QuoteThe greatest show on earth meets for one last time tonight in the Sunshine State.
President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have had two of the most memorable debates in modern presidential history, and they get together for the last one in Boca Raton, Fla. tonight.
Obama needs to keep Romney from looking like an acceptable alternative as president, as Romney has — to varying degrees — in the last two debates. Romney needs to narrow Obama's edge on foreign policy and national security with voters, and to argue that the president's policies in the Mideast have failed.
Below, POLITICO's five things to watch:
1. Who's the first to bring home foreign policy
The issue of the day remains the economy, despite a final debate that is focused on global issues.
The candidate who is best able to relate the foreign policy questions back to jobs at home is likely to emerge with an edge in the final showdown.
For example, Paul Ryan was the first to raise John Kennedy's tax policies in the vice presidential debate — and was quickly mocked for it by Joe Biden in "you're no Jack Kennedy" fashion.
Expect either Romney or Obama to try to make the Kennedy case about U.S trade policy, such as China's effects on manufacturing in the Midwest. For Romney, this is an extension of an argument he's made on the campaign trail — and an opportunity to move away from an ill-phrased claim that Russia is the nation's greatest geo-political foe.
Obama's response on China in last week's debate was to point to Romney's personal investments in Chinese companies. A more specific case about how to address China — which Romney has dubbed a currency manipulator but hasn't detailed what he would do for an encore — will need to be made here, especially to lure an audience for a debate that, to quote Ryan, is likely to get "wonky."
"This is not a foreign policy debate," said Republican strategist Alex Castellanos. "That's the trap for both these candidates. For Obama it is the natural urge to explain what he has done on foreign policy. For Romney it is the natural urge to prove he is competent on this turf and not just a businessman. Message to both candidates: Get over it. Don't worry about compensating for your weaknesses on foreign policy. Tell me how you would restore our economy at home so we can project American strength in the world."
2. How they handle Libya
Even without moderator Candy Crowley's controversial handling of a Libya question at last week's debate, there was general consensus among Republicans that Romney muffed a chance to make a broad case against the Obama administration.
But his rough outing last week doesn't mean Romney will leave Libya off the table tonight.
The drip-drip of information raising questions about the attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi continued up until the end of last week.
Romney tends to struggle in the foreign policy area when he goes beyond briefing-book points. But Obama has also had off moments on foreign policy broadly, and Libya specifically is an uncomfortable point for him.
Moderator Bob Schieffer is almost certain to raise the issue, and Romney is likely to make the case that the administration has issued a haze of confusing answers about what went wrong since last month's violence.
Obama will argue that Romney has politicized a tragedy, and the issue hasn't yet become a top priority for voters, and will press what the Republican would have done differently to handle the Arab Spring uprisings. But the sense of confusion over what happened in Benghazi has grown, and Romney is likely to capitalize on it.
3. Whither the one-on-one talks?
Theories abound about how The New York Times ended up printing a story about an agreement to one-on-one nuclear talks between Iran and the United States, which landed just over 48 hours before the final debate begins and which the Obama administration denied.
Obama is almost certain to say the report is untrue if asked, but the end result has been that the issue of Iran, and the concerns of Israel, will be front-and-center at the final face-off.
Israel has been Romney's major foreign policy touchstone for much of 2012 cycle, and he is hawkish on the subject.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who all but endorsed Romney when the Republican visited Israel last summer, said in a statement Sunday that Iran has used such talks to drag its feet. Netanyahu reaffirmed his commitment to keeping the Iranians from obtaining military nuclear capability.
Obama may use Romney's language on Israel and a military strike, which has been muscular and evocative of Netanyahu's past position, to paint the Republican as the candidate of permanent war, at a time when polls show the nation weary of war.
Obama has painted Romney as a version of the caricature Jimmy Carter drew of Ronald Reagan as a war-monger (the same is true in reverse, as Romney has tried to make the Carter case against Obama repeatedly). It was a key question in their 1980 debate, and Reagan turned it by saying he favors peace through strength, to avoid more American lives lost. Several Republican pundits have publicly urged Romney to go this route.
4. Night of the gaffe?
Even Obama wouldn't be watching this debate in real time if he wasn't actually required to be onstage.
He'd be part of the untold millions watching his beloved Chicago Bears take on the Detroit Lions (Romney's childhood hometown team) on Monday Night Football. Baseball fans have their own big event too, in the form of a potentially decisive game seven of the Cardinals-Giants National League Championship game.
Those distractions, coupled with the debate's foreign policy focus, will cut into the robust viewership enjoyed by the first two debates. And that means most voters will rely on a media filter, which tends to kill context and catch sound-bites, one-liners and gaffes.
Moreover, these are two men who don't like each other, are tired from weeks of nonstop campaigning and are starting to feel relaxed in each other's company. This is when people say stupid things.
The narrative of the 2012 presidential debates is already largely written, with Obama's opening-night flop and subsequent recovery now occupying its own place in the debate canon. But Romney, in particular, has been known to make jaw-dropping mistakes (challenging Rick Perry to a $10,000 bet last December was a biggie) and his "binders of women" head-scratcher gave Team Obama a modest attack line at a time when it was desperate to halt the Republican's momentum.
Obama is less gaffe-prone, but he tends to make his mistakes when he's too relaxed, in open-mic situations. The 'who's really-watching?' vibe of Boca might coax the president to drop his guard.
The other possibility for both Obama and Romney is that, on the heels of their Evander Holyfield-Mike Tyson imitation in the New York debate last week, they will both over-correct and try to appear sober and leaderly. They will also be seated at a table, eliminating the wandering theatrics of last week or the podium-pounding of Denver, which makes confrontation less likely.
If that's the case, the debate may not do much to change the race's current arc.
5. Iran is a women's issue.
When Obama talks about ending two wars — and avoiding new ones — he's talking to all voters, but especially to women.
Just because this election is focused almost entirely on the economy doesn't mean that people have entirely forgotten the last two election cycles — in which matters of war and peace predominated.
Women voters have always been less supportive of military action — and bellicose political rhetoric — than their male counterparts, often by double digits.
In early 2011, two women in Obama's inner circle — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations — urged the president to support airstrikes against the Qadhafi regime. Women on the outside weren't nearly as enthusiastic. Only 25 percent supported U.S. military intervention in Libya compared with 38 percent of men polled, according to a Harris/Financial Times survey.
Romney's tough talk on Iran may thrill his party's base and pad his lead among men, but it doesn't play well with women — and that's attracted the notice of an Obama campaign looking to regain ground it has lost with women on economic issues.
Democrats close to Obama say women in focus groups conducted during Romney's Republican convention speech responded most negatively to the GOP nominee's criticisms of Obama's policy on Iran's nuclear program.
"[E]very American is less secure today because he has failed to slow Iran's nuclear threat," Romney said in a line that was applauded by party hawks. "In his first TV interview as president, he said we should talk to Iran. We're still talking, and Iran's centrifuges are still spinning."
Women "really hate the Iran war talk," said an Obama adviser, who added that Romney has softened his delivery since then because "women are the ones who send their sons to war."
When Joe Biden had his crack at Paul Ryan earlier this month in their debate, one of his major attack lines was demanding to know if Romney and Ryan planned to back their tough talk with another military intervention in the Mideast.
"What are you — are you — you're going to go to war? Is that you want to do now?" asked Biden, foreshadowing an approach Obama is likely to use tonight.
Obama isn't counting on getting a lot of credit for his efforts to end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq since he gets more of a pop by talking about the Osama bin Laden raid.
But calling Romney on Iran talk is a way of reminding women voters of his record — and may punch through the general disinterest in foreign policy, Democrats hope.
To that end, Obama may press Romney for offering few specifics on exactly what he would do differently in Afghanistan, and for Ryan's comments in the debate last week that, Democrats argue, indicated a willingness to linger there.
My prognostications for Romney:
--Drive the whole Libya thing into the ground, combined with Syria and the whole "we're watching the unraveling of Obama's foreign policy" in the Muddled East.
--The issue of sequestration and the BCA to dovetail foreign policy, and by extension the Pentagon, back to the economy.
--How Obama has abandoned the Israelis to their fate and abrogated his proper role, as everybody knows the Black Man is muscle for the Jew, and that the only difference between he and Obama is "but 11 is one more".
My prognostications for Obama:
--Guess who I had whacked?
--Guess who I'm still having whacked in bushels on a weekly basis?
--Should I be re-elected, guess who I'm going to keep getting whacked?
What do you think will pop up tonight? NATO? China and declaring a trade war? The Korean Peninsula? START: how Obama's fer it (but not now), and how Mittens is agin it?
QuoteBaseball fans have their own big event too, in the form of a potentially decisive game seven of the Cardinals-Giants National League Championship game.
How is it only "potentially" decisive? Could it go to a game 8 if everybody keels over in the 57th inning?
Foreign policy debate. So about an hour about the Middle East and AfPak, fifteen minutes on 'America's place in the world' and, maybe, fifteen minutes of China-bashing :bleeding:
Maybe a bit of good old European bashing too.
All policy is foreign to me.
Hope there're questions about civil liberties and drone strikes
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 08:53:13 AM
Hope there're questions about civil liberties and drone strikes
We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and are endowed by their president (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2012/10/drones_attacks_in_libya_an_unprecedented_expansion_of_presidential_power.html) with targeting solutions on al-qaeda scumbags.
QuoteThe American president, long considered the most powerful man in the world, can now routinely sling thunderbolts at his enemies like Zeus, subject to virtually no constraints.
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 08:53:13 AM
Hope there're questions about civil liberties and drone strikes
Pfft, weak. Everybody knows drones can't have civil liberties.
Besides, it's a loser concept for voters, who have very little sympathy for knuckleheads from home who run off to foment treason with the Allah Ackbars in a war zone.
Shouldn't they discuss about the ACW if it was just for Languish? That would probably be hilarious.
Quote from: Viking on October 22, 2012, 08:58:39 AM
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 08:53:13 AM
Hope there're questions about civil liberties and drone strikes
QuoteThe American president, long considered the most powerful man in the world, can now routinely sling thunderbolts at his enemies like Zeus, subject to virtually no constraints.
If they criticize a policy they shouldn't make it sound really cool in the process.
Quote from: Zanza on October 22, 2012, 11:37:47 AM
Shouldn't they discuss about the ACW if it was just for Languish? That would probably be hilarious.
Perhaps throw in a bit of ECW too.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 22, 2012, 11:03:05 AM
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 08:53:13 AM
Hope there're questions about civil liberties and drone strikes
Pfft, weak. Everybody knows drones can't have civil liberties.
Besides, it's a loser concept for voters, who have very little sympathy for knuckleheads from home who run off to foment treason with the Allah Ackbars in a war zone.
I know, it's something where I am really critical of Obama but Romney's not gonna bring it up. Hoping a moderator would though
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 12:26:15 PM
I know, it's something where I am really critical of Obama but Romney's not gonna bring it up. Hoping a moderator would though
It's Bob Schieffer, so he may.
Why, may I ask, are you so critical about it, anyway? Is it the law school thing, learning all about due process and whatnot?
The darkie killin' is what I like about Brak.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 22, 2012, 12:30:02 PM
The darkie killin' is what I like about Brak.
He gets that from being Kenyan.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 22, 2012, 12:30:02 PM
The darkie killin' is what I like about Brak.
All fucking Saracens must fucking hang.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 22, 2012, 12:27:34 PM
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 12:26:15 PM
I know, it's something where I am really critical of Obama but Romney's not gonna bring it up. Hoping a moderator would though
It's Bob Schieffer, so he may.
Why, may I ask, are you so critical about it, anyway? Is it the law school thing, learning all about due process and whatnot?
More that my interest in civil liberties led to law school (hence taking a job with... a corporate law firm :lol:). I'm a big Obama fan but I think civil liberties have been an enormous weak spot, and very disappointing given his background. The President shouldn't be able to target American citizens for death. Holder responded to those concerns by saying that "due process does not mean judicial process." :bleeding:
I expected a better thread title. :(
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 01:05:54 PM
Holder responded to those concerns by saying that "due process does not mean judicial process." :bleeding:
Don't see what your bones are with Holder, since he's fellow a corporate law firm animal. :P
And yes, US citizens that go off the reservation and collaborate with the enemy in a known, open and visible operational capacity deserve Zeus' thunderbolts, cast with great vigor and aplomb. Fuck that due process shit.
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 22, 2012, 01:07:18 PM
I expected a better thread title. :(
Much like the debates and and the election themselves, all worn out.
Besides, I just couldn't work Clubber Lang into the title. :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 22, 2012, 01:10:14 PM
And yes, US citizens that go off the reservation and collaborate with the enemy in a known, open and visible operational capacity deserve Zeus' thunderbolts, cast with great vigor and aplomb. Fuck that due process shit.
Count stands for moral cowardice, whether it's the Patriots or al-Qaeda.
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 01:05:54 PM
The President shouldn't be able to target American citizens for death. Holder responded to those concerns by saying that "due process does not mean judicial process." :bleeding:
I am not sure what you find so offensive about that. If the state had to go before courts as a prerequisite to taking an American life then you should simply disarm all state actors (police, military, border security, etc etc etc) and ensure lethal force is never applied until a Court Order is granted.
Seems a bit unworkable to me.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 22, 2012, 02:02:52 PM
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 01:05:54 PM
The President shouldn't be able to target American citizens for death. Holder responded to those concerns by saying that "due process does not mean judicial process." :bleeding:
I am not sure what you find so offensive about that. If the state had to go before courts as a prerequisite to taking an American life then you should simply disarm all state actors (police, military, border security, etc etc etc) and ensure lethal force is never applied until a Court Order is granted.
Seems a bit unworkable to me.
None of those groups generally go around conducting targeted assassinations of U.S. citizens. The closest analogue is the military (police and border security don't make any sense in this context, to the point where I'm not sure what you're arguing), but targeting a citizen for death is different from killing someone in a firefight.
edit: i am frankly a little surprised that the notion that the president of the united states can order the death of an american citizen doesn't trouble you (or CdM or, to a much lesser extent, Neil).
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 02:11:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 22, 2012, 02:02:52 PM
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 01:05:54 PM
The President shouldn't be able to target American citizens for death. Holder responded to those concerns by saying that "due process does not mean judicial process." :bleeding:
I am not sure what you find so offensive about that. If the state had to go before courts as a prerequisite to taking an American life then you should simply disarm all state actors (police, military, border security, etc etc etc) and ensure lethal force is never applied until a Court Order is granted.
Seems a bit unworkable to me.
None of those groups generally go around conducting targeted assassinations of U.S. citizens. The closest analogue is the military (police and border security don't make any sense in this context, to the point where I'm not sure what you're arguing), but targeting a citizen for death is different from killing someone in a firefight.
Ok so at least you agree that lethal force can be used without the need of a Court Order. So lets go further. At what point do you draw the line. You seem to accept that where there is no premeditation that is fine so lets deal with situations where there is premeditation.
What if the government had good solid evidence a US citizen was about to commit a terrorist act which would kill thousands. Would you say a court order was required before lethal force could be used to stop the act?
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 02:11:07 PM
edit: i am frankly a little surprised that the notion that the president of the united states can order the death of an american citizen doesn't trouble you (or CdM or, to a much lesser extent, Neil).
Congress gave him the power to fight terror. He's only doing his job.
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 02:11:07 PM
edit: i am frankly a little surprised that the notion that the president of the united states can order the death of an american citizen doesn't trouble you (or CdM or, to a much lesser extent, Neil).
Meh, sending people to die is part of the commander in chief's job isnt it? The question is when is it appropriate to do so and if killing one can save many where is the moral objection?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 22, 2012, 02:14:34 PM
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 02:11:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 22, 2012, 02:02:52 PM
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 01:05:54 PM
The President shouldn't be able to target American citizens for death. Holder responded to those concerns by saying that "due process does not mean judicial process." :bleeding:
I am not sure what you find so offensive about that. If the state had to go before courts as a prerequisite to taking an American life then you should simply disarm all state actors (police, military, border security, etc etc etc) and ensure lethal force is never applied until a Court Order is granted.
Seems a bit unworkable to me.
None of those groups generally go around conducting targeted assassinations of U.S. citizens. The closest analogue is the military (police and border security don't make any sense in this context, to the point where I'm not sure what you're arguing), but targeting a citizen for death is different from killing someone in a firefight.
Ok so at least you agree that lethal force can be used without the need of a Court Order. So lets go further. At what point do you draw the line. You seem to accept that where there is no premeditation that is fine so lets deal with situations where there is premeditation.
What if the government had good solid evidence a US citizen was about to commit a terrorist act which would kill thousands. Would you say a court order was required before lethal force could be used to stop the act?
What scenario are you imagining exactly? If someone is at a mall and is about to light the fuse on an acme bomb, of course they can be shot; same way someone shooting up the mall can be shot. But we don't summarily execute suspected criminals in this country.
This is a situation where the President's power is so enormous -literally over life and death of an individual citizen- that due process becomes if anything more important than normal.
Quote from: Neil on October 22, 2012, 02:26:41 PM
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 02:11:07 PM
edit: i am frankly a little surprised that the notion that the president of the united states can order the death of an american citizen doesn't trouble you (or CdM or, to a much lesser extent, Neil).
Congress gave him the power to fight terror. He's only doing his job.
I don't doubt that what Obama's doing is popular, or that Congress would hesitate (much) to give the President sweeping powers in the name of combatting terrorism. Obviously doesn't make it right.
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 02:56:39 PM
This is a situation where the President's power is so enormous -literally over life and death of an individual citizen- that due process becomes if anything more important than normal.
The President of the United States of America has had enormous power of life and death for a very long time. The purpose of me asking the question which you did not answer is I want to understand where you would put limits on that power if such a limitation might cause the death innocent bystanders.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 22, 2012, 12:43:58 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 22, 2012, 12:30:02 PM
The darkie killin' is what I like about Brak.
All fucking Saracens must fucking hang.
I used to think the grallonesqe 'nuke Islam' bit was silly. But now, I'm beginning to think he's right.
Obama has not even laid out the legal justification for the targeted killings:
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/us-must-explain-targeted-killings-its-own-citizens
What does that have to do with you answering the question?
Ugh. ACLU. Commies.
Count - what is your mind is the significance of the distinction between citizen and non-citizen in this context?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 22, 2012, 03:05:54 PM
What does that have to do with you answering the question?
I answered you; in "terrorist lighting a fuse in a mall" situation, of course force is justified, in the same way that someone shooting up a mall can be shot. I also asked for clarification of what situation you had in mind.
it's worth remembering how many people accused of terrorism have been acquitted (see Minsky's thread), or just let go from Gitmo.
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 03:23:55 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 22, 2012, 03:05:54 PM
What does that have to do with you answering the question?
I answered you; in "terrorist lighting a fuse in a mall" situation, of course force is justified, in the same way that someone shooting up a mall can be shot. I also asked for clarification of what situation you had in mind.
it's worth remembering how many people accused of terrorism have been acquitted (see Minsky's thread), or just let go from Gitmo.
So lets take your fuse analogy - what does a President have do know or do in your opinion before he takes steps to stop terrorist acts? And what if it was a Canadian that was killed? Do you have any objections to that?
QuoteObama has not even laid out the legal justification for the targeted killings:
Not quite right. There is apparently a justification for it but not made public because I assume the government is taking the position that making it public would do more harm then good in terms of revealing intelligence etc etc.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 22, 2012, 03:22:26 PM
Count - what is your mind is the significance of the distinction between citizen and non-citizen in this context?
Long history of attaching constitutional rights to citizens in a way we do not to non-citizens (IIRC one or more of the Gitmo cases blurs this distinction in the interest of attaching at least some constitutional rights to those in U.S. custody, but I don't remember the details). You could make an argument that we shouldn't be doing targeted assassinations against anyone without some form of due process, but I do think in this case we should at the very least be holding the U.S. government to a higher standard in regards to its own citizens than it is currently living up to.
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 03:42:35 PM
Long history of attaching constitutional rights to citizens in a way we do not to non-citizens (IIRC one or more of the Gitmo cases blurs this distinction in the interest of attaching at least some constitutional rights to those in U.S. custody, but I don't remember the details). You could make an argument that we shouldn't be doing targeted assassinations against anyone without some form of due process, but I do think in this case we should at the very least be holding the U.S. government to a higher standard in regards to its own citizens than it is currently living up to.
So how would this work Count?
Issue a summons to appear to a US citizen currently living abroad that reads:
Please attend a hearing at a secure location for a determination as to your potential to commit future acts of terror which my justify you death.
Or would you hold such hearings without the accused - some due process there!
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 22, 2012, 04:00:01 PM
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 03:42:35 PM
Long history of attaching constitutional rights to citizens in a way we do not to non-citizens (IIRC one or more of the Gitmo cases blurs this distinction in the interest of attaching at least some constitutional rights to those in U.S. custody, but I don't remember the details). You could make an argument that we shouldn't be doing targeted assassinations against anyone without some form of due process, but I do think in this case we should at the very least be holding the U.S. government to a higher standard in regards to its own citizens than it is currently living up to.
So how would this work Count?
Issue a summons to appear to a US citizen currently living abroad that reads:
Please attend a hearing at a secure location for a determination as to your potential to commit future acts of terror which my justify you death.
Or would you hold such hearings without the accused - some due process there!
I don't know, but we have some process now for electronic surveillance of people abroad (which, as a general rule, happens without telling them). Seems like a much stronger version would be needed for killing people abroad, as opposed to listening in on them. Instead we have nothing.
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 04:01:31 PM
I don't know, but we have some process now for electronic surveillance of people abroad (which, as a general rule, happens without telling them). Seems like a much stronger version would be needed for killing people abroad, as opposed to listening in on them. Instead we have nothing.
Based on the article you posted you have something, its just that the government isnt making that something public at the present time.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 22, 2012, 04:10:45 PM
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 04:01:31 PM
I don't know, but we have some process now for electronic surveillance of people abroad (which, as a general rule, happens without telling them). Seems like a much stronger version would be needed for killing people abroad, as opposed to listening in on them. Instead we have nothing.
Based on the article you posted you have something, its just that the government isnt making that something public at the present time.
It's an internal (and unexplained!) process, though, without any judicial oversight and incredibly high stakes. I think it sets a terrible precedent.
We're watching the CNN pre-show, and they just interviewed Bill Clinton. I'd forgotten how much I love that guy, and he's more fun now that he gets to say what he wants.
And I really, really hope that Hillary runs again in 2016. Aside from the fact that I really like her, it'd be freaking awesome having Bill as the first husband.
Inter arma enim silent leges.
I really, really hope Mittens stays on the whole "Russia is our number one geopolitical foe" thing.
Hillary announced yesterday that she isn't running in 2016 and this was her last political job. I didn't catch whether she would stay on if Obama wins re-eection.
EDIT: Yep she is leaving her post in January either way.
MBM: The interview is on November issue of Marie Clair.
One of my least favorite post-9/11 things is everyone wearing an american flag lapel pin. WE GET IT
Looks like the POTUS wins the tie award. Blue with black dots. Romney's mauve and wine? Ick.
Bob Schieffer's had that tie since 1978.
if i was playing a drinking game it'd be 20 shots for referencing Mali
from the twitter:
Keith Phipps @kphipps3000
First question: "What will you do about Libya's repeated attempts to acquire plutonium in shopping mall parking lots?" :lol:
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 08:03:14 PM
One of my least favorite post-9/11 things is everyone wearing an american flag lapel pin. WE GET IT
May also be a Secret Service thing as well, you never know. Neither one is wearing a LIVESTRONG wristband.
LOL, "our hearts and minds go to them." FREUDIAN SLIP MITT?
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 08:06:28 PM
from the twitter:
Keith Phipps @kphipps3000
First question: "What will you do about Libya's repeated attempts to acquire plutonium in shopping mall parking lots?" :lol:
:lol:
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 08:06:28 PM
First question: "What will you do about Libya's repeated attempts to acquire plutonium in shopping mall parking lots?" :lol:
LOL, awesome.
Count, why do you hate America? :huh:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 22, 2012, 08:07:36 PM
Count, why do you hate America? :huh:
i'm from the Temple of Latter Day Jews. We believe Jesus was American and we hate the country for it
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 22, 2012, 07:56:30 PM
I really, really hope Mittens stays on the whole "Russia is our number one geopolitical foe" thing.
Looks like my President did it for him.
Romney trying to pre-empt Obama's kill policy.
Obama now reminding people of Romney's libya fail in the previous debate.
feel like Obama's coming across as too aggressive here, though I have no idea how it plays
edit: he also looks tired while Romney as always looks coked up
I think Mittens dyed his hair a little darker on top.
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 08:12:20 PM
feel like Obama's coming across as too aggressive here, though I have no idea how it plays
edit: he also looks tired while Romney as always looks coked up
Yeah he's not doing so well, and Romney has toned down his argumentative stance.
I really hate it when Mitt tries to play gotcha' with Obama. It's just painful, since he's almost always wrong.
I think Obama has him on the ropes.
"Romney Pledges To Replace All Foreign Policy With Jobs Right Here In America"
http://www.theonion.com/articles/romney-pledges-to-replace-all-foreign-policy-with,30054/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=standard-post:headline:default
[as I'm posting this Obama says "we have to do nation building here at home!" ;)]
Obama just plain doesn't like this guy.
Romney works better at a table. Especially when he's at the end of it, firing people.
Quote from: mongers on October 22, 2012, 08:14:56 PM
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 08:12:20 PM
feel like Obama's coming across as too aggressive here, though I have no idea how it plays
edit: he also looks tired while Romney as always looks coked up
Yeah he's not doing so well, and Romney has toned down his argumentative stance.
Obama sounds like he's lecturing a child. I don't like the tone at all.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 22, 2012, 08:16:25 PM
Romney works better at a table. Especially when he's at the end of it, firing people.
:lol:
Quote from: merithyn on October 22, 2012, 08:17:11 PM
Obama sounds like he's lecturing a child. I don't like the tone at all.
I don't like your tone, young lady.
Romney sounds like a petulant child now. Jeez, this is rough to watch.
CNN's Florida undecided tracker so far loves Obama and is relatively tepid to Romney.
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 08:17:23 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 22, 2012, 08:16:25 PM
Romney works better at a table. Especially when he's at the end of it, firing people.
:lol:
Had you been back for all of this election season, you'd know Seedy has driven that joke into the ground. All the way to China.
Romney - "Work with Israel to fix Syria."
Um... fox in the henhouse much?
Quote from: derspiess on October 22, 2012, 08:20:32 PM
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 08:17:23 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 22, 2012, 08:16:25 PM
Romney works better at a table. Especially when he's at the end of it, firing people.
:lol:
Had you been back for all of this election season, you'd know Seedy has driven that joke into the ground. All the way to China.
:P Counterfeit whore pills. Made with sawdust.
Man, Mittens is all about giving guns to somebody, anybody, everybody in Syria. Whatever happened to sending two white boys with backpacks and bibles?
With Obama talking about how Gaddafi had "more American blood on his hands than anyone other than Osama", Romney should have hit him on cozying up to Libya before the Arab Spring kicked off.
Obviously, he doesn't remember what happened in Afghanistan when we did just that.
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 22, 2012, 08:23:46 PM
With Obama talking about how Gaddafi had "more American blood on his hands than anyone other than Osama", Romney should have hit him on cozying up to Libya before the Arab Spring kicked off.
You give up your Khan network goodies, you get a cookie. Just ask Dubya.
"a peaceful planet". :hug:
Morley does a better job of controlling the clock than the first two did.
I do love have Obama is hammering home that Romney doesn't have any new ideas, and in fact, are all from various decades past.
Romney's back to giving folks tanks who don't want them. :rolleyes:
Quote from: merithyn on October 22, 2012, 08:27:43 PM
Morley does a better job of controlling the clock than the first two did.
It's Bob Schieffer, not Morley Schafer, dear.
Back to the kitchen with you.
I honestly don't know how different Romney would actually be from Obama on foreign policy, and I think that's hamstringing him here. I don't think it's a big priority for Romney and his generally more hawkish attitude doesn't seem to be meaningful.
edit: I guess more military spending?
BLAM and he drops the Polish missile system.
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 22, 2012, 08:23:46 PM
With Obama talking about how Gaddafi had "more American blood on his hands than anyone other than Osama", Romney should have hit him on cozying up to Libya before the Arab Spring kicked off.
I don't think that would have helped Romney much, as that is a continuation of the Bush policy, one that Bush bragged about quite a bit.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 22, 2012, 08:30:13 PM
It's Bob Schieffer, not Morley Schafer, dear.
Back to the kitchen with you.
:P
Doesn't negate my point.
Dunno about you guys, but I think we've had one debate too many this year.
The CNN tracking thing makes no sense and is generally a bad idea IMO
Wow! Slammed Cheney and Bush as "wrong and reckless"!
And now we're off foreign policy. Who guessed it would take 30 minutes?
They're both sounding rather tired, repeating the same elements of their domestic platforms as solutions to make America stronger in foreign affairs.
Latin America what what
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 22, 2012, 08:33:14 PM
Dunno about you guys, but I think we've had one debate too many this year.
4 too many. My tv viewing has been disrupted.
Man, Bob's let them both hit their regular campaign points.
BACK TO FOREIGN POLICY DAMMIT, I WANT TO HEAR ABOUT THE SOUTH CHINA SEA
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 22, 2012, 08:33:14 PM
Dunno about you guys, but I think we've had one debate too many this year.
Was this 'A Debate Too Far' ?
I take it back. This Bob guy sucks. How the hell did we get so far off foreign policies?? Why isn't he reigning them back in?
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 22, 2012, 08:35:12 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 22, 2012, 08:33:14 PM
Dunno about you guys, but I think we've had one debate too many this year.
4 too many. My tv viewing has been disrupted.
Honestly, I'd rather have 3 Biden-Ryan debates instead.
Quote from: merithyn on October 22, 2012, 08:28:31 PM
Romney's back to giving folks tanks who don't want them. :rolleyes:
I already have a tank (FJC), but I sure could use a helicopter to avoid traffic in the mornings.
In other news, I'm getting a bit bored with these two.
Here Schieffer comes; he sounds pissed.
Also, although Romney doesn't deserve particular credit for MA schools being good, we are fucking good.
The tuition free scholarship in MA was seriously overrated, amounted to a small percentage of the actual cost of MA universities (I speak from experience)
Quote from: mongers on October 22, 2012, 08:36:40 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 22, 2012, 08:33:14 PM
Dunno about you guys, but I think we've had one debate too many this year.
Was this 'A Debate Too Far' ?
I just pictured Ryan trying to cross a bridge held by Biden. Thanks.
Bob brought them right back to domestic crap. :mad:
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 22, 2012, 08:39:24 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 22, 2012, 08:36:40 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 22, 2012, 08:33:14 PM
Dunno about you guys, but I think we've had one debate too many this year.
Was this 'A Debate Too Far' ?
I just pictured Ryan trying to cross a bridge held by Biden. Thanks.
Nah, Biden = Elliot Gould. "Shit." *chews wet cigar*
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 22, 2012, 08:41:13 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 22, 2012, 08:39:24 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 22, 2012, 08:36:40 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 22, 2012, 08:33:14 PM
Dunno about you guys, but I think we've had one debate too many this year.
Was this 'A Debate Too Far' ?
I just pictured Ryan trying to cross a bridge held by Biden. Thanks.
Nah, Biden = Elliot Gould. "Shit." *chews wet cigar*
:lol:
Nice one, Obama. I really liked his take on military spending.
Romney is comparing today's military to the military 60-75 years ago, and without paying any attention to what today's war...
Edit: BAMM! Call him on it, Obama!
Damn, Obama. Just made himself a US Navy commercial. 100% ON WATCH BITCH
almost seems like Obama is trying to goad Romney. Tagg's gonna be pissed
these guys love israel way more than any israeli does
The US Navy is the smallest than it's been since 1916. :blink:
Quote from: mongers on October 22, 2012, 08:46:15 PM
The US Navy is the smallest than it's been since 1916. :blink:
The cavalry's smaller than it was then. We're doooomed!
Am I the only one who feels like Romney is effectively parroting Obama? :unsure: I'm struggling to find any differences in their policies.
Mittens needs to fix that loose hair on his forehead.
"Apology Tour". I want that t-shirt.
the onion had a great headline about the apology charges.
"Romney: I Will Not Apologize For American Values or Japanese Internment Camps"
This past weekend, I watched one of the Reagan/Mondale debates. It was interesting to listen to them discuss the foreign policies of that time. I wonder if this debate will be more interesting 30 years from now than it is now.
I'm loving the Apology Tour.
"If we're going to talk about trips we've taken..."
oh my god they're this close to getting circumcisions on screen
Quote from: merithyn on October 22, 2012, 08:56:24 PM
This past weekend, I watched one of the Reagan/Mondale debates. It was interesting to listen to them discuss the foreign policies of that time. I wonder if this debate will be more interesting 30 years from now than it is now.
You ought to listen to the old Reagan/poppy bush ones from the 70's. you'll wonder where those republicans disappeared to. Other than a coffin and a mobility scooter.
Oh no he din't!
Obama totally called Mittens on his candidate tour - and how crappy Romney handled all of that. Way to call him on it, Barry! I think I even saw Mitt blush...
Onion Politics @OnionPolitics
Obama seems suspiciously knowledgeable about foreign affairs for someone born here #debates
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 22, 2012, 08:58:34 PM
You ought to listen to the old Reagan/poppy bush ones from the 70's. you'll wonder where those republicans disappeared to. Other than a coffin and a mobility scooter.
Man, I remember the '80 primary season. Mom was a monumental Poppy fan--right up until he sold his soul to be the Gipper's running mate. She never recovered. :lol:
Is it too soon to call this a total Obama win? I can't see Romney pulling anything out of his ass now that will fix what he's done up to now.
Interestingly, this debate has really driven home just how important foreign policies will be in the next four years, which had sort of gotten lost due to the economy.
9/11 9/11 9/11
This is a waste of time. They both are saying pretty much the same things.
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 08:46:10 PM
these guys love israel way more than any israeli does
Seriously.
The first word in "American Jew" is American.
It's great that us policy is pro-Israel but *American* interests should be primary. I wish one of these guys would have the balls to say it but Obama doesn't and Romney can't talk because bibi's are in his mouth.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 22, 2012, 09:04:33 PM
This is a waste of time. They both are saying pretty much the same things.
And now Romney's laying out Obama's plan for an Afghanistan pull-out as though it's his own. :rolleyes:
Afghanistan - doesn't sound like Romney has spoken to Hansie recently.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 22, 2012, 09:05:11 PM
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 08:46:10 PM
these guys love israel way more than any israeli does
Seriously.
The first word in "American Jew" is American.
It's great that us policy is pro-Israel but *American* interests should be primary. I wish one of these guys would have the balls to say it but Obama doesn't and Romney can't talk because bibi's are in his mouth.
Obama's said it with his actions, if not with his words. The daylight comment kind of gives that impression, anyway. Romney, on the other hand, is ready to give one of his boys to Bibi as a pledge of solidarity.
You hear that, UK? You're losing the arms race to Pakistan. :angry:
Quote from: merithyn on October 22, 2012, 08:47:51 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 22, 2012, 08:46:15 PM
The US Navy is the smallest than it's been since 1916. :blink:
The cavalry's smaller than it was then. We're doooomed!
Are you comparing the navy to the cavalry?
You know, sometimes you really stun me. I mean, the whole womyn thing is one thing. Some chicks are just angry about life. But this is just terrible.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 22, 2012, 09:05:11 PM
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 08:46:10 PM
these guys love israel way more than any israeli does
Seriously.
The first word in "American Jew" is American.
It's great that us policy is pro-Israel but *American* interests should be primary. I wish one of these guys would have the balls to say it but Obama doesn't and Romney can't talk because bibi's are in his mouth.
:lol:
as an israeli-american and american-jew and liberal zionist and all that, I don't think where Bibi wants to go is good for Israel, either.
*sighs*
How many times is Obama going to trot out that medic/nurse? Romney rolled his eyes when Obama started the story, and I was right there with him.
Quote from: Neil on October 22, 2012, 09:08:53 PM
Are you comparing the navy to the cavalry?
You know, sometimes you really stun me. I mean, the whole womyn thing is one thing. Some chicks are just angry about life. But this is just terrible.
Horses are better than boats. :sleep: Every girl knows that.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 22, 2012, 09:05:11 PM
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 08:46:10 PM
these guys love israel way more than any israeli does
Seriously.
The first word in "American Jew" is American.
It's great that us policy is pro-Israel but *American* interests should be primary. I wish one of these guys would have the balls to say it but Obama doesn't and Romney can't talk because bibi's are in his mouth.
Because only people like you could say that; Count can't say it (?) , maybe CdM would be credible, if a European said that it would be seen as anti-Semitic.
Quote from: mongers on October 22, 2012, 09:11:03 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 22, 2012, 09:05:11 PM
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 08:46:10 PM
these guys love israel way more than any israeli does
Seriously.
The first word in "American Jew" is American.
It's great that us policy is pro-Israel but *American* interests should be primary. I wish one of these guys would have the balls to say it but Obama doesn't and Romney can't talk because bibi's are in his mouth.
Because only people like you could say that; Count can't say it (?) , maybe CdM would be credible, if a European said that it would be seen as anti-Semitic.
what? i am pretty pissed that my posts don't come across as jewish :mad:
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 09:09:05 PM
as an israeli-american and american-jew and liberal zionist and all that, I don't think where Bibi wants to go is good for Israel, either.
I want Ehud Barak back in charge, dammit. Can't go wrong with armor.
OOOOH COUNT THERES YOUR QUESTION ON DRONES
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 22, 2012, 09:12:09 PM
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 09:09:05 PM
as an israeli-american and american-jew and liberal zionist and all that, I don't think where Bibi wants to go is good for Israel, either.
OOOOH COUNT THERES YOUR QUESTION ON DRONES
:yeah:
Quote from: mongers on October 22, 2012, 09:11:03 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 22, 2012, 09:05:11 PM
It's great that us policy is pro-Israel but *American* interests should be primary. I wish one of these guys would have the balls to say it but Obama doesn't and Romney can't talk because bibi's are in his mouth.
Because only people like you could say that; Count can't say it (?) , maybe CdM would be credible, if a European said that it would be seen as anti-Semitic.
Obama's had to play it quiet, though. That's why he won't buy into the "red line" bullshit Romney and Bibi buy into. We need to drive this crisis, not Israel. Can't work that way.
Al Quaeda isn't on the run? Maybe bcause they have no legs. Or arms. Or head.
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 09:11:53 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 22, 2012, 09:11:03 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 22, 2012, 09:05:11 PM
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 08:46:10 PM
these guys love israel way more than any israeli does
Seriously.
The first word in "American Jew" is American.
It's great that us policy is pro-Israel but *American* interests should be primary. I wish one of these guys would have the balls to say it but Obama doesn't and Romney can't talk because bibi's are in his mouth.
Because only people like you could say that; Count can't say it (?) , maybe CdM would be credible, if a European said that it would be seen as anti-Semitic.
what? i am pretty pissed that my posts don't come across as jewish :mad:
Well I mentioned you because of your perceived left wing politics rather than your heritage.
I for one want to see less droning.
Obama says China's an adversary. I spooged.
Quote from: mongers on October 22, 2012, 09:14:34 PM
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 09:11:53 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 22, 2012, 09:11:03 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 22, 2012, 09:05:11 PM
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 08:46:10 PM
these guys love israel way more than any israeli does
Seriously.
The first word in "American Jew" is American.
It's great that us policy is pro-Israel but *American* interests should be primary. I wish one of these guys would have the balls to say it but Obama doesn't and Romney can't talk because bibi's are in his mouth.
Because only people like you could say that; Count can't say it (?) , maybe CdM would be credible, if a European said that it would be seen as anti-Semitic.
what? i am pretty pissed that my posts don't come across as jewish :mad:
Well I mentioned you because of your perceived left wing politics rather than your heritage.
oh fair enough. my circumcision (and passport) covers me from that sort of criticism. also I don't want us to go full europe, where i do think there's irrational loathing of israel
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 22, 2012, 09:16:08 PM
I for one want to see less droning.
:yeah:
not the best answers to that question, but I'm glad it was at least brought up
Quote from: merithyn on October 22, 2012, 09:10:45 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 22, 2012, 09:08:53 PM
Are you comparing the navy to the cavalry?
You know, sometimes you really stun me. I mean, the whole womyn thing is one thing. Some chicks are just angry about life. But this is just terrible.
Horses are better than boats. :sleep: Every girl knows that.
And that's why they should never have given women the vote: The inability to think rationally.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 22, 2012, 09:16:32 PM
Obama says China's an adversary. I spooged.
Mittens says China doesn't have to be an adversary, they can be a partner. He's lost my vote.
I think I've now heard each of these talking points at least 3 times from each candidate, the tuesday after next can't come soon enough.
Quote from: Neil on October 22, 2012, 09:17:48 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 22, 2012, 09:10:45 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 22, 2012, 09:08:53 PM
Are you comparing the navy to the cavalry?
You know, sometimes you really stun me. I mean, the whole womyn thing is one thing. Some chicks are just angry about life. But this is just terrible.
Horses are better than boats. :sleep: Every girl knows that.
And that's why they should never have given women the vote: The inability to think rationally.
I once knew a girl who was more into jet fighters. :wub:
Mittens doesn't seem to understand what "imposing tariffs" means.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 22, 2012, 09:18:36 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 22, 2012, 09:16:32 PM
Obama says China's an adversary. I spooged.
Mittens says China doesn't have to be an adversary, they can be a partner. He's lost my vote.
:rolleyes: ;)
the twitter:
Ezra Klein @ezraklein
Barack Obama is winning this debate by being George W. Bush.
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 22, 2012, 09:19:19 PM
I once knew a girl who was more into jet fighters. :wub:
Speaking of, where is Brazen? :unsure:
Obama is the first Democratic president, in my memory, that has a stronger foreign policy than his Republican competitor. This is going to upend my entire view of both parties.
Quote from: merithyn on October 22, 2012, 09:23:08 PM
Obama is the first Democratic president, in my memory, that has a stronger foreign policy than his Republican competitor. This is going to upend my entire view of both parties.
do you remember W.? :huh:
the china xenophobia on both sides is mindless
Is this thing in some sort of repeat loop? :yawn:
Time to put down this phone and get some cereal before bed.
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 09:20:57 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 22, 2012, 09:18:36 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 22, 2012, 09:16:32 PM
Obama says China's an adversary. I spooged.
Mittens says China doesn't have to be an adversary, they can be a partner. He's lost my vote.
:rolleyes: ;)
the twitter:
Ezra Klein @ezraklein
Barack Obama is winning this debate by being George W. Bush.
I came. VOTE RECONSIDERED.
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 09:20:57 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 22, 2012, 09:18:36 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 22, 2012, 09:16:32 PM
Obama says China's an adversary. I spooged.
Mittens says China doesn't have to be an adversary, they can be a partner. He's lost my vote.
:rolleyes: ;)
the twitter:
Ezra Klein @ezraklein
Barack Obama is winning this debate by being George W. Bush.
Oh, a fellow Jew. Ezra light up the Jew Signal again? :P
You people need to get on the same fucking page with those godless yellow heathens.
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 09:24:18 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 22, 2012, 09:23:08 PM
Obama is the first Democratic president, in my memory, that has a stronger foreign policy than his Republican competitor. This is going to upend my entire view of both parties.
do you remember W.? :huh:
the china xenophobia on both sides is mindless
Well yeah, but he was borderline retarded on all counts, so I guess I don't count him on anything.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 22, 2012, 09:25:26 PM
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 09:20:57 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 22, 2012, 09:18:36 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 22, 2012, 09:16:32 PM
Obama says China's an adversary. I spooged.
Mittens says China doesn't have to be an adversary, they can be a partner. He's lost my vote.
:rolleyes: ;)
the twitter:
Ezra Klein @ezraklein
Barack Obama is winning this debate by being George W. Bush.
Oh, a fellow Jew. Ezra light up the Jew Signal again? :P
You people need to get on the same fucking page with those godless yellow heathens.
i can't help the unusual, conspicuous prominence of jews :ph34r:
I really wish you people would fucking comprehend the fucking concept of the Chinese threat.
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 09:26:33 PM
i can't help the unusual, conspicuous prominence of jews :ph34r:
Yeah and that's not just the noses and Lefty politics. There's also finance and Hollywood.
Where is AmScip to bring in the Gary Johnson angle? We need a third party view on this.
"I think we all love teachers." :lol:
No question that Romney came off looking really old-fashioned in this debate. Well, and the last one, too, though not as badly.
Obama owned this debate. I wonder if it's enough.
I think obama won. Romney's not a foreign policy guy and that shows. Will say Romney did a good job of not getting pissy with the moderator when he had a couple of opportunities to be. Laughing it off makes him look much better
OLD PEOPLE SHOUT OUT
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 22, 2012, 09:30:03 PM
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 09:26:33 PM
i can't help the unusual, conspicuous prominence of jews :ph34r:
Yeah and that's not just the noses and Lefty politics. There's also finance and Hollywood.
Have you been to an Occupy Wall Street demonstration ? :unsure:
When romney declared his love for teachers I had a flashback to "I love big bird..." and worried about his comments on teachers unions.
Quote from: mongers on October 22, 2012, 09:33:56 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 22, 2012, 09:30:03 PM
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 09:26:33 PM
i can't help the unusual, conspicuous prominence of jews :ph34r:
Yeah and that's not just the noses and Lefty politics. There's also finance and Hollywood.
Have you been to an Occupy Wall Street demonstration ? :unsure:
i guess i missed languish during the whole OWS thing- it was nice to get the message of inequality out there but the actual protests in NYC were tiny (and not particularly jewish that I know of, if that's what you're getting at)
Quote from: mongers on October 22, 2012, 09:33:56 PM
Have you been to an Occupy Wall Street demonstration ? :unsure:
I'm the 1.1 percent.
I with the 99 but I want to keep my cognac.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-takes-out-romney-with-middebate-drone-attack,30055/
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 09:32:38 PM
I think obama won.
Romney came in a very close 2nd, if only by mimicry.
Does the Romney clan, all three generations, go everywhere together on mass ? :hmm:
I assume Obama's kids are at home because they have to go to school tomorrow.
the post-debate people on CNN are james carville and ari fleischer. :bleeding:
Quote from: mongers on October 22, 2012, 09:38:05 PM
Does the Romney clan, all three generations, go everywhere together on mass ? :hmm:
No, they're Mormons.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 22, 2012, 09:37:43 PM
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 09:32:38 PM
I think obama won.
Romney came in a very close 2nd, if only by mimicry.
:D
I thought Romney did fine, but yeah that limited him.
Quote from: Habbaku on October 22, 2012, 09:37:30 PM
http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-takes-out-romney-with-middebate-drone-attack,30055/
QuoteThe drone strike, which killed three of Romney's sons sitting near the debate stage, reportedly also took the lives of at least 45 civilians, including 12 Lynn University students, nine Secret Service agents, first daughter Malia Obama, and two cameramen.
"Military operations of this ilk are dangerous, and occasionally a few innocent civilians get caught in the crossfire," said Carney, describing the lost arm and severe second-degree facial burns inflicted on debate moderator Bob Schieffer as "necessary collateral damage." "However, we must realize that this is a price we pay when we face our greatest challenges."
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 09:36:36 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 22, 2012, 09:33:56 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 22, 2012, 09:30:03 PM
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 09:26:33 PM
i can't help the unusual, conspicuous prominence of jews :ph34r:
Yeah and that's not just the noses and Lefty politics. There's also finance and Hollywood.
Have you been to an Occupy Wall Street demonstration ? :unsure:
i guess i missed languish during the whole OWS thing- it was nice to get the message of inequality out there but the actual protests in NYC were tiny (and not particularly jewish that I know of, if that's what you're getting at)
No, no, I was alluding to the thread of anti-Semitism I encountered.
Meh, Romney could've done much better in staking out his own claim. Agreeing with the President's policies on so many topics as the opposing candidate isn't the best tactical move.
"Syria is Iran's path to the sea"? Guess Bain Capital never liquidated any globes as office furniture assets.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 22, 2012, 09:18:36 PM
Mittens says China doesn't have to be an adversary, they can be a partner. He's lost my vote.
They can be a partner... in destabilizing the US economy in order to enrich some investors and create shareholder value.
Governor Pataki is in the spin room, saying how Obama has driven the biggest wedge between the US and Israel in history. By not supporting Israel.
:hmm: Somehow, George, I think there's been bigger wedges.
Obama seemed to think that he was behind and needed to come out swining, while Romney seemed pretty content to sit back and try to look presidential. An interesting contrast from the first debate.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 22, 2012, 09:39:59 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on October 22, 2012, 09:37:30 PM
http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-takes-out-romney-with-middebate-drone-attack,30055/
QuoteThe drone strike, which killed three of Romney's sons sitting near the debate stage, reportedly also took the lives of at least 45 civilians, including 12 Lynn University students, nine Secret Service agents, first daughter Malia Obama, and two cameramen.
"Military operations of this ilk are dangerous, and occasionally a few innocent civilians get caught in the crossfire," said Carney, describing the lost arm and severe second-degree facial burns inflicted on debate moderator Bob Schieffer as "necessary collateral damage." "However, we must realize that this is a price we pay when we face our greatest challenges."
I laffed.
Quote from: Kleves on October 22, 2012, 09:58:06 PM
Obama seemed to think that he was behind and needed to come out swining, while Romney seemed pretty content to sit back and try to look presidential. An interesting contrast from the first debate.
I think Obama came out swinging because he simply doesn't fucking like the guy.
And as an aside, I think that as the POTUS, there's maybe a certain sensitivity to policy criticism when it comes to foreign policy, more so than other topics.
Good thing the floors were clean, or Mitt's suit would be pretty dusty. I thought Obama cleaned his clock, while Mitt quivered his upper lip non-stop, and occasionally his whole face.
Romney doesn't get the same points in my book for repeating what Obama said if he in the same response bashes Obama. I don't see where "Mitt achieved his goal of looking presidential" argument is coming from. Mitt always looked presidential, but he isn't looking any more presidential as a result of this debate.
Which is weird, because Obama has a pretty privileged background, except for the Obama's criminality. Not because he's black, but because he's from Chicago.
At any rate, a president who shit talks the Navy has no business being president. Who cares if his opponent will sell the whole country to the Chinese.
Quote from: Neil on October 22, 2012, 10:07:32 PM
At any rate, a president who shit talks the Navy has no business being president. Who cares if his opponent will sell the whole country to the Chinese.
Don't see where you're coming from with that. The POTUS made the very distinct difference between scale and capability. More is not better.
Besides, do you really want to see a POTUS that believes Iran needs Syria for access to the sea? They need a warm water port or something?
God, how many more weeks of this bullshit?
I am voting for Al Smith this election.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 22, 2012, 09:37:43 PM
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 09:32:38 PM
I think obama won.
Romney came in a very close 2nd, if only by mimicry.
I would do the same thing, but EVEN MORE!!111
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 22, 2012, 10:12:37 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 22, 2012, 10:07:32 PM
At any rate, a president who shit talks the Navy has no business being president. Who cares if his opponent will sell the whole country to the Chinese.
Don't see where you're coming from with that. The POTUS made the very distinct difference between scale and capability. More is not better.
Besides, do you really want to see a POTUS that believes Iran needs Syria for access to the sea? They need a warm water port or something?
I don't know. My wife told me that Obama was talking shit about how the navy was obsolete like horses and whatnot, but we didn't watch the debate.
Whichever guy will pledge to eliminate the independence of the USAF is the kind of skilled administrator that America needs.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 22, 2012, 10:12:37 PM
Besides, do you really want to see a POTUS that believes Iran needs Syria for access to the sea? They need a warm water port or something?
Yeah, WTF was that? Did he forget about Persian Gulf or something? Or did he jumble the index cards he used for cramming and confused it with Russia's strategic interest in the Mediterranean port?
Quote from: Neil on October 22, 2012, 10:07:32 PM
Which is weird, because Obama has a pretty privileged background, except for the Obama's criminality. Not because he's black, but because he's from Chicago.
At any rate, a president who shit talks the Navy has no business being president. Who cares if his opponent will sell the whole country to the Chinese.
What sort of privilege?
Quote from: Neil on October 22, 2012, 10:17:11 PM
I don't know. My wife told me that Obama was talking shit about how the navy was obsolete like horses and whatnot, but we didn't watch the debate.
Whichever guy will pledge to eliminate the independence of the USAF is the kind of skilled administrator that America needs.
Then allow me to retort:
QuotePresident Barack Obama mocked Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney on Monday for his repeated attack over the size of the Navy, which he has said proves the president doesn't prioritize national defense.
"You mention the Navy, for example, and the fact that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets," Obama said during the final presidential debate. "Because the nature of our military has changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines."
"And so the question is not a game of battleship where we're counting ships, it's 'What are our capabilities?'" Obama said.
Your wife needs to hook up with Meri and derspiess' wife, and make some fucking cupcakes. :P
Quote from: DGuller on October 22, 2012, 10:18:21 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 22, 2012, 10:12:37 PM
Besides, do you really want to see a POTUS that believes Iran needs Syria for access to the sea? They need a warm water port or something?
Yeah, WTF was that? Did he forget about Persian Gulf or something? Or did he jumble the index cards he used for cramming and confused it with Russia's strategic interest in the Mediterranean port?
From the WashPost:
QuoteWe've puzzled over this comment for a while. When the presumptive GOP nominee referred to Syria as Iran's "route to the sea" during the Arizona GOP debate in February, we figured it was just a slip of the tongue.
But then a reader counted at least five times in which Romney has used this phrase, including in the Feb. 22 debate, at last month's American Israel Public Affairs Committee annual conference, in a TV interview (MSNBC, Dec. 21), on the radio (Kilmeade & Friends, Feb. 14) and even in a Washington Post interview (Feb. 10).
Considering that Syria shares no border with Iran — Iraq and Turkey are in the way — and that Iran has about 1,500 miles of coastline along the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman, leading to the Arabian Sea, the reader wanted to know: What's Romney talking about?
The Facts
This is the explanation provided by the Romney campaign: "It is generally recognized that Syria offers Iran strategic basing/staging access to the Mediterranean as well as to terrorist proxies in the Levant. This is a large reason why Iran invests so much in Syria."
The campaign also noted that the Boston Globe had looked into this statement at the time of the Arizona debate.
The Globe noted that "given that Iran borders the sea, it seems to be an odd claim that Syria is Iran's route to the sea." The newspaper noted that Iran is able to reach the Mediterranean through the Suez Canal. But it said that "Romney's comments are more accurate than they first seem," citing a news report that Iran was building an army base in Syria and quoting an expert on the importance of Syria to Iran.
We also checked with other experts, many of whom confessed to being puzzled by Romney's comments. Tehran certainly uses Syria to supply the militant groups Hezbollah and Hamas, but that has little to do with the water. The relationship with Syria could also effectively allow Iran to project its power to the Mediterranean and the border with Israel.
But does that really mean, "a route to the sea"?
The Pinocchio Test
Like many governors (or first-term senators), Romney has little foreign policy experience. If Romney is elected president, he will quickly learn that words have consequences. Precision in language is especially important in diplomacy, and here Romney used a phrase that left people befuddled as to his intent and meaning, especially since he did not even make a distinction between the Mediterranean and Arabian seas.
The fact that Romney has used this confusing phrase at least five times suggested that the term was not an accident. But the Romney campaign's explanation is not especially satisfying.
Still, at this point, we don't think this is worthy of a Pinocchio rating — unless we create a category for weird language. We welcome readers to help us watch if Romney says this again.
Explaining what carriers and submarines are was a little dickish, IMO, but it was amusing.
Wait, so Obama was shit-talking battleships? :mad:
Well, that excerpt wasn't so bad. It seems that CNN feels that it'll hurt Obama in Virginia though.
Quote from: Neil on October 22, 2012, 10:24:15 PM
Wait, so Obama was shit-talking battleships? :mad:
No, my flanneled fruitcake friend, he was dissing Mittens playing "Battleship" the game re: the scale of the Navy.
QuoteWell, that excerpt wasn't so bad. It seems that CNN feels that it'll hurt Obama in Virginia though.
Doubtful. Shipbuilding in Virginia isn't as big as the cyber defense community in Northern Virginia anyway. NoVa's bigger than Newport News.
Besides, unlike Dubya, Obama doesn't punish states for voting against him. WITHER GROTON
Quote from: DGuller on October 22, 2012, 10:21:54 PM
Explaining what carriers and submarines are was a little dickish, IMO, but it was amusing.
It was amusing, but it was also a bullshit answer. Obama didn't say that a smaller navy was commensurate with our current naval commitments, or that our naval goals would be scaled back so that we could scale back our commitments as well, or anything actually substantive. Instead he offered an attack-line that probably poll-tested well.
Generally, I think the debate moderators did a poor job calling both Romney and Obama on their bullshit.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 22, 2012, 10:28:39 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 22, 2012, 10:24:15 PM
Wait, so Obama was shit-talking battleships? :mad:
No, my flanneled fruitcake friend, he was dissing Mittens playing "Battleship" the game re: the scale of the Navy.
He should have clarified that then. Said something about how a navy is only as good as their supply of battleships.
QuoteQuoteWell, that excerpt wasn't so bad. It seems that CNN feels that it'll hurt Obama in Virginia though.
Doubtful. Shipbuilding in Virginia isn't as big as the cyber defense community in Northern Virginia anyway. NoVa's bigger than Newport News.
Besides, unlike Dubya, Obama doesn't punish states for voting against him. WITHER GROTON
Will the cyber people break for Obama? Besides, US cyber-defence is useless anyways. If you guys were worth anything, China would be a smoking cyber-ruin by now.
Quote from: Neil on October 22, 2012, 10:46:30 PM
Will the cyber people break for Obama? Besides, US cyber-defence is useless anyways. If you guys were worth anything, China would be a smoking cyber-ruin by now.
It's pretty tight down there, but I think NoVa's will break for Obama: tons of frigging Federal employees and Federal contractors. I don't believe they'll vote for the CEO that will downsize them.
Romney's been hitting it very hard with advertising, how the sequestration will kill all their jobs. Pretty ironical from the guy that wants to eviscerate the federal employee population.
Besides, NoVa's not as "homogenous" as the southern, more rural parts of the state. Lots of Michelle Obamas and other minorities. That part of it isn't Old Dixie anymore.
But Otto's down in Frednecksburg, he's at the southernmost tip of NoVa, he can speak of it better.
Reading forum threads about presidential debates is one of my favourite things about American elections.
Apparently Romney's statements about the navy are not true anyway. The number of ships bottomed out in 2005 and has since increased.
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 07:24:41 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 22, 2012, 04:10:45 PM
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 04:01:31 PM
I don't know, but we have some process now for electronic surveillance of people abroad (which, as a general rule, happens without telling them). Seems like a much stronger version would be needed for killing people abroad, as opposed to listening in on them. Instead we have nothing.
Based on the article you posted you have something, its just that the government isnt making that something public at the present time.
It's an internal (and unexplained!) process, though, without any judicial oversight and incredibly high stakes. I think it sets a terrible precedent.
I completely agree with Count.
Tainted.
What irritating debates. We are not a very good Aniki for poor little white Japan.
Quote from: Lettow77 on October 22, 2012, 11:17:08 PM
What irritating debates. We are not a very good Aniki for poor little white Japan.
Translation?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 22, 2012, 11:28:36 PM
Quote from: Lettow77 on October 22, 2012, 11:17:08 PM
What irritating debates. We are not a very good Aniki for poor little white Japan.
Translation?
Aniki = big brother
This can be either literally, or it could be used by a yakuza member in reference to a more senior member.
is lettow still a crazy racist?
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 11:37:26 PM
is lettow still a crazy racist?
thinks japan is white - crazy - check
thinks that this matters - racist - check
I am surrounded by philistines! Poor little white Japan was clearly a reference to a culturally significant work.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_m69hh807XV1qj33bmo1_400.jpg&hash=2c67f39970d40c2088f359f4b3a66402655dda63)
Uh, is that gay pornography?
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 11:37:26 PM
is lettow still a crazy racist?
Yeah, though he's moved in strange directions since you last saw him. If possible he's probably more deranged then he was before.
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 11:37:26 PM
is lettow still a crazy racist?
He thinks he's a little Japanese schoolgirl now, and he wants his roommate to drill him him like a Chunnel contractor.
Christ, now I have to change my avatar again. Fucking Lettow, you fake Nip fuck.
Quote from: Lettow77 on October 22, 2012, 11:51:33 PM
I am surrounded by philistines! Poor little white Japan was clearly a reference to a culturally significant work.
:lol:
bizarre and hilarious
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 07:24:41 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 22, 2012, 04:10:45 PM
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 04:01:31 PM
I don't know, but we have some process now for electronic surveillance of people abroad (which, as a general rule, happens without telling them). Seems like a much stronger version would be needed for killing people abroad, as opposed to listening in on them. Instead we have nothing.
Based on the article you posted you have something, its just that the government isnt making that something public at the present time.
It's an internal (and unexplained!) process, though, without any judicial oversight and incredibly high stakes. I think it sets a terrible precedent.
One possible solution is to actually subject the decision to target someone to a judicial oversight/court order. This is not ideal, but still better to a situation in which one branch of the government unilaterally determines someone to be an enemy combatant and then offs him.
Quote from: Count on October 22, 2012, 11:37:26 PM
is lettow still a crazy racist?
He plans to never work a day in his life and to live in Japan where he will sadomasochisticly enjoy being the target of racism. So the answer is yes.
The question wasn't whether he was a lazy racist. :contract:
Quote from: Viking on October 22, 2012, 09:35:07 PM
When romney declared his love for teachers I had a flashback to "I love big bird..." and worried about his comments on teachers unions.
He also loves his dog and his wife.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 22, 2012, 11:56:32 PM
Uh, is that gay pornography?
I sure hope so. He probably gets to be fucked by all the black guys.
I for one am enjoying the unique opportunity to write about horses and bayonets in my column.
Quote from: Brazen on October 23, 2012, 03:58:10 AM
I for one am enjoying the unique opportunity to write about horses and bayonets in my column.
Please do, dear. But I don't think you'll be the only writer taking this unique opportunity this morning.
Quote from: Martinus on October 23, 2012, 01:44:29 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 22, 2012, 11:56:32 PM
Uh, is that gay pornography?
I sure hope so. He probably gets to be fucked by all the black guys.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0447371/
Quote
Plot Keywords: Sex | Hardcore | Group Sex | Interracial | Homosexual
Quote from: DGuller on October 22, 2012, 10:05:57 PM
Romney doesn't get the same points in my book for repeating what Obama said if he in the same response bashes Obama. I don't see where "Mitt achieved his goal of looking presidential" argument is coming from. Mitt always looked presidential, but he isn't looking any more presidential as a result of this debate.
He didn't come off as clinically insane. That was the mission of the night.
The 4 Bs of this Presidential campaign: Big Bird, Binders, and Bayonets.
Quote from: Viking on October 23, 2012, 06:13:48 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 23, 2012, 01:44:29 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 22, 2012, 11:56:32 PM
Uh, is that gay pornography?
I sure hope so. He probably gets to be fucked by all the black guys.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0447371/
Quote
Plot Keywords: Sex | Hardcore | Group Sex | Interracial | Homosexual
Well, that answers that.
I wonder if Romney's relative passivity was designed to appeal to female voters. A couple of times he said nonsense like "attacking me isn't a plan to help this nation" or whatever (well, no, Mitt, but if it keeps some stupid ass idea of yours from being implemented, then that helps America), which I thought made him look like he didn't have a good retort for Obama's criticism, but women might eat that shit up.
Also, I wonder if Mitt's plan was to tack close to Obama, so that Obama cannot use his advantage in foreign policy (hard to go after the other guy's plan as dangerous/misguided/reckless when its exactly the same as yours), which forces the conversation back to the economy.
Oh, I think you're right on all counts Kleves. I think Mittens was deliberatley playing it a bit passive for the reasons you said. And there's no point in arguing on the fine points of foreign policy when they have very little to disagree about. Romney kept trying to bring it back to the economy cause that's where his strength is.
He was playing passive because, as his campaign said afterwards, he didn't want to leave a major gaffe out there for the electorate to chew on for two weeks, and to appear nice and centrist.
His goal wasn't to feed his base this time around, it was to show indies that he's not crazy and there would be no major ideological shifts, that there would be a certain sense of continuity of policy.
And once again, he made complete and total reversals on policies he's campaigned on in the middle of the debate like Afghanistan and China, completely on the fly.
The man's a shameless chameleon without a single conviction in his body with the exception of his little cult hobbies, an incredibly empty suit. At least Dubya, for good or ill, had his convictions and consistently believed in them, even if I didn't. But this guy? Oh, man. No wonder it's so difficult to criticize his policies, he makes them up as he goes along, a different angle each day.
Quote from: Neil on October 22, 2012, 10:24:15 PM
Wait, so Obama was shit-talking battleships? :mad:
Well, that excerpt wasn't so bad. It seems that CNN feels that it'll hurt Obama in Virginia though.
Battleships....how obsolete.
Romney made it seem there wasnt much difference between them on foriegn policy negating his apparent weakness going into the debate. On top of that it was boring to watch.
I give the strategic victory to Romney. Obama probably didnt score enough points to make up the ground he lost in the first debate.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2012, 10:52:47 AM
Romney made it seem there wasnt much difference between them on foriegn policy negating his apparent weakness going into the debate. On top of that it was boring to watch.
I give the strategic victory to Romney. Obama probably didnt score enough points to make up the ground he lost in the first debate.
I didn't watch the debate, but that's the general impression I'm getting. Well, that and some odd whining that Romney doesn't disagree enough with Obama on foreign policy.
From what I can tell from the reports, the Eurozone crisis wasn't mentioned. You have to wonder whether e.g. the civil war in Syria or the economic depression in Europe is more relevant to American foreign policy interests.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2012, 10:52:47 AM
Romney made it seem there wasnt much difference between them on foriegn policy negating his apparent weakness going into the debate. On top of that it was boring to watch.
I give the strategic victory to Romney. Obama probably didnt score enough points to make up the ground he lost in the first debate.
Maybe. Romney was just playing safe. He didn't lose his cool. He didn't make any big fuckups. The Obama campaign clearly still thought they had to be in attack mode. Obama was a complete spaz compared to his normal personality. There was really no substance in the whole thing, just the two of them trying to give their planned impression.
My overall "impression" was one of Obama crashing against Romney like waves at the beach hitting the rocks. How much got eroded I dunno. That's not the stuff I look for anyway. No substance means I'm bored.
Quote from: Zanza on October 23, 2012, 12:07:24 PM
From what I can tell from the reports, the Eurozone crisis wasn't mentioned. You have to wonder whether e.g. the civil war in Syria or the economic depression in Europe is more relevant to American foreign policy interests.
Eurozone hasn't been as violent, so it hasn't held our attention as much :P
Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2012, 12:13:04 PM
Quote from: Zanza on October 23, 2012, 12:07:24 PM
From what I can tell from the reports, the Eurozone crisis wasn't mentioned. You have to wonder whether e.g. the civil war in Syria or the economic depression in Europe is more relevant to American foreign policy interests.
Eurozone hasn't been as violent, so it hasn't held our attention as much :P
Just wait, it takes a while to get used to exterminating ourselves again.
Quote from: Zanza on October 23, 2012, 12:07:24 PM
From what I can tell from the reports, the Eurozone crisis wasn't mentioned. You have to wonder whether e.g. the civil war in Syria or the economic depression in Europe is more relevant to American foreign policy interests.
On the contrary; Romney said we're on our way to becoming Greece on three separate occasions. :P
But yeah, not addressing the Euro issues was a big omission, but this was for an American electorate, one they wanted to keep awake. European austerity crises are no fun, bombing the shit out of dune coons is.
The Euros are keeping it quiet for now. Spain didn't get the memo though.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 23, 2012, 12:18:24 PM
The Euros are keeping it quiet for now. Spain didn't get the memo though.
We are quite special. We always do our wars just for ourselves, and then refuse to join the big ones with everybody else.
That's just the lull before the storm. ;)
Quote from: Zanza on October 23, 2012, 12:20:30 PM
That's just the lull before the storm. ;)
Well, that and the fact that they have to keep a lid on anything that could throw off Obama winning the election, like an international economic meltdown.
Spain is Germany's outlet to the sea.
Quote from: PDH on October 23, 2012, 12:39:30 PM
Spain is Germany's outlet to the sea.
I thought Hamburg was Germany's outlet to the sea?
Quote from: Viking on October 23, 2012, 12:46:46 PM
Quote from: PDH on October 23, 2012, 12:39:30 PM
Spain is Germany's outlet to the sea.
I thought Hamburg was Germany's outlet to the sea?
Forget it - he's rolling.
But will he gather moss?
It seems that Obama campaign's decision to buy ads and send Jill Biden to Minnesota was justified. Latest poll shows Romney trailing in Minnesota by only 5 points.
http://race42012.com/2012/10/23/poll-watch-rasmussen-minnesota-2012-presidential-survey/
Nate Silver on 538 still has Obama at a 70% chance of winning the election. Nate also says that Ohio is pretty much the tipping state in this election at this stage of the game. Right now, most polls have Ohio going for Obama, so DGuller might be winning after all.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/ (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/)
Two more weeks. Fear The Mittens. :ph34r:
Quote from: Zanza on October 23, 2012, 12:07:24 PM
From what I can tell from the reports, the Eurozone crisis wasn't mentioned. You have to wonder whether e.g. the civil war in Syria or the economic depression in Europe is more relevant to American foreign policy interests.
Sadly, few people in the US are interested in it. Attempting to something about it would be political suicide.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 23, 2012, 02:23:01 PM
Two more weeks. Fear The Mittens. :ph34r:
Now that he is free from his debate prep Mitt will have more time to screw up.
This debate seems like it sucked. Glad I didn't watch. And what's all this about the cavalry?
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on October 23, 2012, 02:26:02 PM
This debate seems like it sucked. Glad I didn't watch. And what's all this about the cavalry?
Apparently the US has less of it than it used to - that and bayonets. Military budget increases are on their way.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 23, 2012, 02:23:01 PM
Two more weeks. Fear The Mittens. :ph34r:
I have to say that he's seriously tightened up his rhetoric. There have been zero gaffs that I'm aware of since his European tour. It just doesn't seem likely that he's going to say or do anything in the next two weeks to upend this election. It's now going to come down to who do you trust, and who's plan do you think will succeed?
Not that, ultimately, it's going to matter. With a Democrat-led Senate - which seems pretty assured again - Romney will find it very difficult to get many of his plans implemented when it comes to tax cuts and more military spending.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on October 23, 2012, 02:26:02 PM
And what's all this about the cavalry?
Going to be drone-deployed from now on.
Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2012, 02:31:38 PM
Not that, ultimately, it's going to matter. With a Democrat-led Senate - which seems pretty assured again - Romney will find it very difficult to get many of his plans implemented when it comes to tax cuts and more military spending.
And given the history - Obama will likely find it difficult to do anything too. :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 23, 2012, 02:33:06 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on October 23, 2012, 02:26:02 PM
And what's all this about the cavalry?
Going to be drone-deployed from now on.
I'd like to see them shoot a horse out of a drone.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 23, 2012, 02:44:34 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 23, 2012, 02:33:06 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on October 23, 2012, 02:26:02 PM
And what's all this about the cavalry?
Going to be drone-deployed from now on.
I'd like to see them shoot a horse out of a drone.
Wingspan's long enough on the big 'uns. Only need two hard points. Ditch the fuel pods.
Quote from: garbon on October 23, 2012, 02:34:53 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2012, 02:31:38 PM
Not that, ultimately, it's going to matter. With a Democrat-led Senate - which seems pretty assured again - Romney will find it very difficult to get many of his plans implemented when it comes to tax cuts and more military spending.
And given the history - Obama will likely find it difficult to do anything too. :lol:
Absolutely agree.
I often wonder why these presidential elections are so huge. At the end of the day, it's the House and Senate that do the brunt of the work, and are, therefore, the more important elections.
Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2012, 02:18:24 PM
Nate Silver on 538 still has Obama at a 70% chance of winning the election. Nate also says that Ohio is pretty much the tipping state in this election at this stage of the game. Right now, most polls have Ohio going for Obama, so DGuller might be winning after all.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/ (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/)
Nate Silver is an admitted Obamaite and I'm starting to trust him a bit less than I used to.
Oh, also Obama is down to 57.3 on Intrade NOW'S THE TIME TO BUY MORE :)
Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2012, 02:46:52 PM
Nate Silver is an admitted Obamaite and I'm starting to trust him a bit less than I used to.
Oh, also Obama is down to 57.3 on Intrade NOW'S THE TIME TO BUY MORE :)
I don't bet, but thanks for the heads up. :)
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2012, 02:28:45 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on October 23, 2012, 02:26:02 PM
This debate seems like it sucked. Glad I didn't watch. And what's all this about the cavalry?
Apparently the US has less of it than it used to - that and bayonets. Military budget increases are on their way.
I don't get the bayonet thing-- they are just as widely used as they ever were, possibly even more so now since they're more functional.
Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2012, 02:48:34 PM
I don't get the bayonet thing-- they are just as widely used as they ever were, possibly even more so now since they're more functional.
I thought only the Marines used bayonets now, as the Army stopped using them some 5-10 years ago. :unsure:
Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2012, 02:46:52 PM
Nate Silver is an admitted Obamaite and I'm starting to trust him a bit less than I used to.
Bah, the kid's a borderline autistic stat wonk, and he believes in numbers above everything--and everybody--else.
Besides, it all comes down to who gets their voters out more, and who gets suppressed.
I saw today that Ohio has to reissue new Board of Election info mailers, as the previous batch said the election was on Thursday, oops. Nice try, you assholes.
Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2012, 02:49:50 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2012, 02:48:34 PM
I don't get the bayonet thing-- they are just as widely used as they ever were, possibly even more so now since they're more functional.
I thought only the Marines used bayonets now, as the Army stopped using them some 5-10 years ago. :unsure:
Yeah, but the Marine Corps is bigger now than it was in 1916. ZOMG THE DARKIE LIED TO AMERICA ONCE AGAIN FOUL FOUL FOUL
Just means we can impale more fetuses now than in 1916.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 23, 2012, 02:51:57 PM
Bah, the kid's a borderline autistic stat wonk, and he believes in numbers above everything--and everybody--else.
Even autistic number-worshiping stat wonks are corruptible. But we'll find out in 2 weeks. Unless there's 2000-like silliness of course. I also flew down to Argentina in November 2000 not knowing who the hell my next president would be.
QuoteBesides, it all comes down to who gets their voters out more, and who gets suppressed.
I saw today that Ohio has to reissue new Board of Election info mailers, as the previous batch said the election was on Thursday, oops. Nice try, you assholes.
They stole a page out of my book :angry: I have a habit this time of the election year of telling all known Democrat acquaintances of mine to be sure to make their voices heard on Election Thursday. Purely in jest of course :ph34r:
Oh and I'm thinking of putting up my own billboard warning of the penalty for election fraud :menace:
Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2012, 02:49:50 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2012, 02:48:34 PM
I don't get the bayonet thing-- they are just as widely used as they ever were, possibly even more so now since they're more functional.
I thought only the Marines used bayonets now, as the Army stopped using them some 5-10 years ago. :unsure:
Pretty sure the Army is still using them.
Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2012, 03:01:38 PM
Unless there's 2000-like silliness of course. I also flew down to Argentina in November 2000 not knowing who the hell my next president would be.
So, not totally unlike Argentina at the time, then. :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2012, 03:04:07 PM
Pretty sure the Army is still using them.
ChaCha says not since 2010.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 23, 2012, 03:06:28 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2012, 03:01:38 PM
Unless there's 2000-like silliness of course. I also flew down to Argentina in November 2000 not knowing who the hell my next president would be.
So, not totally unlike Argentina at the time, then. :lol:
2000 was stable. Calm before the storm.
Christmas-New Years 2001-2002 was when all the fun stuff was going on. And it was a hoot. They had 3 different presidents while I was there including Joe Pesci:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F9%2F91%2FEduardo_duhalde_presidente.jpg%2F90px-Eduardo_duhalde_presidente.jpg&hash=269aef48bf6f7d625aa9dbebb147b343d62ec2bf)
Non-stop demonstrations & riots downtown. But back at the in-laws house in the burbs it was just another holiday season :D
Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2012, 03:08:48 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2012, 03:04:07 PM
Pretty sure the Army is still using them.
ChaCha says not since 2010.
Did they give a source? Because ChaCha isn't necessarily authoritative. I used to be a guide ;)
I don't know about chacha, but there's still a page on army.mil talking about the M9 bayonet using present tense. Hard to link using my phone. Also, we still have a lot of cavalry units, if that was something else one of them really said. They just tend to use armored stuff instead of horses now.
So am I right in thinking that the main reason that there are congress dems and repubs pushing for more tank production is because they have constituents that work in tank production?
Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2012, 02:46:52 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2012, 02:18:24 PM
Nate Silver on 538 still has Obama at a 70% chance of winning the election. Nate also says that Ohio is pretty much the tipping state in this election at this stage of the game. Right now, most polls have Ohio going for Obama, so DGuller might be winning after all.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/ (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/)
Nate Silver is an admitted Obamaite and I'm starting to trust him a bit less than I used to.
Oh, also Obama is down to 57.3 on Intrade NOW'S THE TIME TO BUY MORE :)
That is the way isn't it? Something I you don't want to hear "OMG LIBERUL BIAS!!!!!111oneelven".
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on October 23, 2012, 03:17:40 PM
I don't know about chacha, but there's still a page on army.mil talking about the M9 bayonet using present tense. Hard to link using my phone. Also, we still have a lot of cavalry units, if that was something else one of them really said. They just tend to use armored stuff instead of horses now.
After a quick search it looks like the only thing that happened in 2010 was that they replaced bayonet drills with more PT in basic training. I'm sure it's still done in infantry AIT and other training.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 23, 2012, 03:23:00 PM
That is the way isn't it? Something I you don't want to hear "OMG LIBERUL BIAS!!!!!111oneelven".
No.
Quote from: garbon on October 23, 2012, 03:20:37 PM
So am I right in thinking that the main reason that there are congress dems and repubs pushing for more tank production is because they have constituents that work in tank production?
The more tanks the better. I've never heard of an army with too many tanks.
On top of that, the tanks in front of our VFW buildings are starting to fall apart and need to be replaced.
Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2012, 03:27:27 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 23, 2012, 03:20:37 PM
So am I right in thinking that the main reason that there are congress dems and repubs pushing for more tank production is because they have constituents that work in tank production?
The more tanks the better. I've never heard of an army with too many tanks.
On top of that, the tanks in front of our VFW buildings are starting to fall apart and need to be replaced.
British army, 1944.
Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2012, 03:14:13 PM
Did they give a source? Because ChaCha isn't necessarily authoritative. I used to be a guide ;)
The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/22/do-troops-still-use-bayonets/)
Edit: Just read through the rest of this thread. It seems to me that if they've stopped training in the use of bayonets, they are not likely to actually, you know, use them.
In addition, Time (http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/10/23/so-does-the-military-still-use-bayonets/) points out that even the Marines, who do still train, rarely use them.
Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2012, 03:51:53 PM
It seems to me that if they've stopped training in the use of bayonets, they are not likely to actually, you know, use them.
Bet the guys in the war zones at Forward Base Bullshit say differently.
Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2012, 03:51:53 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2012, 03:14:13 PM
Did they give a source? Because ChaCha isn't necessarily authoritative. I used to be a guide ;)
The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/22/do-troops-still-use-bayonets/)
Edit: Just read through the rest of this thread. It seems to me that if they've stopped training in the use of bayonets, they are not likely to actually, you know, use them.
In addition, Time (http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/10/23/so-does-the-military-still-use-bayonets/) points out that even the Marines, who do still train, rarely use them.
You must have missed my subsequent post, which corroborates what the Post article actually said:
"the Army discontinued bayonet training at its basic training facilities in 2010."
It does not say the Army is no longer doing bayonet training, just that it's been discontinued in basic training.
Bayonets have lots of problems.
They are reliable, don't break very often or require much maintenance, don't require ammunition, don't use fuel, and are relatively easy to ship and stock.
Pretty much the worst weapon imaginable from the standpoint of a contractor.
Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2012, 02:46:37 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 23, 2012, 02:34:53 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2012, 02:31:38 PM
Not that, ultimately, it's going to matter. With a Democrat-led Senate - which seems pretty assured again - Romney will find it very difficult to get many of his plans implemented when it comes to tax cuts and more military spending.
And given the history - Obama will likely find it difficult to do anything too. :lol:
Absolutely agree.
I often wonder why these presidential elections are so huge. At the end of the day, it's the House and Senate that do the brunt of the work, and are, therefore, the more important elections.
What are the polls saying regarding who's going to win Congress? Will it still be Republican controlled?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 23, 2012, 04:14:11 PM
Bayonets have lots of problems.
They are reliable, don't break very often or require much maintenance, don't require ammunition, don't use fuel, and are relatively easy to ship and stock.
Pretty much the worst weapon imaginable from the standpoint of a contractor.
They also require getting into much close proximity than a predator drone, requiring a monstrous logistical train which the contractor does love.
I think I have said it before that the ring bayonette is imho the most important military technology in history since it permits a return to drill that was lost in the barbarization of the roman army. No longer was a military cast needed to have and maintain an army making the outcome of war dependent not on the skill and martial attitude of a nation's military cast, but rather the ability of the institution of the army to train, equip and deploy essentially unskilled farm workers on the battlefield.
Quote from: Viking on October 23, 2012, 04:30:49 PM
I think I have said it before that the ring bayonette is imho the most important military technology in history since it permits a return to drill that was lost in the barbarization of the roman army. No longer was a military cast needed to have and maintain an army making the outcome of war dependent not on the skill and martial attitude of a nation's military cast, but rather the ability of the institution of the army to train, equip and deploy essentially unskilled farm workers on the battlefield.
And the pike didn't allow for that?
Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2012, 04:43:01 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 23, 2012, 04:30:49 PM
I think I have said it before that the ring bayonette is imho the most important military technology in history since it permits a return to drill that was lost in the barbarization of the roman army. No longer was a military cast needed to have and maintain an army making the outcome of war dependent not on the skill and martial attitude of a nation's military cast, but rather the ability of the institution of the army to train, equip and deploy essentially unskilled farm workers on the battlefield.
And the pike didn't allow for that?
Apparently not. You don't have any feudal lords of the renaissance drafting their peasants to make them pikemen. In the manner that Fredrick Wilhelm and Napoleon do a few generations later. There is a certain élan you need to go steel to steel that you don't need to reload a reliable musket. Historical reports of bayonette use show that they are almost universally used to ward of cavalry and the few cases of bayonette charges consist of well motivated (or desperate) men effectively demonstrating to the opposition that they were willing to go steel to steel and thus causing the defenders to decide to run. In the American Revolution again and again the professional redcoats win battles when heavily outnumbered by mounting bayonette charges against milita.
I don't think the Romans were big on conscripting peasants either.
On the bayonet issue (LOL really???)
I was trained in bayonet use in Basic back in 2004. Then pretty much never saw one or had one issued to me the entire time I was assigned to an infantry battalion.
Disclaimer on pointy objects: I was commo so maybe the infantry peons had a secret stash under their pillows but I never did see one, even deployed. Instead most of us brought personal knives. Really sharp, long as fuck knives. I kept mine on me at all times. Because holy shit if some bad shit happens and I'm out of ammo I'm stabbing as many fuckers as I can. :lol:
Quote from: Zanza on October 23, 2012, 12:07:24 PM
From what I can tell from the reports, the Eurozone crisis wasn't mentioned. You have to wonder whether e.g. the civil war in Syria or the economic depression in Europe is more relevant to American foreign policy interests.
We can eventually decide to bomb the Syrians, we can't do the same with Spain.
Modern bayonets lack style. They look like a steak knife taped to the rifle. It doesn't quite have the same fear factor as the triangular bayonet, which looks like it can create a human kebab if the enemy lines up the right way.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 23, 2012, 06:08:43 PM
Quote from: Zanza on October 23, 2012, 12:07:24 PM
From what I can tell from the reports, the Eurozone crisis wasn't mentioned. You have to wonder whether e.g. the civil war in Syria or the economic depression in Europe is more relevant to American foreign policy interests.
We can eventually decide to bomb the Syrians, we can't do the same with Spain.
Yeah, you do get the impression that people are mostly interested in the kind of foreign policy that involves using the armed forces to get your way either implicitly or explicitly.
Maybe we can get a drone that fires bayonets. That way everyone is happy.
And horses.
Quote from: Viking on October 23, 2012, 04:55:15 PM
There is a certain élan you need to go steel to steel that you don't need to reload a reliable musket. Historical reports of bayonette use show that they are almost universally used to ward of cavalry and the few cases of bayonette charges consist of well motivated (or desperate) men effectively demonstrating to the opposition that they were willing to go steel to steel and thus causing the defenders to decide to run. In the American Revolution again and again the professional redcoats win battles when heavily outnumbered by mounting bayonette charges against milita.
:wub: élan is such an exalting thing! Can you not imagine the tragic glory inherent in brave men charging fruitlessly, being cut down by ruinous fire? Does it not move you to envision the gaping, pasty-faced men of the gunline felling their betters?
There is another time and another place, where little miss General Lee sits atop her dazzling white pony, and directs the knights against the yankee peasants who stand trembling, clutching their spears with faltering resolve and abject terror. No arbalest was yet created with the impudence to puncture the armor of such pure maidens! The day is swept for secession, and the victorious assemblage celebrates with tea and cake.
Quote from: Zanza on October 23, 2012, 12:07:24 PM
From what I can tell from the reports, the Eurozone crisis wasn't mentioned. You have to wonder whether e.g. the civil war in Syria or the economic depression in Europe is more relevant to American foreign policy interests.
The Eurozone wasn't mentioned. With the exception of Mali I don't think Africa got a look in. Most of Latin America and Asia were also ignored (including, say, Brazil and India).
Foreign policy debates, sadly, tend to boil down to countries the US has taken military action against or might take military action against. Aside from that it's really just Russia, China and Israel.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 23, 2012, 06:19:13 PM
And horses.
And battleships. Dont forget the fucking battleships.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 23, 2012, 06:19:13 PM
And horses.
Tape bayonets to the feet of horses and drop them onto turbans from a drone .
Quote from: Lettow77 on October 23, 2012, 06:37:50 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 23, 2012, 04:55:15 PM
There is a certain élan you need to go steel to steel that you don't need to reload a reliable musket. Historical reports of bayonette use show that they are almost universally used to ward of cavalry and the few cases of bayonette charges consist of well motivated (or desperate) men effectively demonstrating to the opposition that they were willing to go steel to steel and thus causing the defenders to decide to run. In the American Revolution again and again the professional redcoats win battles when heavily outnumbered by mounting bayonette charges against milita.
:wub: élan is such an exalting thing! Can you not imagine the tragic glory inherent in brave men charging fruitlessly, being cut down by ruinous fire? Does it not move you to envision the gaping, pasty-faced men of the gunline felling their betters?
There is another time and another place, where little miss General Lee sits atop her dazzling white pony, and directs the knights against the yankee peasants who stand trembling, clutching their spears with faltering resolve and abject terror. No arbalest was yet created with the impudence to puncture the armor of such pure maidens! The day is swept for secession, and the victorious assemblage celebrates with tea and cake.
Squee!
Somewhere out there, there must be an anti-Lettow...espousing the glorious virtues of Union, while chugging on coffee and enjoying the company of our canine friends.
Anyone a fan of the union is really just a fan of America.
I do declare that the glorious union is like the Chinese dragon. Strong and fearless! I had a pot of coffee while I watched the German shepards frolic! Bark!
Something to keep in mind, Lettow is the youngest regular on the forum.
Humanity is doomed.
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 23, 2012, 07:08:54 PM
Somewhere out there, there must be an anti-Lettow...espousing the glorious virtues of Union, while chugging on coffee and enjoying the company of our canine friends.
I just don't post about it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 23, 2012, 07:12:27 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 23, 2012, 07:08:54 PM
Somewhere out there, there must be an anti-Lettow...espousing the glorious virtues of Union, while chugging on coffee and enjoying the company of our canine friends.
I just don't post about it.
Catwoman, please.
Quote from: garbon on October 23, 2012, 07:14:35 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 23, 2012, 07:12:27 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 23, 2012, 07:08:54 PM
Somewhere out there, there must be an anti-Lettow...espousing the glorious virtues of Union, while chugging on coffee and enjoying the company of our canine friends.
I just don't post about it.
Catwoman, please.
[spoiler]I take my sister's dog to the dog park 3 days a week to meet up with my Dad and his dog, and let them run around with all the other idiot dogs. It's a shameful secret. Don't tell you-know-who. She'd kill me.[/spoiler]
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 23, 2012, 07:16:58 PM
I take my sister's dog to the dog park 3 days a week to meet up with my Dad and his dog, and let them run around with all the other idiot dogs. It's a shameful secret. Don't tell you-know-who. She'd kill me.
:lol:
You are such your sister's bitch. It's so adorable. :wub:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 23, 2012, 07:11:46 PM
Something to keep in mind, Lettow is the youngest regular on the forum.
Humanity is doomed.
Yeah, but it's not like he's 15 anymore. He's got to be in 20's.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 23, 2012, 07:12:27 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 23, 2012, 07:08:54 PM
Somewhere out there, there must be an anti-Lettow...espousing the glorious virtues of Union, while chugging on coffee and enjoying the company of our canine friends.
I just don't post about it.
I'd really hate to find out that Lettow is merely the larval stage of a CdM.
Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2012, 07:36:08 PM
You are such your sister's bitch. It's so adorable. :wub:
:huh: I do it for the dog, not my sister.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 23, 2012, 07:42:22 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 23, 2012, 07:11:46 PM
Something to keep in mind, Lettow is the youngest regular on the forum.
Humanity is doomed.
Yeah, but it's not like he's 15 anymore. He's got to be in 20's.
How does that weaken my conclusion?
It doesn't. What does weaken your conclusion though, is that Lettow is unlikely to father any children or be put in a position where he can cause any danger to humanity.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 23, 2012, 07:49:08 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2012, 07:36:08 PM
You are such your sister's bitch. It's so adorable. :wub:
:huh: I do it for the dog, not my sister.
Uh huh. That, too, I'm sure. ;)
No, but he's not really so far removed from his peers as we'd like to think.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 23, 2012, 07:53:40 PM
Lettow is unlikely to father any children or be put in a position where he can cause any danger to humanity.
Ha! For you, who have so long carried the mark of my pledge to form the auspicious conjunction in your signature, to say such a thing! I anticipate no difficulty in finding a Japanese maiden, and from there it is only a matter of disposition and preference dictating whether and when I have children or not.
Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2012, 07:58:59 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 23, 2012, 07:49:08 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2012, 07:36:08 PM
You are such your sister's bitch. It's so adorable. :wub:
:huh: I do it for the dog, not my sister.
Uh huh. That, too, I'm sure. ;)
:D
I had forgotten abou tthis fun one.
Quote from: Lettow77 on October 23, 2012, 08:02:52 PM
Ha! For you, who have so long carried the mark of my pledge to form the auspicious conjunction in your signature, to say such a thing! I anticipate no difficulty in finding a Japanese maiden, and from there it is only a matter of disposition and preference dictating whether and when I have children or not.
Disposition and preference dictate that you never consummate your union.
Quote from: garbon on October 23, 2012, 08:04:11 PM
:D
I had forgotten abou tthis fun one.
You people are plucking my nerves. <_<
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 23, 2012, 08:08:19 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 23, 2012, 08:04:11 PM
:D
I had forgotten abou tthis fun one.
You people are plucking my nerves. <_<
They are annoying little plebs, aren't they?
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 23, 2012, 07:11:25 PM
I do declare that the glorious union is like the Chinese dragon. Strong and fearless! I had a pot of coffee while I watched the German shepards frolic! Bark!
:lol:
Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2012, 07:36:08 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 23, 2012, 07:16:58 PM
I take my sister's dog to the dog park 3 days a week to meet up with my Dad and his dog, and let them run around with all the other idiot dogs. It's a shameful secret. Don't tell you-know-who. She'd kill me.
:lol:
You are such your sister's bitch. It's so adorable. :wub:
Adorable = not sexy. Don't ever tell a guy that. :P
Also, taking the dogs to the park is a great way to meet women, so Seedy might be more sly than we think.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 23, 2012, 10:05:52 PM
Also, taking the dogs to the park is a great way to meet women, so Seedy might be more sly than we think.
She has a little Weimaraner.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 23, 2012, 10:10:11 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 23, 2012, 10:05:52 PM
Adorable = not sexy.
Not true, at least regarding women.
Yeah, we'll see how adorable it is to sleepily roll over and suddenly find yourself penetrated in a violent anal attack to the point of rupture. HERS TOO NYUK NYUK NYUK
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 23, 2012, 10:14:46 PM
Yeah, we'll see how adorable it is to sleepily roll over and suddenly find yourself penetrated in a violent anal attack to the point of rupture. HERS TOO NYUK NYUK NYUK
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.afterelton.com%2Fsites%2Fwww.afterelton.com%2Ffiles%2Fhugs_0.jpg&hash=9d33d15c59abc632fc461d92b3e301f853e890f4)
:lol:
:wub:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 23, 2012, 07:16:58 PM[spoiler]I take my sister's dog to the dog park 3 days a week to meet up with my Dad and his dog, and let them run around with all the other idiot dogs. It's a shameful secret. Don't tell you-know-who. She'd kill me.[/spoiler]
That's one of the great thing about dogs - you'll always be smarter and cooler than your dog :)