Election 2012

[JB Books]

This is a simple fix. The ones on the left need to move back to the center.

AND the ones on the right need to move back to the center and keep themselves out of people's personal lives.

 

[tran]

AND the ones on the right need to move back to the center and keep themselves out of people's personal lives.

Did you really just post that after trying to take over health care? Get real!

 

[JB Books]

Did you really just post that after trying to take over health care? Get real!

I'm not in favor of the health care reform in its current state.

And insuring people is a lot different than imposing one's views on women and telling American citizens who they can, and cannot marry.

 

[tran]

Who did I insult, the people on the left? Where is this coming from? You said"AND the ones on the right need to move back to the center and keep themselves out of people's personal lives." And I said "Did you really just post that after trying to take over health care? Get real!" So where is the insult?

 

[Hobbes]

Does this bother anyone else or is it just me?

“By a margin of more than 2 to 1, Americans say the president’s handling of terrorism is a major reason to support rather than oppose his bid for reelection.”

Republicans lost their popularity on security issues for one reason: George W. Bush’s foreign policy was a disaster. And yet, the party’s nominee, Mitt Romney, has assembled a foreign-policy team composed almost exclusively of individuals with the same war-always mentality and ideology that served Bush — and the United States — so poorly. In some cases, the exact same men responsible for Bush’s catastrophic national security policies are advising Romney. The former Massachusetts governor could have included some of the pragmatists and realists from the George H.W. Bush administration. Instead, a Romney presidency seems like it would be Bush 43 all over again.

Richard Grenell, who served as United Nations spokesman under Bush, may be gone from the Romney campaign after an uproar over his sexuality, but there are plenty more former Bushies. First off, there are Romney’s “special advisors.” There’s Michael Chertoff, W.’s Homeland Security director. Chertoff oversaw DHS’s failures during Hurricane Katrina, and amassed unprecedented powers of secrecy. Next up is Eliot Cohen, counselor to the State Department for Bush’s last two years and on the Defense Policy Advisory Board for the president’s entire term. Cohen was an adamant supporter of the Iraq War and advised Bush directly on the issue. Or take Cofer Black, the man who infamously said to Bush in September 2011 about al-Qaida that “When we’re through with them they will have flies walking across their eyeballs.” Black went on to become chairman of Blackwater, where he resigned after the company illegally bribed Iraqi officials.

Then there are the 13 “working groups” composed of equally worrisome individuals. The Middle East and North Africa Working Group is co-chaired by Bush’s Assistant Secretary of Defense Mary Beth Long, and Meghan O’Sullivan, Bush’s special assistant and deputy national security advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan. The remaining co-chair is Walid Phares, who never worked for Bush but advised Lebanese warlords in the 1980s. Romney has reportedly promised Phares a top job in his administration, despite his virulently anti-Islamic views.

All told, Romney lists 37 holdovers from the George W. Bush administration — the very same administration he and all other Republican candidates barely referenced during their many debates because it was so discredited and toxic, even to the Republican base.

http://www.salon.com/2012/05/03/the_bushies_are_back[/B]/

I could probably tolerate Romney in the WH for at least 4 years if he could restrain the neocon chickenhawks that never met a mideast war they didn't like.
What I'm afraid of though with Romney is we get into 2 new mideast wars just as soon as we can figure out how to justify it.
And I don't think we can afford to keep borrowing money to fight more neocon wars(over and above the human cost).

 

[flatwins]

I'm not in favor of the health care reform in its current state.

And insuring people is a lot different than imposing one's views on women and telling American citizens who they can, and cannot marry.

I agree. I wish social issues weren't that big of an issue. That's why a guy like Santorum would have never gone all the way; he wanted to be too up in everyone's bidness. As a voting American, I guess I'm more in line with the Libertarian stance but we don't get the choice here in OK and have to choose with one side or another. I just disagree with with one side more than the other.

 

[JB Books]

I more of a Libertarian too. However, I am for the working man. I'm even for the bozos here who have imbibed the kool-aid and firmly believe every lie fed to them by Big Business and Big Insurance and who even more believe I am the Devil. I'm for them and their rights too.

 

[LightningCrash]

This is a simple fix. The ones on the left need to move back to the center.

That would run roughshod over our Republican party, tran.

 

[JB Books]

Who did I insult, the people on the left? Where is this coming from? You said"AND the ones on the right need to move back to the center and keep themselves out of people's personal lives." And I said "Did you really just post that after trying to take over health care? Get real!" So where is the insult?

I'm not insulted.

 

[ignerntbend]

I just don't agree with you. By the way, do you have one of those large rolls of waffle tin foil?

Crack open Mr.Dictionary and read that OLD Reuters article and pay particular attention to the definition of that ambiguous word "EXPORT". I know you aren't a conspiracy theorist but there's a deeply embedded meaning in that article that we all need to consider. Word to the wise.
I'll say no more.