Originally Posted by playwrite

Iran/Isreali -



Then there's Libya/Egypt and Blustering/Bumbling from the peanut gallery -



Romney - if you liked W's blustering and bumbling on the world stage, you're gonna love Mittens!

So ... Is Romney totally OK with the Florida pastor's "film"? Unbelievable.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

And anyone who thinks Obama is Far Left -- or, for that matter, who thinks that I am --- has never met a true raging Far Leftie. I have.

But then, I don't blame them for this lack. Far Lefties are actually very few and far between, and tend to have about the same amount of clout as Single-Taxers and End-Of-The-Worlders.

These terms are all relative. Someone who is on the far left, but sees one person farther left that they are could claim that proves they're a moderate. Over time, through a number of measurements, it has been established that the posters on this message board are very, very far to the left. Many seem oblivious to that fact. There are avowed socialists and anarchists on this board. That is the far left. Those are fringe viewpoints. Anyone thinks Obama is a moderate, is by definition on the far left. As I pointed out earlier, most Americans view Obama as someone who is farther left than they are. He's a politician, concerned about his own election, and as such he has a degree of pragmatism. He can't necessarily do all he would like to do, because he knows he can't get away with it. He has said and done things that make it clear that his sympathies lie with the far left, even though he won't always do what they want.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

And anyone who thinks Obama is Far Left -- or, for that matter, who thinks that I am --- has never met a true raging Far Leftie. I have.

But then, I don't blame them for this lack. Far Lefties are actually very few and far between, and tend to have about the same amount of clout as Single-Taxers and End-Of-The-Worlders.

But how does one find and define the center? I figure we've got a fairly tight presidential race and a fairly balanced congress. I find it hard to say that either party is further off center than the other. This does not imply that members of either side don't view most of the other as extreme.

I do agree that President Obama is governing further to the right than Candidate Obama. I think Congress making it impossible to pass anything further to the left has something to do with it.

Originally Posted by Aramea

So ... Is Romney totally OK with the Florida pastor's "film"? Unbelievable.

I could never begin to believe that.

But why the hell would they want to politize this so quickly???

Damn it, there are some things more important than a campaign's news cycle. They need to back off even if they've become desperate. F'in neophytes!

Originally Posted by playwrite

I could never begin to believe that.

But why the hell would they want to politize this so quickly???

Damn it, there are some things more important than a campaign's news cycle. They need to back off even if they've become desperate. F'in neophytes!

Normally, I would agree. I find it unfortunate that he is more willing to condemn the President than he is the pastor. Romney's "foreign policy" is dangerous.

ETA: Did you listen to Romney's speech?

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

These terms are all relative. Someone who is on the far left, but sees one person farther left that they are could claim that proves they're a moderate. Over time, through a number of measurements, it has been established that the posters on this message board are very, very far to the left. Many seem oblivious to that fact. There are avowed socialists and anarchists on this board. That is the far left. Those are fringe viewpoints. Anyone thinks Obama is a moderate, is by definition on the far left. As I pointed out earlier, most Americans view Obama as someone who is farther left than they are. He's a politician, concerned about his own election, and as such he has a degree of pragmatism. He can't necessarily do all he would like to do, because he knows he can't get away with it. He has said and done things that make it clear that his sympathies lie with the far left, even though he won't always do what they want.

I can agree with most of the above, except "Anyone thinks Obama is a moderate, is by definition on the far left." You don't have the right to make definitions, any more that Brian. If a more or less balanced congress, a tight presidential race, and a federal government paralyzed to the point that neither party can significantly change policy says we are near the center over all, I find it hard to say that one major faction is more extreme than the other.

Of course, give the degree of partisanship, the unwillingness on the part of many to work together or compromise, I'd be willing to accept calling both sides pretty extreme. I'd also quite expect each side to see the other as quite extreme. Given that both sides are made up of humans, one's own side is rational, reality based and sensible while the other side is extreme, deluded and pushing unquestioned doctrine long since disproven.

I'd agree that our anarchists and socialists are fringe. I think we have some from the opposite fringe as well.

Originally Posted by Aramea

Normally, I would agree. I find it unfortunate that he is more willing to condemn the President than he is the pastor. Romney's "foreign policy" is dangerous.

This reminds me of the recent "Jerusalem shall be the capitol of Israel" skirmish. Is peace in the Middle East more important, or picking up votes? Does one campaign according to what the polls say will get one votes, or demonstrate how one would govern should one win the election?

Or in Romney's case, is there a difference?

Originally Posted by B Butler

This reminds me of the recent "Jerusalem shall be the capitol of Israel" skirmish. Is peace in the Middle East more important, or picking up votes? Does one campaign according to what the polls say will get one votes, or demonstrate how one would govern should one win the election?

Or in Romney's case, is there a difference?

However Jerusalem IS Israel's captial. It might not be recognized as such since we don't have our embassy there, but the Israelies treat it as such and have all their bodies of government settled there.

~Chas'88

This may just be it.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81103.html

Hill GOP leaves Romney out on limb on Libya

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...aying-politics

To Mitt Romney, regarding Libya tragedy: Be quiet and stop playing politics

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.1157485

Romney’s disgraceful words after Libya attack kills U.S. ambassador
Republican wrong to politicize tragedy

- that's the fricken Daily News!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...58f9_blog.html

Romney is no statesman on Libya and Egypt

Whoa, never thought it would be foreign policy that would do him in.

This reminds me of the 2008 financial meltdown where McCain insisted on an emergency meeting with the Bush et al and dragged Obama into it. McCain all hot-and-bothered, then wooden and hardly saying anything. Obama being cool throughout and offering some advice and sympathy to Bush on the tough choices he had. Today, Obama comes out to the Rose Garden with Hillary and is pitch perfect in responding to the tragedy. Romney, like McCain back then, first all squirrelly and then hiding behind a wooden smirk. This is just too weird.

Originally Posted by B Butler

You don't have the right to make definitions, any more that Brian.

Actually, he has every right to do that, just as I do.

Here's the thing. We have a two-party system deriving from a winner-take-all election mechanic. This system tends to a centrist approach; that is, the candidates don't tend to depart too far from the public consensus for the district where they're running for office. If they're running for president, they tend not to stray too far from the national center. That's the baseline.

Now, the problem is that we also have powerful financial interest that impose an effective veto on what issues can be aired and what positions can be taken by candidates who hope to win office. It's not a perfect veto at the district or even the state level, or Bernie Sanders would not be a Senator, but it's good enough to preserve majorities in Congress and a president who is friendly to corporate interests.

Since these financial interests have a focus on economic issues and either don't care or don't have a unified position on social issues, what we end up with in Congress compared to the national spread of opinion (urk -- can't post a picture here for some weird reason). Well -- basically you get party positions that reflect a national consensus ON SOCIAL ISSUES pretty well, with the Democrats a little to the left and the Republicans a little to the right on issues such as gay marriage and abortion rights, with a certain amount of lag and a certain amount of distortion due to the passion on some issues of constituent groups.

On economic issues, however, the corporate veto imposes a cut-off line that forces both parties to be at or to the right of that line, regardless of what the public wants. On economic issues such as tax rates for the rich and public services and outsourcing of jobs, both parties are significantly to the right of public opinion.

Barack Obama campaigned significantly to the left of the Democratic Party center in 2008 on economic issues (but right at the party center on social issues). He violated the corporate veto and won the election big by doing so. It's clear enough now, though, that part of his strategy consisted of private assurances given to the usual suspects that he didn't really mean it, and that although he would be governing to the left of what McCain would end up doing most likely, they shouldn't take his rhetoric seriously. Hence the disconnect between candidate Obama and President Obama.

Nonetheless, what happened in 2008 gives us some insight into where the national center lies on economic issues. It is NOT between the current centers of gravity of the two parties. It is to the left of both of them.

I know that's weird thing to say, but something just doesn't seem right.

I remember after the GOP convention, a couple of pundits mentioned that it was weird that Romney immediately went on vacation. They compared it to the previous 4 or 5 elections where the candidates immediately hit the trail to keep the momentum going. You would think with the Dem convention right after, it would be particularly a juicy tactic of diminishing the spotlight on the Dems.

Then there was some video of Romney getting into his big motor yacht and motoring away from the dock. He was at the helm and if there was crew, campaign workers, or even Secret Service on the boat, they were not seen. Romney on the dock and as he motored off was REAL different than at any time I've seen him in film during this past year. Head down, not making contact, let alone shaking hands with anyone. You got the impression of a CEO wanting to brush by the minions and get away ASAP.

Since the GOP convention and that vacation, its been one misstep after another leading up to the Libya event where it seems everyone is distancing themselves from him. Romney is not a dummy but he seems unfocused, almost robotic, even more so than he's know for.

I'm not sure his heart is in this anymore, and consciously or subconsciously he is making mistakes.

Something happened at his convention. My bet it was siting down with Paul Ryan and finally realizng that he was F'd or if he did squeak out a victory, his Presidency and possible the country would be F'd by the idiocy that Ryan represents. If I was him, I would have lost heart as well. I'd be drinking a lot - even if I was a member of the Latter-day Saints.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I know that's weird thing to say, but something just doesn't seem right.

I remember after the GOP convention, a couple of pundits mentioned that it was weird that Romney immediately went on vacation. They compared it to the previous 4 or 5 elections where the candidates immediately hit the trail to keep the momentum going. You would think with the Dem convention right after, it would be particularly a juicy tactic of diminishing the spotlight on the Dems.

Then there was some video of Romney getting into his big motor yacht and motoring away from the dock. He was at the helm and if there was crew, campaign workers, or even Secret Service on the boat, they were not seen. Romney on the dock and as he motored off was REAL different than at any time I've seen him in film during this past year. Head down, not making contact, let alone shaking hands with anyone. You got the impression of a CEO wanting to brush by the minions and get away ASAP.

Since the GOP convention and that vacation, its been one misstep after another leading up to the Libya event where it seems everyone is distancing themselves from him. Romney is not a dummy but he seems unfocused, almost robotic, even more so than he's know for.

I'm not sure his heart is in this anymore, and consciously or subconsciously he is making mistakes.

Something happened at his convention. My bet it was siting down with Paul Ryan and finally realizng that he was F'd or if he did squeak out a victory, his Presidency and possible the country would be F'd by the idiocy that Ryan represents. If I was him, I would have lost heart as well. I'd be drinking a lot - even if I was a member of the Latter-day Saints.

Interesting. This is exactly how I saw the last month of the McCain 2008 campaign. He really didn't seem to want it anymore after contemplating four years of Sarah Palin at his side.

Uh...yeah. Meanwhile in the real world, these events have happened in places where Obama supported the toppling of the previous governments. Romney's statement was restrained, but his criticism of Obama was correct. In the big picture, I doubt this will have much impact. Obama's refusal to meet with Israel may have a bigger effect. In both cases, it's negative for Obama. But right now the only thing anybody cares about is the economy.

Originally Posted by playwrite

This may just be it.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81103.html




http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...aying-politics




http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.1157485



- that's the fricken Daily News!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...58f9_blog.html




Whoa, never thought it would be foreign policy that would do him in.

This reminds me of the 2008 financial meltdown where McCain insisted on an emergency meeting with the Bush et al and dragged Obama into it. McCain all hot-and-bothered, then wooden and hardly saying anything. Obama being cool throughout and offering some advice and sympathy to Bush on the tough choices he had. Today, Obama comes out to the Rose Garden with Hillary and is pitch perfect in responding to the tragedy. Romney, like McCain back then, first all squirrelly and then hiding behind a wooden smirk. This is just too weird.

Romney was speaking to the fact that Obama's own consulate in Cairo was apologizing for offending Muslims here in the US....Obama now has to disavow the apology from his own representative..

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2...7.html?hp=t4_7

Obama's embrace of the Muslim brotherhood and other Islamic fundies in Libya has blwon up in his face

Ultimately the election wont hinge on foriegn policy unless the situation continues to deteriorate or another wild card occurs such as an Isreali attack on Iran etc.

By the way Obama's bounce is now gone...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._tracking_poll

When even Mark Halperin can't find a good angle for Romney's blustering and blundering -

Unless the Romney campaign has gamed this crisis out in some manner completely invisible to the Gang of 500, his doubling down on criticism of the President for the statement coming out of Cairo is likely to be seen as one of the most craven and ill-advised tactical moves in this entire campaign

JPT, Weave -

It's amusing how you T-baggers who hated the idea of a "moderate" Romney as yourr race horse look like you will the last supporters left standing.

Originally Posted by playwrite

When even Mark Halperin can't find a good angle for Romney's blustering and blundering -



JPT, Weave -

It's amusing how you T-baggers who hated the idea of a "moderate" Romney as yourr race horse look like you will the last supporters left standing.

Its amazing how you libtards are so anxious to change the subject of our miserable economy....and fail to recognize that the "Arab Spring" is turning into a nightmare.....

Originally Posted by Weave

By the way Obama's bounce is now gone...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._tracking_poll

Several polls have now come out since the convention showing Obama with a 1 point lead. The "bounce" looks more like a random blip on the radar screen.

The one thing that does stand out about Libya and Egypt is how closely it parallels what happened in Iran under Jimmy Carter. Luckily for Obama there are no hostages, but a dead ambassador is not good PR for his foreign policy. Just another echo of 1980.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Uh...yeah. Meanwhile in the real world, these events have happened in places where Obama supported the toppling of the previous governments. Romney's statement was restrained, but his criticism of Obama was correct. In the big picture, I doubt this will have much impact. Obama's refusal to meet with Israel may have a bigger effect. In both cases, it's negative for Obama. But right now the only thing anybody cares about is the economy.

It is extremely bad form to mock the foundations of any major religion. Muslims are simply touchier than others.

One billion Muslims cannot be completely wrong. Islam has its virtues. If you don't believe me, then just contrast depraved southwest Detroit to sanitized Dearborn. Ask me whether you would feel safer around kebab houses than around venues that offer "Sophisticated Adult Entertainment" that draws attention to a scantily-clad girl. Ask me whether I would rather be where public intoxication and the solicitation of johns is cause for prompt arrest or where such isn't tolerated.

Many Christians and Jews live in Dearborn and know the rules. They like the consequences of those rules.

...If all that Netanyahu was interested in was support for pre-emptive strikes against Iran, then President Obama was right to snub him.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

It is extremely bad form to mock the foundations of any major religion. Muslims are simply touchier than others.

One billion Muslims cannot be completely wrong. Islam has its virtues. If you don't believe me, then just contrast depraved southwest Detroit to sanitized Dearborn. Ask me whether you would feel safer around kebab houses than around venues that offer "Sophisticated Adult Entertainment" that draws attention to a scantily-clad girl. Ask me whether I would rather be where public intoxication and the solicitation of johns is cause for prompt arrest or where such isn't tolerated.

Many Christians and Jews live in Dearborn and know the rules. They like the consequences of those rules.

...If all that Netanyahu was interested in was support for pre-emptive strikes against Iran, then President Obama was right to snub him.

It may be bad form to mock a religion but people should be allowed free speech. Other religions are routinely bashed without its member going on killing sprees or issuing death warrants etc. The response in the Muslim world over some movie or a cartoon or a book is completely uncalled for and outragious. We should not have our freedom of speech and expression curtailed out of political correctness.

All of these points carry the unstated backdrop lie that the Obama administration in any way, shape or form condoned the attack on the embassy, which OF COURSE it did not. No presidential administration would EVER condone that.

A man is walking on the street. An interracial couple (black man, white woman) walks by.

The man calls the white woman a "n----r-loving b---h c--ksucker whore."

Her partner pulls a gun out and shoots the trash talker.

The shooter is clearly in the wrong.

Is the trash talker blameless?

It's amazing how the American left suddenly becomes sensitive to religion when the religion in question is Islam. They don't even seem to see the massive double standard they apply in their all-out war on Christianity, nor do they appreciate the fact that if the people they were attacking were Muslims instead, they would all be dead. Certainly not when they continually compare American Christians to the Taliban, and so forth.

Originally Posted by Weave

It may be bad form to mock a religion but people should be allowed free speech. Other religions are routinely bashed without its member going on killing sprees or issuing death warrants etc. The response in the Muslim world over some movie or a cartoon or a book is completely uncalled for and outragious. We should not have our freedom of speech and expression curtailed out of political correctness.

Get another buzz phrase. I am sick of people justifying hateful nonsense via free speech; just admit you are a bigot and be done with it. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, so why can you deliberately provoke an entire region knowing that lives can and will be lost? "Oh, noes, we don't want to be politically correct, he haz freedom of speech." This was the national security version of yelling "fire" in that theatre. He knew what was likely to happen.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

It's amazing how the American left suddenly becomes sensitive to religion when the religion in question is Islam. They don't even seem to see the massive double standard they apply in their all-out war on Christianity, nor do they appreciate the fact that if the people they were attacking were Muslims instead, they would all be dead. Certainly not when they continually compare American Christians to the Taliban, and so forth.

All-out war on Christianity in America? You need to get out more. It is alive and doing very well where I live.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

All of these points carry the unstated backdrop lie that the Obama administration in any way, shape or form condoned the attack on the embassy, which OF COURSE it did not. No presidential administration would EVER condone that.

A man is walking on the street. An interracial couple (black man, white woman) walks by.

The man calls the white woman a "n----r-loving b---h c--ksucker whore."

Her partner pulls a gun out and shoots the trash talker.

The shooter is clearly in the wrong.

Is the trash talker blameless?

The deceased trash-talker can't be convicted of anything.

It would likely result in a conviction for voluntary manslaughter because the killing would never have happened without words that in their combination likely constitute incitement to riot.