Debate #3, the Final Chapter

Obama Dings Romney On Russia Remark: The 1980s Are Calling... They Want Their Foreign Policy Back

rofllol rofllol

See LJ....you just will never get it...LOL

You read a lot like Raees does...ya know. Must be a liberal thing.

Nite nite. Lot's to do in the next two weeks. You guys are welcome to hang and preach to your little choir.....I am gonna go get to work in this swing state.
Watch those polls keep sliding. You guys really just can't see the big picture happening around you.

Romney's Obamacare Debate Fail: Mitt Falsely Claims Repealing Obamacare Would Reduce Deficit

Mitt Romney claimed during Monday's debate that repealing health care reform would reduce the federal budget deficit. But that's not exactly true.

"Come on our website, you’ll look at how we get to a balanced budget within eight to 10 years. We do it by getting -- by reducing spending in a whole series of programs. By the way, number one -- get rid of is Obamacare," Romney said.

In fact, repealing Obamacare would increase the deficit by $109 billion over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, since Obamacare saves money for the government.

rofllol rofllol

Obama On Size Of Navy: 'We Also Have Fewer Horses And Bayonets' (VIDEO)

President 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 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. "We have these things called aircraft carriers and planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines."

"It's not a game of battleship where we're counting ships, it's 'What are our capabilities?'" he said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/2 ... f=politics

rofllol rofllol

The debt that the U.S. government owes to foreign interests now equals approximately $47,495 for each household in the United States, according to the latest data released by the U.S. Treasury and the Census Bureau.

Becky wrote: See LJ....you just will never get it...LOL

You read a lot like Raees does...ya know. Must be a liberal thing.

Nite nite. Lot's to do in the next two weeks. You guys are welcome to hang and preach to your little choir.....I am gonna go get to work in this swing state.
Watch those polls keep sliding. You guys really just can't see the big picture happening around you.

I've already BEEN "at work" in this state, registering several hundred voters just by myself... Following up with "get your mail-in ballot in the mail NOW" calls, and busting my chops to get out the (DEM) vote... In spite of the racist Neanderthals and knuckle-draggers who have nothing better to do than paint swastikas on our campaign offices....

Becky wrote: The debt that the U.S. government owes to foreign interests now equals approximately $47,495 for each household in the United States, according to the latest data released by the U.S. Treasury and the Census Bureau.

Awk! The Debt! The Debt!

Yes...And RMoney wants to increase it by $5 Trillion in tax-cuts, and $2 Trillion in defense spending that the DoD hasn't asked for... How will he pay for this $7 Trillion?

1: "If we tell you, we'll lose...."
2: "We'll tell you after the election."
3: So, what deductions will you eliminate? "We'll tell you after the election."
4: What $7 Trillion?

Hmmmm... So, that will add roughly $23,333/per person to the debt that's already there... So, how do you calculate "per household"? 2.0 persons? 2.5? 2.1? 2.3?

So, let's just take it as "2.0" persons for the sake of the math... WOW... That comes to about $52,161/household... Congratulations, Mittens... You can have your $5 Trillion in tax-cuts for the wealthy, and screw the middle class; screw the seniors; screw the poor; screw the folks on Medicaid; screw the schools... Give the military guys $2 Trillion to play with, (even though they haven't asked for it)... And all you have to do is double the debt-per-household to do it...

You can't make this sh*t up... rofllol

archer wrote: Becky may not agree with Obama's foreign policy, but Romney does. He agreed with most every policy Obama has.

Obama's foreign policy is Bush's. Funny how Barack retreated from being a dove after reading intelligence reports.

I agree there really isn't much difference. Obama actually took the savings in Iraq and doubled down in Afghanistan. I thought his statement about we spend the most on defense, and defense spending went UP in every year of his term was interesting too. LOL

Becky wrote: I personally felt that Obama did speak with more authority on foreign affairs though I still do not agree with his foreign policy.
The economy is where Romney speaks with the most confidence and it shows.....and it is what most Americans really care about right now.

Could be but it shows a considerable lack of foresight.

There’s no there there . Even on topics where he’s supposedly forcefully disagreed with the Obama Administration, the Romney who showed up tonight disagreed with presentation, and had nothing to say about substance. On Syria: we don’t need to use our military, we just need leadership, to get the opposition organized. On the missile defense for Poland: he objected to the “way” we dealt with it, not necessarily the result. On Israel, he objected to the “tension” in the relationship, but not to any particular policy we’re following. On Iraq, he didn’t want to leave more troops in place; he wanted to leave on our terms. And on and on and on. His objections were entirely to symbolism – Obama should have visited Israel earlier; he shouldn’t have been “silent” when the Green Movement happened; we should indict Ahmadinejad for hate speech; and so forth.

There’s a decent list of possible objections to President Obama’s foreign policy, but Mitt Romney didn’t make any of them
<snip>
President Obama, like the first President Bush, has pursued a foreign policy that an anti-interventionist should hate. But at least he has a foreign policy, and, on the strength of both his performance in office and his conduct of the debate, he clearly cares about it. Foreign policy is one of the few areas where the President has the overwhelming preponderance of power, largely unchecked by Congress or the courts. It’s probably a good idea to have a President who has given a little thought to how that power might best be used effectively, even if he tends to use it too aggressively.

Romney passed an important test tonight . He probably persuaded low-information voters that he knows what he’s talking about when it comes to foreign affairs.