Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.
All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..
As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.
Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!
*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."
Seznam diskusních klubů
Není vám dovoleno psát zprávy do tohoto klubu. Minimální úroveň členství vyžadovaná pro psaní v tomto klubu je Brain pěšec.
(V): That makes as much sense as anything else you've said, but why anyone would think a one day reinvention of himself that ends the same day could carry any weight is beyond my ability to fathom... and the inability to fathom this was one of my limitations that made being a liberal difficult if not impossible. Apparently my DNA was coded for me to become a conservative instead of a liberal. But I did try, you have to at least give me credit for that... or not. Maybe tomorrow you can.
That's hilarious. Okay, so maybe her maternal instincts kicked in, we can't fault her for that. It can happen to the most hardened feminist whether they want it to happen or not. Genetic programing can be ignored only up to a point. and guys have the same problem, no matter how sensitive and caring we try to be the beast manages to surface at some point. And no one can be blamed for this, because it's not anyone's fault... it's evolutions fault. Or maybe the aliens who seeded this planet with the DNA that made it all possible... its their fault too. And I'm sure Bush had something to do with it.
Okay, I take back what I said about being a liberal... it really is as easy as it seems to be.
Změněno uživatelem The Col (12. října 2012, 21:58:51)
rod03801: You missed where she questioned Biden's statement regarding the withdrawal of troops during the "fighting season" she stated she was skeptical that the generals were down with it, Biden had to clarify the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs of Staff supported the timetable......I suppose the debate can be viewed differently depending which horse you have in the race, but that and the Libya issue were examples of the mod hold the VP's feet to the fire IMO
Joe Biden The military reason was bringing -- by the way, when the president announced the surge, you'll remember, Martha, he said the surge will be out by the end of the summer. The military said the surge will be out. Nothing political about this.
Before the surge occurred -- so you be a little straight with me here, too -- before the surge occurred, we said they'll be out by the end of the summer. That's what the military said. The reason for that is...
RADDATZ: The military follows orders. I mean, there -- trust me. There are people who were concerned about pulling out on the fighting season.
BIDEN: Sure. There are people that are concerned, but not the Joint Chiefs. That was their recommendation in the Oval Office to the president of the United States of America. I sat there. I'm sure you'll find someone who disagrees with the Pentagon. I'm positive you'll find that within the military. But that's not the case here.
And, secondly, the reason why the military said that is, you cannot wait and have a cliff. It takes -- you know -- months and months and months to draw down forces
Artful Dodger: She also goaded him, and not Biden "Oh , so STILL no specifics?" she said that twice that I remember. It just seemed like she wanted to confront Ryan, and coddle Biden.
rod03801: Several commentators made the same observation. When Biden was in trouble on a particular topic, she moved to another topic. Biden interrupted Ryan over 80 times. Ryan interrupted barely a handful. Biden smirked, rolled his eyes (like some middle school girl) and was mocking. And Biden had plenty of gaffes too.
mckinley: Biden soothed the base by tossing ample red meat.Ryan actually came across as a fairly nice guy, unlike his used car salesman running mate who will say anything to get elected.If Biden amped down the laughing and smirks, and was able to corner Ryan on the details of their policies, it would have been a blood bath
Subjekt: Re: An important thing policies or not having them
Změněno uživatelem Mort (12. října 2012, 16:54:29)
mckinley: Hopefully the natives can remain not stoned long enough to fight.. But I think maybe both sides do.. Maybe we should leave them all to get stoned, can't see them fighting then!!
Subjekt: Re: An important thing policies or not having them
mckinley: You must be ok with partial birth abortion. Biden is. And you must be ok with allowing a baby to die after a failed abortion attempt. Obama voted against a law that would require doctors and nurses to care for any human baby "born alive" after a failed abortion attempt. Instead, Obama favors leaving the newborn alone unattended to die. Maybe Obama missed the part in sex ed class where AFTER a woman gives birth she is no longer pregnant. So ALL ARGUMENTS for abortion are moot. The woman is NOT pregnant and the newborn is alive. And yet Obama favors allowing medical personnel to neglect the newborn and just let it die. Many times it takes hours and hours for the newborn to die. Sanctioned murder by President Obama. And partial birth abortion is where the doctor preforms a breach birth, leaves the head inside the birth canal, cuts a slit in the back of the skull, inserts a tube and suctions out the brain. All this while the unborn child is ALIVE and kicking (literally). Only barbaric fools support those that sanction such horrible acts. You apparently are one of them.
Subjekt: An important thing policies or not having them
Změněno uživatelem Mort (12. října 2012, 16:30:17)
It also had a superb moderator, Martha Raddatz, holding the ring between them covering a range of subjects from taxation to Iran, from abortion to Afghanistan. Most politically committed people will claim their man won and the argument can be made both ways.
Mr Biden won on points, perhaps, but his manner may have put off some undecided voters.
He was stronger, more aggressive, more certain of his position - but chuckled, laughed, smiled, grinned at his opponent, in a way that was certainly condescending and that some will have found irritating. Paul Ryan, for someone with no foreign policy experience, put on a good show but was unable to answer some tough questions, particularly on Afghanistan and Syria.
His weakness was caused directly by an ideological desire to attack President Obama for being weak, without having decided what a stronger policy would actually look like.
He couldn't say what he would do differently in Syria, what would cause troops to stay in Afghanistan or indeed what tax loopholes he would close.
The debate on unemployment and taxation was generally much more evenly matched. Mr Ryan has been painted as a bogeyman by Democrats but came across generally as serious and likeable.
The Beltway crowd persist in seeing Mr Biden as a clown. He might have laughed too much but the man on stage was no fool.This debate probably won't change much - the ball is still very much in Mr Obama's court next week.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Politicians in the UK who try to get away with having no policy get crucified by our UK political analysts.... Especially on live progs.
Artful Dodger: On the other hand, I'll probably not be any better informed than I am now by reading the entire transcript. This is the result of Biden preparing himself for a debate?
Obama should have been prepared and Biden phone it in... they both would have done better.
Artful Dodger: Why do I get the feeling this debate will be downplayed if not ignored? I don't mean this as a rhetorical question, it's just that I have this gut feeling I won't be hearing much about it in the news.
Artful Dodger: I managed to see a brief clip from the debate on a local news program, and I couldn't help feeling sorry for Bidden because of how foolish he looked. Ryan is so much younger but you wouldn't know it if just listening to them talk. Ryan wasn't disrespectful, but he did come across as being more mature. But like I said, it was just a brief clip, so I'll have to find a transcript of the debate and read it... I'd rather do it that way than see it, so I didn't really miss anything important. Playing with the grandkids tonight was important, didn't want to miss out on that.
Artful Dodger: I don't know about you, but I was a liberal during the early 70's and it's not as easy as you might think. Thinking for yourself is better and much more satisfying, I'll grant you that, but I need to take a break from it now and then.
I took a break tonight. Visited one of my daughters and played with the grandkids, and made it a point to forget all about politics for at least a few hours. I'm pretty sure I didn't miss anything by not seeing the debate tonight, because of what I already know about VP debates: It was probably a dog fight compared to the Romney/Obama debate. I know that Bidden prepared for it, as did Ryan. And over the next 5 days depending on how it went, the media will either spin what happened or declare victory for Bidden. I'm hoping I'm wrong, because it's the predictable nature of politics that make it so mind numbingly boring to watch.
Iamon lyme: [...every war we've entered into over the past 100 years... ]
Oh yeah? Well what about Iraq? What about those wars, huh? Well? If we Dems hadn't been working so hard to strangle oil exploration and drilling and refusing to upgrade and build new refineries you Repugs wouldn't have been so thirsty for oil that you would actually, uh, you know, because we've been wanting to explore new alternatives to oil because, well oil is dirty, you know, like coal, not as dirty but you know what I mean... uh, um.. okay never mind... as you were... carry on.
A Syrian-bound plane intercepted by Turkey was carrying Russian-made defence equipment destined for Syria's defence ministry, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said.
"Passenger aircraft cannot carry ammunition and defence equipment," Mr Erdogan said, adding, "unfortunately there was such equipment on board". Turkish jets forced the plane, coming from Moscow, to land in Ankara.
Syria and Russia have denied the plane was carrying illegal cargo. They have accused Turkey of putting lives in danger.
The Syrian Air Airbus A320, with about 30 passengers on board, was intercepted on Wednesday evening by two Turkish fighters and escorted to the capital's Esenboga airport. Turkey said previously it had received an intelligence tip-off that it had illegal cargo on board.
Speaking to reporters in Ankara, Mr Erdogan said: "This was equipment and ammunition that was being sent from a Russian agency... to the Syrian Defence Ministry."
"Their examination is continuing and the necessary will follow," he added. He said the supplier was the equivalent of Turkey's state-run arms supplier, the Mechanical and Chemical Industry Corporation.
Russia's state arms export agency Rosoboronexport had earlier said it had no information about the plane's cargo and denied it had any connection with the flight or anything on board.
Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has said Turkey is determined to stop any transfer of weapons to Syria through its airspace.
Artful Dodger: Oh good grief, I just now found out what the big deal was. Your point was to show that every war we've entered into over the past 100 years has been when a Democrat president has been in office.
Since going to war is always intitiated by an executive order given by the President of The United States of America, and every president over the past 100 years who has initiated such an order has been a Democrat, then that should settle the question of which party is the party of war.
Singling out Republicans as the party of war is a ridiculous enough lie to begin with, but it's even more ridiculous because wars don't just wait around for a particular party to be in power before they decide to happen. So essentially what we've been hearing from Democrats about how they are the party of peace is not just a crock of you know what, it's a double crock. But hey, if they don't want credit for helping to defeat Hitler or for bringing the war with Japan to an early end, then I'm all for giving the Republicans credit for that. Now watch as they get defensive and say, "Hell no, we did that!"
[]_ [[]] []_ to the tenth power... can you hear me laughing now?
Artful Dodger: The caffeine helps me to relax so that I can go to sleep. It's true, I'm not kidding. And increased relaxation helps me to fart more, although I'm not sure that has anything to do with sleeping better unless.... aromatherapy?
Iamon lyme: "acamedia"? What is acamedia? Did I mean to say academia? Is acamedia even a word? It kind of looks like a word, like maybe it has something to do with media based knowledge... ? I don't know.
Why am I asking so many questions if I'm only talking to myself? Will I answer myself, or will I ignore my own question? If I don't answer myself by tomorrow morning I'll pester myself until I get a response, and I can keep it up all week if I have to so please, SOMEBODY STOP ME!!!!
Subjekt: Re: Ok.. I'll see if I can get this answered .. one more time...
Změněno uživatelem Papa Zoom (11. října 2012, 02:29:47)
Iamon lyme: Of course you are right. As per his usual, Jules twists and lies about what's being said. That's the only way he can "win" an argument in his alleged mind. And thanks for pointing out his double standard. He ignores questions he doesn't want to answer but complains if he's ignored. I only ignore him when he's boring - which is most of the time. .
Subjekt: Re: Ok.. I'll see if I can get this answered .. one more time...
(V): [ Ok.. I'll see if I can get this answered .. one more time... Like the source that says WWII was started by the Democrats? Please.. Please explain how your scholarly sources explain that shift in written history... Art. ]
Where is it? I can't find it. What source makes that claim?
And if Art doesn't answer you, so what? You were the one who said...
[ Because no-one on this board is obliged to answer any question if they choose not to. The moderators say that is everyone's right... something like freedom or some weird concept like it!! ]
Nevertheless, if Art said Democrats started WWII, or quoted a source that makes that claim, then I would like to see some proof of that.
By the way, if he is saying a Democrat president made the decision to enter the war, that's not the same as saying the Democrats started the war. I'm assuming you know the difference.
(skrýt) Chcete-li být pokaždé včas upozorněni na nejnovější zprávy ve vašem oblíbeném diskusním klubu, můžete je stahovat RSS klientem pomocí RSS ikony v pravém horním rohu stránky diskusního klubu. (pauloaguia) (zobrazit všechny tipy)