship with Dmitri Medvedev to deliver a deferred flexibility message to Vladimir; and his winning a Nobel Peace Prize for not being Bush. BTW, while he will likely claim Bin-laden as a success, Obama managed to mishandle that situation in many ways as well. There was a myriad of al Qadea intellignece that was found in Bin-laden's "lair". Obama, instead of allowing the information to be used to gain access to splinter cells, whereabouts of various top officials, secret funding sources, decided to go on TV as soon as possible to announce the "victory". He fumbled away the militray advantage of suprise, instead choosing to be quick to make sure he got credit. A couple of weeks later he could have been touting the death of Al Qaeda, by using the information and intelligence gained to eliminate the entire orginization. Instead, he opted to let the news be known hours after it happened, giving al Qaeda time to disappear back into the shadows...for now. Secondly, Bin-laden was killed - again, giving away opportunity to gain useful information about al Qaeda. A law in the mission plan as well as it's execution (no pun intended). Do we even need to get into how many times the story of the actual event changed? "40 minute fire fights" that were later determined to be only a few minutes long? Wives being used as "human shields" - only to find out later that wasn't the case. Navy SEALs later (well after the fact - unlike Obama's handling of the situation) disputing several of the "official" account details the White House was perpetuating.Oh yeah, and that entire Liby debacle.But other than the above, he's been solid.I'll take the guy with little/no experience to the one who has a 4 year record with that many mistakes.
The Commish
Footballguy
It was my mistake for not specifying "serious answers only please"
Leeroy Jenkins
Footballguy
Wtf schedules a debate up against mnf?
Thank you for the Fox News/Rush/Hannity view. And for the rest of us that have an objective view....FAILURES:His failed personal effort to bring the 2016 Olympics to Chicago. His failed personal effort to negotiate a climate-change deal at Copenhagen in 2009. His failed efforts to strike a nuclear deal with Iran that year and this year. His failed effort to improve America's public standing in the Muslim world with the now-forgotten Cairo speech. His failed reset with Russia. His failed effort to strong-arm Israel into a permanent settlement freeze. His failed (if half-hearted) effort to maintain a residual U.S. military force in Iraq. His failed efforts to cut deals with the Taliban and reach out to North Korea. His failed effort to win over China and Russia for even a symbolic U.N. condemnation of Syria's Bashar Assad. His failed efforts to intercede in Europe's economic crisis. "SUCCESSES":His successful personal effort to insult the head of state and prime minister of America's closest ally (as well as removing the bust of its wartime prime minister from the Oval Office); his successful personal effort to put daylight between the U.S. and Israel; his successful effort to ostracize Honduras for enforcing its constitution against a Hugo Chavez wannabe; his successful effort to become the first U.S. president to chair a UN meeting; his successful effort to ignore the efforts of Iranian citizens protesting the stolen 2009 presidential election and then ignore seriatim deadlines for Iran to accept his outstretched hand; his successful efforts to oppose Congressional attempts to strengthen Iran sanctions, while touting each round of non-crippling sanctions as the "toughest ever"; his successful effort to ward off pressure to visit Israel from liberal Israeli columnists, Jewish Democrats in Congress, and friendly rabbis; his successful effort to jettison a U.S. ally in Egypt and reportedly invite the new Pharaoh to the U.S.; . . . . his successful effort to delay executing an already-negotiated free trade agreement with the closest U.S. ally in Latin America; his successful effort to improve relations with Mexico by suing Arizona on its behalf; his successful effort to build a knee-slapping relationship with Dmitri Medvedev to deliver a deferred flexibility message to Vladimir; and his winning a Nobel Peace Prize for not being Bush. BTW, while he will likely claim Bin-laden as a success, Obama managed to mishandle that situation in many ways as well. There was a myriad of al Qadea intellignece that was found in Bin-laden's "lair". Obama, instead of allowing the information to be used to gain access to splinter cells, whereabouts of various top officials, secret funding sources, decided to go on TV as soon as possible to announce the "victory". He fumbled away the militray advantage of suprise, instead choosing to be quick to make sure he got credit. A couple of weeks later he could have been touting the death of Al Qaeda, by using the information and intelligence gained to eliminate the entire orginization. Instead, he opted to let the news be known hours after it happened, giving al Qaeda time to disappear back into the shadows...for now. Secondly, Bin-laden was killed - again, giving away opportunity to gain useful information about al Qaeda. A law in the mission plan as well as it's execution (no pun intended). Do we even need to get into how many times the story of the actual event changed? "40 minute fire fights" that were later determined to be only a few minutes long? Wives being used as "human shields" - only to find out later that wasn't the case. Navy SEALs later (well after the fact - unlike Obama's handling of the situation) disputing several of the "official" account details the White House was perpetuating.Oh yeah, and that entire Liby debacle.But other than the above, he's been solid.
timschochet
Footballguy
Personally, I think Obama has been an excellent foreign policy President. For me it's by far the strongest aspect of his Presidency. I honestly have trouble coming up with one major thing he got wrong, or that I would have preferred he had done differently.
DoubleG's rant is full of incredible and absurd distortions, but the two biggest involve Israel and Egypt. Regarding Egypt: I love it when Obama gets criticized for "jettisoning Mubarik". Let's be clear: there is no way that the United States could have kept Mubarik in place short of a military occupation of Egypt, which NO President would have sanctioned, either Republican or Democrat. Therefore, the logical step for us was to encourage a peaceful removal, express hope that the new regime is democratic and peaceful, and try to work with that regime as best we can to encourage peace and freedom in the region. That is exactly what Obama did, and exactly what any other POTUS who is not insane would have done.
As regards Israel, I made a challenge a few weeks back to anyone that could cite a specific and substantive difference between Obama's policy toward Israel and that of any other President in the last 40 years. This challenge has gone unanswered. There is friction between Obama and Netanyahu which is strikingly similar to the friction between Reagan and Begin in the 80s. I believe this sort of friction is much better tactically for us and Israel than Bush's closeness, because it creates a "good cop, bad cop" scenario, with Arab states concerned that we can't control Israel. This is rather minor tactical stuff though and isn't pertinent to the big picture.
DoubleG's rant is full of incredible and absurd distortions, but the two biggest involve Israel and Egypt. Regarding Egypt: I love it when Obama gets criticized for "jettisoning Mubarik". Let's be clear: there is no way that the United States could have kept Mubarik in place short of a military occupation of Egypt, which NO President would have sanctioned, either Republican or Democrat. Therefore, the logical step for us was to encourage a peaceful removal, express hope that the new regime is democratic and peaceful, and try to work with that regime as best we can to encourage peace and freedom in the region. That is exactly what Obama did, and exactly what any other POTUS who is not insane would have done.
As regards Israel, I made a challenge a few weeks back to anyone that could cite a specific and substantive difference between Obama's policy toward Israel and that of any other President in the last 40 years. This challenge has gone unanswered. There is friction between Obama and Netanyahu which is strikingly similar to the friction between Reagan and Begin in the 80s. I believe this sort of friction is much better tactically for us and Israel than Bush's closeness, because it creates a "good cop, bad cop" scenario, with Arab states concerned that we can't control Israel. This is rather minor tactical stuff though and isn't pertinent to the big picture.
pittstownkiller
Footballguy
I wonder who was the "administration official" who termed this as a "flash mob with weapons"; so idiotic.This article is probably the worst thing that could happen to Obama. Nobody has ever believed the video story. Now he is forced to defend Susan Rice's crazy comments.But hearing about Libya a million times isn't ridiculous? http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/benghazi-attack-becomes-political-ammunition/2012/10/19/e1ad82ae-1a2d-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_story.htmlSaying "I got Bin Laden" a million times has become ridiculous. Especially when you have a Libya cover up disaster on your hands and the middle east on fire.
pittstownkiller
Footballguy
Apparently great if you ask Tim.
DoubleG
Footballguy
The two bolded are in complete opposition. Either the policies are the same (which you state) or they are different (which you also state). The fact is, Obama's policies in regards to Israel are different - which you not only acknowledge - but praise and defend. And that's fine. But please don't suggest that they are the same as "every other President in the last 40 years" then explain why they are different and why you agree with this difference.
Last edited by a moderator:
drummer
Footballguy
Yeah, that was pretty much unreadable.Thank you for the Fox News/Rush/Hannity view. And for the rest of us that have an objective view....FAILURES:His failed personal effort to bring the 2016 Olympics to Chicago. His failed personal effort to negotiate a climate-change deal at Copenhagen in 2009. His failed efforts to strike a nuclear deal with Iran that year and this year. His failed effort to improve America's public standing in the Muslim world with the now-forgotten Cairo speech. His failed reset with Russia. His failed effort to strong-arm Israel into a permanent settlement freeze. His failed (if half-hearted) effort to maintain a residual U.S. military force in Iraq. His failed efforts to cut deals with the Taliban and reach out to North Korea. His failed effort to win over China and Russia for even a symbolic U.N. condemnation of Syria's Bashar Assad. His failed efforts to intercede in Europe's economic crisis. "SUCCESSES":His successful personal effort to insult the head of state and prime minister of America's closest ally (as well as removing the bust of its wartime prime minister from the Oval Office); his successful personal effort to put daylight between the U.S. and Israel; his successful effort to ostracize Honduras for enforcing its constitution against a Hugo Chavez wannabe; his successful effort to become the first U.S. president to chair a UN meeting; his successful effort to ignore the efforts of Iranian citizens protesting the stolen 2009 presidential election and then ignore seriatim deadlines for Iran to accept his outstretched hand; his successful efforts to oppose Congressional attempts to strengthen Iran sanctions, while touting each round of non-crippling sanctions as the "toughest ever"; his successful effort to ward off pressure to visit Israel from liberal Israeli columnists, Jewish Democrats in Congress, and friendly rabbis; his successful effort to jettison a U.S. ally in Egypt and reportedly invite the new Pharaoh to the U.S.; . . . . his successful effort to delay executing an already-negotiated free trade agreement with the closest U.S. ally in Latin America; his successful effort to improve relations with Mexico by suing Arizona on its behalf; his successful effort to build a knee-slapping relationship with Dmitri Medvedev to deliver a deferred flexibility message to Vladimir; and his winning a Nobel Peace Prize for not being Bush. BTW, while he will likely claim Bin-laden as a success, Obama managed to mishandle that situation in many ways as well. There was a myriad of al Qadea intellignece that was found in Bin-laden's "lair". Obama, instead of allowing the information to be used to gain access to splinter cells, whereabouts of various top officials, secret funding sources, decided to go on TV as soon as possible to announce the "victory". He fumbled away the militray advantage of suprise, instead choosing to be quick to make sure he got credit. A couple of weeks later he could have been touting the death of Al Qaeda, by using the information and intelligence gained to eliminate the entire orginization. Instead, he opted to let the news be known hours after it happened, giving al Qaeda time to disappear back into the shadows...for now. Secondly, Bin-laden was killed - again, giving away opportunity to gain useful information about al Qaeda. A law in the mission plan as well as it's execution (no pun intended). Do we even need to get into how many times the story of the actual event changed? "40 minute fire fights" that were later determined to be only a few minutes long? Wives being used as "human shields" - only to find out later that wasn't the case. Navy SEALs later (well after the fact - unlike Obama's handling of the situation) disputing several of the "official" account details the White House was perpetuating.Oh yeah, and that entire Liby debacle.But other than the above, he's been solid.
bigbottom
Footballguy
Company gas account? If your company pays for or reimburses your gas, why are you counting that as a personal expense?And if the gas expense is your personal expense, why would you buy gas at a more expensive station? Moreover, if gas was such a significant expense for my household, and my job required me to drive around all day anyway, I'd know where all the cheapest stations were and make an effort to fill up at those locations. You complain that Obama isn't doing enough with gas prices, but you aren't even making an effort to reduce fuel expenses for your own household, instead choosing to fill up whenever and wherever.
Last edited by a moderator:
pittstownkiller
Footballguy
You are incorrect Tim, on Mubarek; the Egyptian military was in initial control and they refused to let the newly elected president take office - it was only after threats by Obama Administration that they gave in. Now I'll give you that Mubarek may not have still been leader but it most assuredly would of been someone from his administration.
drummer
Footballguy
Plenty of apps for a smartphone to find where the cheapest gas is, and if I drive a guzzler, I have no room to complain about gas prices.
timschochet
Footballguy
Perhaps you need to read my post again. There is a difference between strategy and tactics. Strategically, Obama's policy toward Israel is no different than any other President in the last 40 years. Tactically, his policy is similar to Reagan and Clinton but not similar to George W. Bush. But tactics have little to do with the overall strategy. The strategy is this: Israel is our best friend in the region and we will always be committed to Israel's long term survival and security. We believe these can best be achieved, long term, by encouraging the formation of a state of Palestine forged out of the occupied territories. That has been our policy since 1967 and remains so today.
DoubleG
Footballguy
Sorry that I chose to use actual facts instead of the drastically spun Democratic infomericial nonsense you are used to hearing. Feel free to engage any of the points - unless you'd just prefer to follow the President's leads and pretend the last 4 years didn't actually happen.Or better yet, I've listed the failures - why not list the incredibly long list of his wonderful foreign policy successes? We'll wait...Yeah, that was pretty much unreadable.Thank you for the Fox News/Rush/Hannity view. And for the rest of us that have an objective view....FAILURES:His failed personal effort to bring the 2016 Olympics to Chicago. His failed personal effort to negotiate a climate-change deal at Copenhagen in 2009. His failed efforts to strike a nuclear deal with Iran that year and this year. His failed effort to improve America's public standing in the Muslim world with the now-forgotten Cairo speech. His failed reset with Russia. His failed effort to strong-arm Israel into a permanent settlement freeze. His failed (if half-hearted) effort to maintain a residual U.S. military force in Iraq. His failed efforts to cut deals with the Taliban and reach out to North Korea. His failed effort to win over China and Russia for even a symbolic U.N. condemnation of Syria's Bashar Assad. His failed efforts to intercede in Europe's economic crisis.
"SUCCESSES":
His successful personal effort to insult the head of state and prime minister of America's closest ally (as well as removing the bust of its wartime prime minister from the Oval Office); his successful personal effort to put daylight between the U.S. and Israel; his successful effort to ostracize Honduras for enforcing its constitution against a Hugo Chavez wannabe; his successful effort to become the first U.S. president to chair a UN meeting; his successful effort to ignore the efforts of Iranian citizens protesting the stolen 2009 presidential election and then ignore seriatim deadlines for Iran to accept his outstretched hand; his successful efforts to oppose Congressional attempts to strengthen Iran sanctions, while touting each round of non-crippling sanctions as the "toughest ever"; his successful effort to ward off pressure to visit Israel from liberal Israeli columnists, Jewish Democrats in Congress, and friendly rabbis; his successful effort to jettison a U.S. ally in Egypt and reportedly invite the new Pharaoh to the U.S.; . . . . his successful effort to delay executing an already-negotiated free trade agreement with the closest U.S. ally in Latin America; his successful effort to improve relations with Mexico by suing Arizona on its behalf; his successful effort to build a knee-slapping relationship with Dmitri Medvedev to deliver a deferred flexibility message to Vladimir; and his winning a Nobel Peace Prize for not being Bush.
BTW, while he will likely claim Bin-laden as a success, Obama managed to mishandle that situation in many ways as well. There was a myriad of al Qadea intellignece that was found in Bin-laden's "lair". Obama, instead of allowing the information to be used to gain access to splinter cells, whereabouts of various top officials, secret funding sources, decided to go on TV as soon as possible to announce the "victory". He fumbled away the militray advantage of suprise, instead choosing to be quick to make sure he got credit. A couple of weeks later he could have been touting the death of Al Qaeda, by using the information and intelligence gained to eliminate the entire orginization. Instead, he opted to let the news be known hours after it happened, giving al Qaeda time to disappear back into the shadows...for now. Secondly, Bin-laden was killed - again, giving away opportunity to gain useful information about al Qaeda. A law in the mission plan as well as it's execution (no pun intended). Do we even need to get into how many times the story of the actual event changed? "40 minute fire fights" that were later determined to be only a few minutes long? Wives being used as "human shields" - only to find out later that wasn't the case. Navy SEALs later (well after the fact - unlike Obama's handling of the situation) disputing several of the "official" account details the White House was perpetuating.
Oh yeah, and that entire Liby debacle.
But other than the above, he's been solid.
I'll take the guy with little/no experience to the one who has a 4 year record with that many mistakes.
drummer
Footballguy
Those are facts they way you see them, not what the facts are based on.Sorry that I chose to use actual facts instead of the drastically spun Democratic infomericial nonsense you are used to hearing. Feel free to engage any of the points - unless you'd just prefer to follow the President's leads and pretend the last 4 years didn't actually happen.Or better yet, I've listed the failures - why not list the incredibly long list of his wonderful foreign policy successes? We'll wait...Yeah, that was pretty much unreadable.Thank you for the Fox News/Rush/Hannity view. And for the rest of us that have an objective view....FAILURES:His failed personal effort to bring the 2016 Olympics to Chicago. His failed personal effort to negotiate a climate-change deal at Copenhagen in 2009. His failed efforts to strike a nuclear deal with Iran that year and this year. His failed effort to improve America's public standing in the Muslim world with the now-forgotten Cairo speech. His failed reset with Russia. His failed effort to strong-arm Israel into a permanent settlement freeze. His failed (if half-hearted) effort to maintain a residual U.S. military force in Iraq. His failed efforts to cut deals with the Taliban and reach out to North Korea. His failed effort to win over China and Russia for even a symbolic U.N. condemnation of Syria's Bashar Assad. His failed efforts to intercede in Europe's economic crisis.
"SUCCESSES":
His successful personal effort to insult the head of state and prime minister of America's closest ally (as well as removing the bust of its wartime prime minister from the Oval Office); his successful personal effort to put daylight between the U.S. and Israel; his successful effort to ostracize Honduras for enforcing its constitution against a Hugo Chavez wannabe; his successful effort to become the first U.S. president to chair a UN meeting; his successful effort to ignore the efforts of Iranian citizens protesting the stolen 2009 presidential election and then ignore seriatim deadlines for Iran to accept his outstretched hand; his successful efforts to oppose Congressional attempts to strengthen Iran sanctions, while touting each round of non-crippling sanctions as the "toughest ever"; his successful effort to ward off pressure to visit Israel from liberal Israeli columnists, Jewish Democrats in Congress, and friendly rabbis; his successful effort to jettison a U.S. ally in Egypt and reportedly invite the new Pharaoh to the U.S.; . . . . his successful effort to delay executing an already-negotiated free trade agreement with the closest U.S. ally in Latin America; his successful effort to improve relations with Mexico by suing Arizona on its behalf; his successful effort to build a knee-slapping relationship with Dmitri Medvedev to deliver a deferred flexibility message to Vladimir; and his winning a Nobel Peace Prize for not being Bush.
BTW, while he will likely claim Bin-laden as a success, Obama managed to mishandle that situation in many ways as well. There was a myriad of al Qadea intellignece that was found in Bin-laden's "lair". Obama, instead of allowing the information to be used to gain access to splinter cells, whereabouts of various top officials, secret funding sources, decided to go on TV as soon as possible to announce the "victory". He fumbled away the militray advantage of suprise, instead choosing to be quick to make sure he got credit. A couple of weeks later he could have been touting the death of Al Qaeda, by using the information and intelligence gained to eliminate the entire orginization. Instead, he opted to let the news be known hours after it happened, giving al Qaeda time to disappear back into the shadows...for now. Secondly, Bin-laden was killed - again, giving away opportunity to gain useful information about al Qaeda. A law in the mission plan as well as it's execution (no pun intended). Do we even need to get into how many times the story of the actual event changed? "40 minute fire fights" that were later determined to be only a few minutes long? Wives being used as "human shields" - only to find out later that wasn't the case. Navy SEALs later (well after the fact - unlike Obama's handling of the situation) disputing several of the "official" account details the White House was perpetuating.
Oh yeah, and that entire Liby debacle.
But other than the above, he's been solid.
I'll take the guy with little/no experience to the one who has a 4 year record with that many mistakes.
timschochet
Footballguy
If by "threats" you mean warnings that we would not be willing to continue to give the government money if they suppressed a mostly peaceful uprising and the results of a democratic election, then you are correct. I share what I assume is your conviction that we shouldn't necessarily celebrate democracy in that part of the world, and like most thoughtful people I am extremely concerned about who won the election. But the rhetoric of past Presidents, from Woodrow Wilson to FDR all the way to George W. Bush, placed Obama in a bind. There was no way he could possibly do otherwise than support the democratic process and hope for the best. A military coup in Egypt would have led to civil war and an intolerable situation.
Sam Quentin
Footballguy
Take away the R and he's still Money
The Commish
Footballguy
Do you genuinely believe you used these "facts" in an unbiased manner or is it more likely that you took the "facts" and spun them into the Republican informercial nonsense? Because from where I stand, the truth is between the crap you posted and the crap the dem apologist post.
DoubleG
Footballguy
Completely unbiased? No - probably not. Closer to reality than many other's on this board would like to acknowledge? Yes. Occasionally, when I grow weary of swimming in the tide of lies, my flailings at truth are not as calm or precise as I'd like. While my facts have interwoven opinion - save for the one-liner dismissals which sound oddly similar to "I know you are but what am I?" (and Tim's already refuted point on Egypt) - no one has countered any of the points.And I (and likely you) are still waiting for the long list of "successes".
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Anyhow, tonight's debate should be the least decisive, because there is very little difference between these two men when it comes to foreign policy.
That is not unusual. Almost all Presidents are exactly the same when it comes to foreign affairs, because our policies are largely dictated by the State Department bureaucracy, which remains in place no matter who the Administration is. Therefore, I doubt you'll hear any significant differences between Obama and Romney tonight. What you'll hear instead are differences that are either absurd (Romney would have provided the Libyan Embassy more security!) or fatuous (Obama's secret plan to deprive Iran of nuclear weapons, which cannot be divulged, is far superior to Romney's secret plan to deprive Iran of nuclear weapons, which also cannot be divulged!).
That is not unusual. Almost all Presidents are exactly the same when it comes to foreign affairs, because our policies are largely dictated by the State Department bureaucracy, which remains in place no matter who the Administration is. Therefore, I doubt you'll hear any significant differences between Obama and Romney tonight. What you'll hear instead are differences that are either absurd (Romney would have provided the Libyan Embassy more security!) or fatuous (Obama's secret plan to deprive Iran of nuclear weapons, which cannot be divulged, is far superior to Romney's secret plan to deprive Iran of nuclear weapons, which also cannot be divulged!).
timschochet
Footballguy
My argument was not refuted, and I countered two of your points. I could spend time refuting the rest of them, but the flaws in your statements should be obvious to most people reading them, so it's not worth the effort.
Why do you think there is a secret plan by anyone here? The plan is clearly to wreck Iran's economy while terrorizing their military and scientists.
The Commish
Footballguy
I'll just offer one guy's opinion. You don't appear to be any closer to the center than the extreme left is. You may be a bit closer than the extreme right, but not by much....or so it appears. My
Sam Quentin
Footballguy
Why is this absurd? The ambassador was practically begging for more security. Are you calling the amabassador absurd to make such a request? Are you saying that following the advice of your lead on the ground is absurd?
timschochet
Footballguy
I use the term "secret plan", somewhat fatuously, because both guys claim that they will prevent Iran from getting these weapons, but refuse to be specific as to how to go about it. I agree with your analysis, however.
timschochet
Footballguy
It's absurd because:1. I don't know who received that report, and if it ever reached the level of the President or Secretary of State (I strongly doubt it.)2. If it didn't reach the level of the Presidency, that means it was responded to (or in this case, not responded to) by employees of the State Department, the same employees who will be there if Romney gets elected, the same employees who set the policies on all of these security issues.
I gotcha. No, nobody is going to come out and say the truth of what our policy is.
Leeroy Jenkins
Footballguy
You just still fail to comprehend the fallacy of your initial post that i keep referring to. It was not in reference to whether Obama's claim was right or wrong. It was about you completely missing the argument being presented and then twisting it in such a way that made no sense. You neither understand cause and effect nor do you retain the ability to articulate a rational thought or argument.You shouldn't trouble yourself by trying to read, you'll only be further confused.. You have yet to make one valid point..He doesn't read or understand his own posts. It's best to ignore his ignorance.Sorry...I'm still stuck on YOUR personal claim that you pay $1200 a month for gas for your household. I probably should have quoted that set of posts rather than the shifted goalpost quotes above. Can you help me understand how you pay this much for gas?Can you show me where I said I was paying $4 per gallon? The #'s above refer to typical mileage for someone in my line of work reflecting the cost of gas at the pump refered to in the debate..Price at the pump here ranges from 3.50 to 3.85.. And the common price is around 3.70+Didn't you say you live in NC around Charlotte?? Gas prices aren't $4 for unleaded. They are close to that for Diesel. I suggest you go to one of the stations that isn't screwing you out of your money if you really are paying $4 a gallon.I drive a 5.9L 4wd, and I'm close to that..Even if I drive my 5.9L 4wd "tank" 100 miles per day I'm not near $1200/month.Holy cow, man. Unless you're in the delivery business or a trucker, that's an insane amount of fuel consumption. My wife and I have two vehicles, and live an hour from anywhere. Yet we don't consume more than 700 gallons of fuel between us in a year. Haven't for the past nine years. And a lot of that is "recreational" too. My wife visiting family, or running around with the kids. I personally consume about 265 gallons of fuel/year. And if I use the middle of your range and assume $4/gallon for gas (round number, to make the math easier), that's 375 gallons/month of fuel consumption...just for you! Excluding your wife, from the sounds of it.$100-$110 to fill up, I fill up 3-4 times a week, multiplied by 4.2, leaves me somewhere between $1,250 and $1,850/month; them we have the wife's 70+ mile work commute /day - $1,200/month seems very reasonable to me.
So the earlier question was actually reasonable then: Do you drive a tank?!
If we're talking household, sure. I have 6 cars, 4 of which are driven daily.
- primary vehicle (many variables here, depending on who drives the most, husband or wife, and what each of them drive)
100 miles per day @ 15 miles per gallon @ $4 per gallon = $186.66 per week = $9706.66 per year
- Secondary vehicle
50 miles per day @ 22 miles per gallon @ $4 per gallon = $63.63 per week = $3309.09 per year
- Third vehicle if household includes 1 child of driving age who drives to school/community college/other events.
50 miles per day @ 22 miles per gallon @ $4 per gallon = $63.63 per week = $3309.09 per year
$16,324.84 a year ($1360.30 per month) is a lot of money..
There are many work vehicles in the service industry that get worse than 15 mpg (including my truck). And there are many (most) who drive more than 100 miles per day. Obviously there are also people who can walk to work as well, or use mass transit..
What I'm trying to explain though, these service industry workers/buisness owners are mostly part of the lower middle class and gas prices are killing them. Most of them pay more for gas on a monthly basis then they pay on mortgage/rent.. Gas prices have a huge impact on the middle class
Regardless, the number would still show many Americans pay more for gas than for mortgage/rent..
Sam Quentin
Footballguy
we can agree to disagree, but I think that threats to a highly placed governmrnt official in a sensitive place like Libya would reach a high level. Teh consulate had been attacked twice before and the UK even pulled their ambassador out.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2157922/British-ambassador-Libya-escapes-uninjured-convoy-hit-rocket-propelled-grenade.html
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
pantagrapher
Footballguy
Unhinged right-wingers care.Yeah, this one perplexes me. It was supposed to be returned at a date set before Obama even showed up. Even if Obama decided to send it back, who cares?People still crying about the Churchill bust thing?
Willie Neslon
Footballguy
My wife thinks tonight's debate will be what decides the elction. If the incumbent can make his case that he is better on foreign policy then he will win the debate. If the challanger says my way is better and people believe him then we will have a new president. We will be watching and our decision will probably be made after tonight.
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
I'll be at a viewing party down at the local Red Robin (yum).
honky kong
Footballguy
Sorry if this has already been asked of previous debates, but is there any chance she can live blog this thing?
DoubleG
Footballguy
You guys are awesome. He asked for a list of the last 4 years - not the last 4 weeks. So yes, it might actually include things that took place a while ago. The point you are referencing was also a small parenthetical subpoint in the larger context. But don't let the facts get in the way of your defense of Obama's otherwise stellar foreign policy record.Unhinged right-wingers care.Yeah, this one perplexes me. It was supposed to be returned at a date set before Obama even showed up. Even if Obama decided to send it back, who cares?People still crying about the Churchill bust thing?
Oh, and ummm...still waiting on the list of all the foreign policy "achievements"...no rush - you still have about 2 weeks.
Last edited by a moderator:
honky kong
Footballguy
If you love America, you'll get the fried zucchini.
Willie Neslon
Footballguy
She can't mult-i-task to save her life. I will probably do some twitters of her words though.
Joe T
Footballguy
I hope this is not schitck.
Ursa M
Footballguy
My assessment of you was that you were one of the few sane Republican posters and most often your stuff was worth reading. The above is a crock of poo more worthy of Boneyard Dog than you.FAILURES:His failed personal effort to bring the 2016 Olympics to Chicago. His failed personal effort to negotiate a climate-change deal at Copenhagen in 2009. His failed efforts to strike a nuclear deal with Iran that year and this year. His failed effort to improve America’s public standing in the Muslim world with the now-forgotten Cairo speech. His failed reset with Russia. His failed effort to strong-arm Israel into a permanent settlement freeze. His failed (if half-hearted) effort to maintain a residual U.S. military force in Iraq. His failed efforts to cut deals with the Taliban and reach out to North Korea. His failed effort to win over China and Russia for even a symbolic U.N. condemnation of Syria’s Bashar Assad. His failed efforts to intercede in Europe’s economic crisis. "SUCCESSES":His successful personal effort to insult the head of state and prime minister of America’s closest ally (as well as removing the bust of its wartime prime minister from the Oval Office); his successful personal effort to put daylight between the U.S. and Israel; his successful effort to ostracize Honduras for enforcing its constitution against a Hugo Chavez wannabe; his successful effort to become the first U.S. president to chair a UN meeting; his successful effort to ignore the efforts of Iranian citizens protesting the stolen 2009 presidential election and then ignore seriatim deadlines for Iran to accept his outstretched hand; his successful efforts to oppose Congressional attempts to strengthen Iran sanctions, while touting each round of non-crippling sanctions as the “toughest ever”; his successful effort to ward off pressure to visit Israel from liberal Israeli columnists, Jewish Democrats in Congress, and friendly rabbis; his successful effort to jettison a U.S. ally in Egypt and reportedly invite the new Pharaoh to the U.S.; . . . . his successful effort to delay executing an already-negotiated free trade agreement with the closest U.S. ally in Latin America; his successful effort to improve relations with Mexico by suing Arizona on its behalf; his successful effort to build a knee-slapping relationship with Dmitri Medvedev to deliver a deferred flexibility message to Vladimir; and his winning a Nobel Peace Prize for not being Bush. BTW, while he will likely claim Bin-laden as a success, Obama managed to mishandle that situation in many ways as well. There was a myriad of al Qadea intellignece that was found in Bin-laden's "lair". Obama, instead of allowing the information to be used to gain access to splinter cells, whereabouts of various top officials, secret funding sources, decided to go on TV as soon as possible to announce the "victory". He fumbled away the militray advantage of suprise, instead choosing to be quick to make sure he got credit. A couple of weeks later he could have been touting the death of Al Qaeda, by using the information and intelligence gained to eliminate the entire orginization. Instead, he opted to let the news be known hours after it happened, giving al Qaeda time to disappear back into the shadows...for now. Secondly, Bin-laden was killed - again, giving away opportunity to gain useful information about al Qaeda. A law in the mission plan as well as it's execution (no pun intended). Do we even need to get into how many times the story of the actual event changed? "40 minute fire fights" that were later determined to be only a few minutes long? Wives being used as "human shields" - only to find out later that wasn't the case. Navy SEALs later (well after the fact - unlike Obama's handling of the situation) disputing several of the "official" account details the White House was perpetuating.Oh yeah, and that entire Liby debacle.But other than the above, he's been solid.
DoubleG
Footballguy
Interesting. While I appreciate the thought in regards to my other posts, I would like to hear exactly what of the above you take issue with?You see, several have made similar such claims, and only Tim has actually argued against any of the above points. From my perspective (and likely any intelligent person's perspective) - when someone is presented with a long list of items they have failed in, there are typically two courses of action:My assessment of you was that you were one of the few sane Republican posters and most often your stuff was worth reading. The above is a crock of poo more worthy of Boneyard Dog than you.FAILURES:His failed personal effort to bring the 2016 Olympics to Chicago. His failed personal effort to negotiate a climate-change deal at Copenhagen in 2009. His failed efforts to strike a nuclear deal with Iran that year and this year. His failed effort to improve America’s public standing in the Muslim world with the now-forgotten Cairo speech. His failed reset with Russia. His failed effort to strong-arm Israel into a permanent settlement freeze. His failed (if half-hearted) effort to maintain a residual U.S. military force in Iraq. His failed efforts to cut deals with the Taliban and reach out to North Korea. His failed effort to win over China and Russia for even a symbolic U.N. condemnation of Syria’s Bashar Assad. His failed efforts to intercede in Europe’s economic crisis.
"SUCCESSES":
His successful personal effort to insult the head of state and prime minister of America’s closest ally (as well as removing the bust of its wartime prime minister from the Oval Office); his successful personal effort to put daylight between the U.S. and Israel; his successful effort to ostracize Honduras for enforcing its constitution against a Hugo Chavez wannabe; his successful effort to become the first U.S. president to chair a UN meeting; his successful effort to ignore the efforts of Iranian citizens protesting the stolen 2009 presidential election and then ignore seriatim deadlines for Iran to accept his outstretched hand; his successful efforts to oppose Congressional attempts to strengthen Iran sanctions, while touting each round of non-crippling sanctions as the “toughest ever”; his successful effort to ward off pressure to visit Israel from liberal Israeli columnists, Jewish Democrats in Congress, and friendly rabbis; his successful effort to jettison a U.S. ally in Egypt and reportedly invite the new Pharaoh to the U.S.; . . . . his successful effort to delay executing an already-negotiated free trade agreement with the closest U.S. ally in Latin America; his successful effort to improve relations with Mexico by suing Arizona on its behalf; his successful effort to build a knee-slapping relationship with Dmitri Medvedev to deliver a deferred flexibility message to Vladimir; and his winning a Nobel Peace Prize for not being Bush.
BTW, while he will likely claim Bin-laden as a success, Obama managed to mishandle that situation in many ways as well. There was a myriad of al Qadea intellignece that was found in Bin-laden's "lair". Obama, instead of allowing the information to be used to gain access to splinter cells, whereabouts of various top officials, secret funding sources, decided to go on TV as soon as possible to announce the "victory". He fumbled away the militray advantage of suprise, instead choosing to be quick to make sure he got credit. A couple of weeks later he could have been touting the death of Al Qaeda, by using the information and intelligence gained to eliminate the entire orginization. Instead, he opted to let the news be known hours after it happened, giving al Qaeda time to disappear back into the shadows...for now. Secondly, Bin-laden was killed - again, giving away opportunity to gain useful information about al Qaeda. A law in the mission plan as well as it's execution (no pun intended). Do we even need to get into how many times the story of the actual event changed? "40 minute fire fights" that were later determined to be only a few minutes long? Wives being used as "human shields" - only to find out later that wasn't the case. Navy SEALs later (well after the fact - unlike Obama's handling of the situation) disputing several of the "official" account details the White House was perpetuating.
Oh yeah, and that entire Liby debacle.
But other than the above, he's been solid.
I'll take the guy with little/no experience to the one who has a 4 year record with that many mistakes.
1) Defense of the actions taken - or at least a reasonable (and this is important) explanation as to why the failures occurred.
2) As is typical of young children, simply denying that the event/failure ever actually happened.
In this thread, I see very little attempt at #1, yet many of the liberal posters are quite enjoying posting a great deal of #2.
Pun fully intended
CowboysFromHell
Footballguy
Who does #2 work for?In this thread, I see very little attempt at #1, yet many of the liberal posters are quite enjoying posting a great deal of #2.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Without going into detail on all of these (many of which are just personal opinion more than fact and none of which are supported with links) I can pick out at least two things that are fairly characterized as a "crock of poo."1. He didn't sue Arizona on behalf of Mexico. That's just nonsense. I tried to do a google search to figure out what the heck you were even talking about, and all I got were a small handful of far right wing blogs complaining about Mexico "joining" the lawsuit, which I then read further and discovered that even that was overstating it- Mexico simply filed an Amicus brief in support of the US side. You want to get your news from extremist nutjobs like these, fine, but at least you should consider Fox News, where they are actually held accountable for the facts they publish.Interesting. While I appreciate the thought in regards to my other posts, I would like to hear exactly what of the above you take issue with?You see, several have made similar such claims, and only Tim has actually argued against any of the above points. From my perspective (and likely any intelligent person's perspective) - when someone is presented with a long list of items they have failed in, there are typically two courses of action:My assessment of you was that you were one of the few sane Republican posters and most often your stuff was worth reading. The above is a crock of poo more worthy of Boneyard Dog than you.FAILURES:His failed personal effort to bring the 2016 Olympics to Chicago. His failed personal effort to negotiate a climate-change deal at Copenhagen in 2009. His failed efforts to strike a nuclear deal with Iran that year and this year. His failed effort to improve America’s public standing in the Muslim world with the now-forgotten Cairo speech. His failed reset with Russia. His failed effort to strong-arm Israel into a permanent settlement freeze. His failed (if half-hearted) effort to maintain a residual U.S. military force in Iraq. His failed efforts to cut deals with the Taliban and reach out to North Korea. His failed effort to win over China and Russia for even a symbolic U.N. condemnation of Syria’s Bashar Assad. His failed efforts to intercede in Europe’s economic crisis.
"SUCCESSES":
His successful personal effort to insult the head of state and prime minister of America’s closest ally (as well as removing the bust of its wartime prime minister from the Oval Office); his successful personal effort to put daylight between the U.S. and Israel; his successful effort to ostracize Honduras for enforcing its constitution against a Hugo Chavez wannabe; his successful effort to become the first U.S. president to chair a UN meeting; his successful effort to ignore the efforts of Iranian citizens protesting the stolen 2009 presidential election and then ignore seriatim deadlines for Iran to accept his outstretched hand; his successful efforts to oppose Congressional attempts to strengthen Iran sanctions, while touting each round of non-crippling sanctions as the “toughest ever”; his successful effort to ward off pressure to visit Israel from liberal Israeli columnists, Jewish Democrats in Congress, and friendly rabbis; his successful effort to jettison a U.S. ally in Egypt and reportedly invite the new Pharaoh to the U.S.; . . . . his successful effort to delay executing an already-negotiated free trade agreement with the closest U.S. ally in Latin America; his successful effort to improve relations with Mexico by suing Arizona on its behalf; his successful effort to build a knee-slapping relationship with Dmitri Medvedev to deliver a deferred flexibility message to Vladimir; and his winning a Nobel Peace Prize for not being Bush.
BTW, while he will likely claim Bin-laden as a success, Obama managed to mishandle that situation in many ways as well. There was a myriad of al Qadea intellignece that was found in Bin-laden's "lair". Obama, instead of allowing the information to be used to gain access to splinter cells, whereabouts of various top officials, secret funding sources, decided to go on TV as soon as possible to announce the "victory". He fumbled away the militray advantage of suprise, instead choosing to be quick to make sure he got credit. A couple of weeks later he could have been touting the death of Al Qaeda, by using the information and intelligence gained to eliminate the entire orginization. Instead, he opted to let the news be known hours after it happened, giving al Qaeda time to disappear back into the shadows...for now. Secondly, Bin-laden was killed - again, giving away opportunity to gain useful information about al Qaeda. A law in the mission plan as well as it's execution (no pun intended). Do we even need to get into how many times the story of the actual event changed? "40 minute fire fights" that were later determined to be only a few minutes long? Wives being used as "human shields" - only to find out later that wasn't the case. Navy SEALs later (well after the fact - unlike Obama's handling of the situation) disputing several of the "official" account details the White House was perpetuating.
Oh yeah, and that entire Liby debacle.
But other than the above, he's been solid.
I'll take the guy with little/no experience to the one who has a 4 year record with that many mistakes.
1) Defense of the actions taken - or at least a reasonable (and this is important) explanation as to why the failures occurred.
2) As is typical of young children, simply denying that the event/failure ever actually happened.
In this thread, I see very little attempt at #1, yet many of the liberal posters are quite enjoying posting a great deal of #2.
Pun fully intended
2. Your whole Bin Laden rant is incredibly silly. You wanted them to keep the assassination under wraps for weeks? Really? That seems plausible to you in this day and age? Can you recall any other example in recent history where a news event of that significance was kept under wraps for weeks? That you think doing so would have led to "the death of Al Qaeda" in just a "couple of weeks" says everything about your post. You have no interest in presenting anything resembling reality; you just compiled a right winger's nonsense rants about Obama and put them all in a post.
I'm sure that if I spent the time to look further, the rest of your stuff would be equally silly. Certainly these two things make it look like there's no reason to give the rest of it the benefit of the doubt.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
What does a "household in this line of business" mean? Is it a household, or a business? They're two different things, and presenting business-related fuel costs as household expenses is silly.
DoubleG
Footballguy
If Obama doesn't sprint to the lectern to take credit for Bin-laden's assassination, just hours after it occurred, who would have made it public knowledge? The Navy SEALs? If you honestly think that Navy SEALs are going to run around to news outlets telling them what could have easily been deemed classified information - than it's no wonder you think the rest of the post is silly. Professional athletes tweet stupid things they don't realize have repurcussions. US soldiers the caliber of Navy SEALs do not. Or perhaps you think al Qaeda was going to go public with information, giving credit to the US for having killed their leader? It clearly would have taken more than a few weeks to put an end to al Qaeda - but any chance of using the information in a way to secure the orginaizations end - be it discovering and seizing financial assets, finding high-ranking leaders, plans, etc. was all thrown out in the interest of taking credit. The lead time to track down some of the information in the intelligence that was captured could have proven extremely valuable - instead it was wasted so the President could let everyone know what a "good job" he was doing.Without going into detail on all of these (many of which are just personal opinion more than fact and none of which are supported with links) I can pick out at least two things that are fairly characterized as a "crock of poo."1. He didn't sue Arizona on behalf of Mexico. That's just nonsense. I tried to do a google search to figure out what the heck you were even talking about, and all I got were a small handful of far right wing blogs complaining about Mexico "joining" the lawsuit, which I then read further and discovered that even that was overstating it- Mexico simply filed an Amicus brief in support of the US side. You want to get your news from extremist nutjobs like these, fine, but at least you should consider Fox News, where they are actually held accountable for the facts they publish.Interesting. While I appreciate the thought in regards to my other posts, I would like to hear exactly what of the above you take issue with?You see, several have made similar such claims, and only Tim has actually argued against any of the above points. From my perspective (and likely any intelligent person's perspective) - when someone is presented with a long list of items they have failed in, there are typically two courses of action:My assessment of you was that you were one of the few sane Republican posters and most often your stuff was worth reading. The above is a crock of poo more worthy of Boneyard Dog than you.FAILURES:His failed personal effort to bring the 2016 Olympics to Chicago. His failed personal effort to negotiate a climate-change deal at Copenhagen in 2009. His failed efforts to strike a nuclear deal with Iran that year and this year. His failed effort to improve America’s public standing in the Muslim world with the now-forgotten Cairo speech. His failed reset with Russia. His failed effort to strong-arm Israel into a permanent settlement freeze. His failed (if half-hearted) effort to maintain a residual U.S. military force in Iraq. His failed efforts to cut deals with the Taliban and reach out to North Korea. His failed effort to win over China and Russia for even a symbolic U.N. condemnation of Syria’s Bashar Assad. His failed efforts to intercede in Europe’s economic crisis.
"SUCCESSES":
His successful personal effort to insult the head of state and prime minister of America’s closest ally (as well as removing the bust of its wartime prime minister from the Oval Office); his successful personal effort to put daylight between the U.S. and Israel; his successful effort to ostracize Honduras for enforcing its constitution against a Hugo Chavez wannabe; his successful effort to become the first U.S. president to chair a UN meeting; his successful effort to ignore the efforts of Iranian citizens protesting the stolen 2009 presidential election and then ignore seriatim deadlines for Iran to accept his outstretched hand; his successful efforts to oppose Congressional attempts to strengthen Iran sanctions, while touting each round of non-crippling sanctions as the “toughest ever”; his successful effort to ward off pressure to visit Israel from liberal Israeli columnists, Jewish Democrats in Congress, and friendly rabbis; his successful effort to jettison a U.S. ally in Egypt and reportedly invite the new Pharaoh to the U.S.; . . . . his successful effort to delay executing an already-negotiated free trade agreement with the closest U.S. ally in Latin America; his successful effort to improve relations with Mexico by suing Arizona on its behalf; his successful effort to build a knee-slapping relationship with Dmitri Medvedev to deliver a deferred flexibility message to Vladimir; and his winning a Nobel Peace Prize for not being Bush.
BTW, while he will likely claim Bin-laden as a success, Obama managed to mishandle that situation in many ways as well. There was a myriad of al Qadea intellignece that was found in Bin-laden's "lair". Obama, instead of allowing the information to be used to gain access to splinter cells, whereabouts of various top officials, secret funding sources, decided to go on TV as soon as possible to announce the "victory". He fumbled away the militray advantage of suprise, instead choosing to be quick to make sure he got credit. A couple of weeks later he could have been touting the death of Al Qaeda, by using the information and intelligence gained to eliminate the entire orginization. Instead, he opted to let the news be known hours after it happened, giving al Qaeda time to disappear back into the shadows...for now. Secondly, Bin-laden was killed - again, giving away opportunity to gain useful information about al Qaeda. A law in the mission plan as well as it's execution (no pun intended). Do we even need to get into how many times the story of the actual event changed? "40 minute fire fights" that were later determined to be only a few minutes long? Wives being used as "human shields" - only to find out later that wasn't the case. Navy SEALs later (well after the fact - unlike Obama's handling of the situation) disputing several of the "official" account details the White House was perpetuating.
Oh yeah, and that entire Liby debacle.
But other than the above, he's been solid.
I'll take the guy with little/no experience to the one who has a 4 year record with that many mistakes.
1) Defense of the actions taken - or at least a reasonable (and this is important) explanation as to why the failures occurred.
2) As is typical of young children, simply denying that the event/failure ever actually happened.
In this thread, I see very little attempt at #1, yet many of the liberal posters are quite enjoying posting a great deal of #2.
Pun fully intended
2. Your whole Bin Laden rant is incredibly silly. You wanted them to keep the assassination under wraps for weeks? Really? That seems plausible to you in this day and age? Can you recall any other example in recent history where a news event of that significance was kept under wraps for weeks? That you think doing so would have led to "the death of Al Qaeda" in just a "couple of weeks" says everything about your post. You have no interest in presenting anything resembling reality; you just compiled a right winger's nonsense rants about Obama and put them all in a post.
I'm sure that if I spent the time to look further, the rest of your stuff would be equally silly. Certainly these two things make it look like there's no reason to give the rest of it the benefit of the doubt.
Last edited by a moderator:
Carolina Hustler
Footballguy
My company gas account and my personal gas account are one in the same since I own the company and it's an S-corp. And the differnce between gas stations as I've driven around today was in the neighborhood of 6 cent, I'm not going out of my way for a 6 cent per gallon difference. I live and work in the south charlotte area, prices on this side of town on the average are higher it seems, I'm not driving to eastway to get gas.. If I happen to be in an area where gas is cheaper and it looks like I'll need to fill up soon, I'll get gas.
But that really doesn't address the issue. Gas prices are high and make up a large portion of expenses for a guy in my line of buisness.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Sorry, this whole idea is ridiculous to the point of comedy. Unless you've worked in the intelligence community you have no idea how hard it would be to keep something like this under wraps (hint- more than just a few Navy Seals were aware of a large-scale military operation in a small residential area in Pakistan, and there's this thing called "the media" that tends to ask questions about military raids). You have no idea what intel was recovered. You have no idea how it would have affected Al Qaeda's operations if the raid hadn't been made public. You're acting like an expert in military planning, covert intelligence, the inner workings of Al Qaeda and international affairs without the slightest suggestion that you know more about this stuff than you read on your web sites. And that, my friend is what Ursa M accurately characterized as a "crock of poo."I notice you didn't bother to defend your error about suing Arizona "on behalf of Mexico." That was the right move, because it was an obvious error. You might be better off waving the white flag on this one, too.
