Presidential Debate #2

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Really? Couldn’t his money have kept him out of world war II? Certainly his disqualification from the army could have, but he joined the navy and served his country anyway, He was awarded the Purple Heart, American Defense Service Medal, American Campaign Medal, Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal with three bronze service stars, and the World War II Victory Medal. That’s pretty classy for a ‘rich guy’, in my opinion, but then I’m not trying to view everything through partisan glasses. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Don’t forget he was the only PT boat commander that got his boat run over by a slower Japanese destroyer. What a guy! 👍
 
buffalo said:
Clinton: I Thought Obama 'Was Going to Cry’

At a campaign event for Barack Obama’s reelection campaign, Bill Clinton said that Mitt Romney’s argument “is true, we’re not fixed”:

“Governor Romney’s argument is, we’re not fixed, so fire him and put me in,” said Clinton. “It is true we’re not fixed. When President Obama looked into the eyes of that man who said in the debate, I had so much hope four years ago and I don’t now, I thought he was going to cry. Because he knows that it’s not fixed.”
Click to expand...
So what does this snippet from Clinton’s talk mean: that Clinton supports Romney? What else does Clinton say about why the economy is not yet fixed? It’s a little unfair to take these things out of context, just like the mainstream media and the not-so-mainstream media frequently do.
 
meltzerboy said:
So what does this snippet from Clinton’s talk mean: that Clinton supports Romney? What else does Clinton say about why the economy is not yet fixed? It’s a little unfair to take these things out of context, just like the mainstream media and the not-so-mainstream media frequently do.
Click to expand...
Good question; I was unable to find the text. I imagine he went on to explain why, despite Romney’s take, people should still vote for Obama.
 
_Abyssinia said:
Gallup came out with a poll that said most important issue for women was abortion which I am struggling to believe

I do not believe that most women worry at the kitchen table about being able to get contraception and abortion. Obama has spent months using this as an attack on Romney and now Romney and Obama are equal with women in the swing states so that attack has not been successful
Click to expand...
The most important issue for many pro-life women is abortion. Every woman in my family starts there, and moves on to other issues.

So it could in fact be true. We can’t assume they said the most important issue was freedom to have abortions, unless that question made it clear.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Please read through the thread and see the many non debate discussions on Obama, that no one has ‘complained’ about, or suggested moving.
Click to expand...
Call them on it then. I usually try to stay on topic, with the facts and no personal attacks.
The topic needs to be changed to ‘Come Campaign for Romney’.
Click to expand...
True, CAF members heavily lean conservative. 👍

Robert Bay is the one who started the thread and titled it. Take that up with him.
 
stevegravy said:
Don’t forget he was the only PT boat commander that got his boat run over by a slower Japanese destroyer. What a guy! 👍
Click to expand...
I believe his boat was without radar and the collision happened at night. Whatever, he was recognized for heroic efforts in assisting crew members to the shore.

I really don’t understand the cynicism towards a veteran.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Yea, and requiring no regulations…errr, wait a minute.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
No the lending industry is heavily regulated. You should see lenders scramble to meet Community Reinvestment Act -]quotas/-] recommendations at the end of every quarter.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Yea, and requiring no regulations…errr, wait a minute.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Scipio is right. There are more regulations than ever now. It is very difficult for businesses to get loans now.

Our bank is forcing my company to show a profit which will result us paying income taxes. We have a very small profit, btw. My bosses (three brothers) haven’t given themselves a raise for the 9 years I’ve been here.

No raises or bonuses for the rest of us again this year. 😦
 
qui_est_ce said:
Scipio is right. There are more regulations than ever now. It is very difficult for businesses to get loans now.

Our bank is forcing my company to show a profit which will result us paying income taxes. We have a very small profit, btw. My bosses (three brothers) haven’t given themselves a raise for the 9 years I’ve been here.

No raises or bonuses for the rest of us again this year. 😦
Click to expand...
I know we have regulations in place now. I was attempting to use sarcasm because a single party did not cause any of our problems. While the banking industry was giving out those wholesale loans, did the moral partisans not participate to their advantage? I see everyone talk about how bad the stimulus packages were; did the moral partisans all abstain from seeking advantages from those programs?
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
I know we have regulations in place now. I was attempting to use sarcasm because a single party did not cause any of our problems. While the banking industry was giving out those wholesale loans, did the moral partisans not participate to their advantage? I see everyone talk about how bad the stimulus packages were; did the moral partisans all abstain from seeking advantages from those programs?
Click to expand...
The banking system was forced to do this. You’ve seen the videos where Bush is reviled for wanting to do surgery when a band-aid is all that was needed. Barney Frank and pals.

There were banking regulations in place. The answer is to enforce them, not make more.

freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2768818/posts
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
I know we have regulations in place now. I was attempting to use sarcasm because a single party did not cause any of our problems. While the banking industry was giving out those wholesale loans, did the moral partisans not participate to their advantage? I see everyone talk about how bad the stimulus packages were; did the moral partisans all abstain from seeking advantages from those programs?
Click to expand...
This is the deal: the government makes the rules of the game. Once a rule is set in place, why should a business not avail itself of the rule considering that all the other businesses are availing themselves? The other side then accuses them of hypocrisy, altho all they are doing is playing by the rules the other side presumably thinks are fine. So what is a business to do–go bankrupt because the government instituted a rule they didn’t like but the use of which would give its competitors the advantage?

Most business owners actually care about their business and about the people who work for them. Would you have a business owner let his company go down the drain and put all those people out of work?
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
And there were none of the moral partisans who took advantage of any of the events?
Click to expand...
No, everyone took advantage of those events, including both sides of the aisle and the lending desk: from the banks who knowingly made risky loans, thinking they could price out all risk, to the consumer who knew they were submitting false information (but reaaallly wanted that 70" TV), to politicians in both parties who either sat idly by, or directly benefitted from it. (in a huge stroke of irony, one of the most powerful to benefit was Chris Dodd, who later initiated the ‘reforms’ that are now strangling local banks)

As Milo Mindbender said: “The syndicate makes the profit. And everybody has a share.”
 
St_Francis said:
This is the deal: the government makes the rules of the game. Once a rule is set in place, why should a business not avail itself of the rule considering that all the other businesses are availing themselves? The other side then accuses them of hypocrisy, altho all they are doing is playing by the rules the other side presumably thinks are fine. So what is a business to do–go bankrupt because the government instituted a rule they didn’t like but the use of which would give its competitors the advantage?

Most business owners actually care about their business and about the people who work for them. Would you have a business owner let his company go down the drain and put all those people out of work?
Click to expand...
No, I wouldn’t have anyone go out of business and put people out of work. I also wouldn’t expect to see such hypocrisy used against something they found advantage in keeping the doors open and people employed. The hypocrisy is in finding fault in others who took advantage, even though you did the exact same thing.
 
scipio337 said:
No, everyone took advantage of those events, including both sides of the aisle and the lending desk: from the banks who knowingly made risky loans, thinking they could price out all risk, to the consumer who knew they were submitting false information (but reaaallly wanted that 70" TV), to politicians in both parties who either sat idly by, or directly benefitted from it. (in a huge stroke of irony, one of the most powerful to benefit was Chris Dodd, who later initiated the ‘reforms’ that are now strangling local banks)

As Milo Mindbender said: “The syndicate makes the profit. And everybody has a share.”
Click to expand...
And this is the system I have an obligation of voting in, as a Christian?
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
And this is the system I have an obligation of voting in, as a Christian?
Click to expand...
No candidate will ever be perfect. As such you vote for the electable candidate that will do the least damage.

Why is this so hard for the third party, I’m-waiting-for-St-Francis-to-run-for-President types?
 
Luigi_Daniele said:
No candidate will ever be perfect. As such you vote for the electable candidate that will do the least damage.

Why is this so hard for the third party, I’m-waiting-for-St-Francis-to-run-for-President types?
Click to expand...
We are not allowed to do evil, so that good may come out of it. So, I do not accept the lesser of two evils argument. There is no ‘electable’ requirement, thus narrowing down one’s conscience to one candidate only. If it were that simple, I believe the Church would plainly state it as so, especially if it were as people say that millions of people have endangered their eternal salvation.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
We are not allowed to do evil, so that good may come out of it. So, I do not accept the lesser of two evils argument. There is no ‘electable’ requirement, thus narrowing down one’s conscience to one candidate only. If it were that simple, I believe the Church would plainly state it as so, especially if it were as people say that millions of people have endangered their eternal salvation.
Click to expand...
Then none of us can vote for any candidate on any level-including the third party ones, as they are all, by virtue of their humanity, sinners.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top