IDBillzFan Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 http://www.realclear...ons_craven.html http://www.realclear..._red_cross.html What a bunch of cunts* *No offense to all the people who may have relatives that are cunts. Brought to you by the same people who insist four dead Americans in Benghazi are "a joke" and "a bump in the road." The same people who refuse to help the victims of the Ft. Hood massacre by calling it what it was: a terrorist attack. But yeah...Romney urging people to donate is "craven." Brutal time to be a liberal in America. Just brutal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) He does kind of have a point I would be interested in knowing...how do you feel about Mitt...a guy who gets intelligence reports now and has more interest in unseating Obama than anyone else does not press this to make a scandal out of it in the debate...how do you feel about this/what does it mean to you? Certain groups are desperately trying to make this some sort of huge scandal before Tuesday...Mitt had every opportunity to say whatever he wanted to Obama's face in a debate. He did not. This has already been answered for me by Jim, but suffice it to say that in the third debate it was Romney's job to be the presidential one and let Obama show his thin skin. His surrogates will take care of Benghazi for him. Edited October 31, 2012 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 This has already been answered for me by Jim, but suffice it to say that in the third debated it was Romney's job be the presidential one and let Obama show his thin skin. His surrogates will take care of Benghazi for him. So it's a clear cut scandal of complete and utter disgrace and it's a job for surrogates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 So it's a clear cut scandal of complete and utter disgrace and it's a job for surrogates? Something is certainly wrong. If Obama told DOD to do everything they could to protect them and nothing was done, why aren't heads rolling? Regardless, to answer your question, this is not a time for Romney to get put off message again. The administration is the one stonewalling here. BTW, this thread is about Obama's leadership. Since he stated years ago that his presidency would "slow the rise of the oceans" why didn't he do something about Sandy? Obviously he is some sort of god. Was this whole Sandy thing just a diversion away from Benghazi and the economy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 So it's a clear cut scandal of complete and utter disgrace and it's a job for surrogates? You see, when I see a question like that, I see someone whose job is dictated by a book of rules or guidelines. I could easily be wrong, but no one given any autonomy at work would make a comment this stupid because it would mean you're bad at your job. First of all, it's NOT a clear-cut scandal, as was perfectly displayed by the moderator in Debate #2 when she had to actually fact-check herself post debate after throwing herself into the Benghazi question with the knowledge of a gnat. It's a topic that leads many people to be confused, and it's a fool's game taking that topic to task in a debate on foreign policy because he couldn't possibly hope to win that battle against an incumbent. He looked at his goal...winning the presidency...weighed the value of the battle and made a personal choice to let it go, NOT discuss it, and watch Obama flounder like the mindless zinger-throwing fool that he is. Anyone who has ever had to sell a product to a customer by going head-to-head with their biggest competitor knows exactly what he did. I said it after the debate and will say it forever. He let Obama win that battle with an eye on the war and if Romney wins, debate #3 will, in large part, be why. He beat Obama up in the first debate, but he let Obama beat himself up in the second debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 This is among the most inane threads ever. I wonder if Davey realizes that the reason this wasn't a bigger disaster is that there was professional leadership at the local and state levels? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Once-Rare Response Is Now Routine and Overused A superstorm requires supersmart government. But making wise decisions from a distance is hard. Economists call this the problem of local knowledge. The information needed for making rational plans is distributed among many actors, and it is extremely difficult for a far-off, centralized authority to access it. The devil really is in the details. (This is why the price system, which aggregates all that dispersed insight, is more economically efficient than a command-and-control system.) So emergency and disaster response should be, as much as possible, pushed down to the state and local level. A national effort should be reserved for truly catastrophic events. Indeed this preference for "local first, national second" can be found in the legislation authorizing the Federal Emergency Management Agency. But just the opposite has been happening in recent decades. There were, according to a Heritage Foundation analysis, 28 FEMA declarations a year during the Reagan administration, 44 during Bush I, 90 during Clinton, 130 during Bush II, and 153 so far during Obama's term. The result is federal emergency response effort stretched thin in its capabilities to deal with major disasters. And those local actors shouldn’t just be local government officials. The private sector has a role to play, as well. Wal-Mart’s invaluable relief work after Hurricane Katrina is the forgotten bright spot of that disaster. In his 2008 paper, “Wal-Mart to the Rescue: Private Enterprise’s Response to Hurricane Katrina,” Professor Steven Horwitz of St. Lawrence University points out that “Wal-Mart and other ‘big box’ retailers such as Home Depot ... responded with speed and effectiveness, often times despite attempts by government relief workers to stymie it, and in the process saved numerous lives and prevented more looting and chaos than actually took place.” As the Jefferson Parish sheriff, Harry Lee, said on "Meet the Press" back then, “If American government would have responded like Wal-Mart has responded, we wouldn’t be in this crisis.” In addition to local knowledge, Professor Horwitz points to several other Wal-Mart advantages. It had a market-based incentive to help its customers and communities get quickly get back on their feet. And years of competing with other retailers made its decision-making process nimble and decentralized, just what you want in natural disaster where the situation is constantly evolving. The government should give these private companies protection from civil liability and incorporate them into planning so their efforts aren't turned away (as in Katrina) by uninformed officials To modify an ancient Chinese saying, “The flood waters are high, and Washington is far away.” Localizing disaster aid, both public and private, will result in more lives saved, less property lost and fewer taxpayer dollars spent. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/10/30/do-we-really-need-fema/fema-response-once-rare-is-now-routine-and-overused . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 YOUR FEDERAL DISASTER-RELIEF DOLLARS AT WORK: Hundreds of NY National Guardsmen Miss Hurricane for Mock Disaster Relief — Until Story Hits The News. But remember, Romney is the idiot, because he wants to move more disaster-response responsibility to the states. . . . And I don’t think it makes things better that they changed their plans once the story got out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck_dodgers007 Posted October 31, 2012 Author Share Posted October 31, 2012 http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/10/30/do-we-really-need-fema/fema-response-once-rare-is-now-routine-and-overused . An American Enterprise Institute boob citing a Heritage report to support slashing disaster relief? Ummm...ok. Most people are smart enough to dismiss such trash. In other news, it was nice to see our President in New Jersey today with the Republican governor having his back. Ha ha, Romney must be furious at Christie and the leader of our nation together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 In other news, it was nice to see our President in New Jersey today with the Republican governor having his back. Ha ha, Romney must be furious at Christie and the leader of our nation together. Because Christie put his state above politics, something you know nothing about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck_dodgers007 Posted November 1, 2012 Author Share Posted November 1, 2012 Because Christie put his state above politics, something you know nothing about. So he was correct in praising our President's leadership! I am glad we can at least both agree that Christie was dead on about that! I'm so glad I started this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck_dodgers007 Posted November 1, 2012 Author Share Posted November 1, 2012 What I want to know is why that Romney character isn't rising above low political impulses and praising our president for his decisiveness, his leadership, his action??? Chrisite has no problem putting aside his political affiliation, but Romney thinks of nothing but himself and his ambition. The man is ambitious as Lucifer! Not very presidential. Not a time to switch horses in mid-stream....get it, steam, lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 What I want to know is why that Romney character isn't rising above low political impulses and praising our president for his decisiveness, his leadership, his action??? Chrisite has no problem putting aside his political affiliation, but Romney thinks of nothing but himself and his ambition. The man is ambitious as Lucifer! Not very presidential. Not a time to switch horses in mid-stream....get it, steam, lol So, touring NJ and announcing that the federal government won't forget NJ makes up for 4 years of lies, crony capitalism and laziness? How decisive was he on Benghazi? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Will never understand this crony capitalism and laziness knock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck_dodgers007 Posted November 1, 2012 Author Share Posted November 1, 2012 So, touring NJ and announcing that the federal government won't forget NJ makes up for 4 years of lies, crony capitalism and laziness? How decisive was he on Benghazi? Christie: "The President has shown tremendous leadership..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Christie: "The President has shown tremendous leadership..." How many times do you need an explanation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck_dodgers007 Posted November 1, 2012 Author Share Posted November 1, 2012 How many times do you need an explanation? For Obama being a great leader? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Will never understand this crony capitalism and laziness knock How much money was funnelled to his supporters via Stimulus grants? He's delegated the tough part of negotiations and leadership to others such as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. You know what he would be good at? A monarch, like the King of England, where he is just a figurehead and doesn't have to anything other a few state things that bring honor on himself. Oooops. I could be wrong---he'd probably be the one to do the bowing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 (edited) How much money was funnelled to his supporters via Stimulus grants? He's delegated the tough part of negotiations and leadership to others such as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. You know what he would be good at? A monarch, like the King of England, where he is just a figurehead and doesn't have to anything other a few state things that bring honor on himself. Oooops. I could be wrong---he'd probably be the one to do the bowing. Hehe, I don't have a link but I think (only think) I read something about him working on his bowling after that incident. In any event, there is no doubt the supported all manner of new energy sectors with the stimulus, but they didn't pick winners and losers, they picked everything with solid shot of one day being the new deal...multiple different approaches and fields and a bunch of companies with different approaches within those got backed loans from the energy dept...he picked the game...but the idea the market hasn't picked the winners and losers after the game was set is contradicted by the facts...the 90B was a base that attracted more than double that in private finance and the vast majority of those companies contrary to propaganda have not failed. He put a unprecedented money in research as well...his game was new energy, he campaigned on it, and he did it. And it's that simple. If you don't like investment and incentive for new energy then you don't like a huge part of Obama's agenda...one that was no secret but one that won election either way. But the crony capitalism is nonsense....it really is...get over it and pick a real reason to bash the man there are quite a few. Edited November 1, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Hehe, I don't have a link but I think (only think) I read something about him working on his bowling after that incident. In any event, there is no doubt the supported all manner of new energy sectors with the stimulus, but they didn't pick winners and losers, they picked everything with solid shot of one day being the new deal...multiple different approaches and fields and a bunch of companies with different approaches within those got backed loans from the energy dept...he picked the game...but the idea the market hasn't picked the winners and losers after the game was set is contradicted by the facts...the 90B was a base that attracted more than double that in private finance and the vast majority of those companies contrary to propaganda have not failed. He put a unprecedented money in research as well...his game was new energy, he campaigned on it, and he did it. And it's that simple. If you don't like investment and incentive for new energy then you don't like a huge part of Obama's agenda...one that was no secret but one that won election either way. But the crony capitalism is nonsense....it really is...get over it and pick a real reason to bash the man there are quite a few. I said bowing, not bowling. He's got the bowing down, not so much the bowling. Well if crony capitalism isn't the phrase then how about crony contributers? His famed auto bailout was a travesty. If you even try to claim Romney wanted them to go bankrupt and Obama saved them then you will be vanished, in my mind to the "Ducky" srap heap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts