The third and final debate

[darkwarrior3007]

Obama does an excellent job of coming across as condescending when his record is being attacked. He hates getting called out on campaign promises that he hasn't fulfilled. It's funny watching him get riled up.

We must've been watching two different debates because I didn't see Obama getting riled up at all. I thought Romney just barely held his own and I'd give tonight's debate a slight edge to Obama. The President came out aggressive again and that's what he needed to do.

 

[Mayhem]

Y'know, when Obama loses a debate, he lost. When Romney loses, it's a tie. Un-fuckin'-real.

 

[ILuvChloe]

Lets face it. This election is about the economy, and lets face it Romney knows his stuff when it comes to business. Like him or **** him.

 

[Sam Fisher]

Romney clearly won this debate.

 

[Johan]

Y'know, when Obama loses a debate, he lost. When Romney loses, it's a tie. Un-fuckin'-real.

Then, Fox News and Rush Limbaugh start complaining about the moderator, the audience, etc...

 

[Mayhem]

Then, Fox News and Rush Limbaugh start complaining about the moderator, the audience, etc...

I swear, I have no idea what a moderator would have to do to keep people from ******* and whining. We basically saw the full range of moderating styles between the four, and still people are bitching. It's incredible to me.

 

[Crazy4theBrat]

I swear, I have no idea what a moderator would have to do to keep people from ******* and whining. We basically saw the full range of moderating styles between the four, and still people are bitching. It's incredible to me.

I thought the guy last night did a pretty good job.

 

[Johan]

 

[Ace Bandage]

We must've been watching two different debates because I didn't see Obama getting riled up at all. I thought Romney just barely held his own and I'd give tonight's debate a slight edge to Obama. The President came out aggressive again and that's what he needed to do.

I would concede that the President did win the final debate. Obama was far more aggressive than he had been in the past two. He also called Romney out on a couple of discrepancies and generally seemed to be more confrontational than Romney. Mitt seemed more conciliatory and even applauded the President's capture/execution of Bin Laden. But I think Romney made a very poignant remark when he commented that we can't just fight our way out of trouble in the Middle East. It's going to require some cooperation to achieve peace and I think Mitt did a great job in laying out his plans for achieving a lasting peace.

I thought Romney's approach tonight was to dial it down. This was a foreign policy debate and rather than coming across as a war mongering, militaristic Conservative, he seemed to be playing towards peace in the Middle East. I thought he made some great points in regards to Syria, Pakistan, and Iran (apart from his geographical blunder). Overall, I liked his performance. Romeny has made significant gains on the President since the first debate (pulling neck and neck if not leading in some polls) and in the final debate he looked to me like a football team playing with the lead and trying to run out the clock. He didn't do anything drastic in the debate, but he held his ground and banked on his performance in the previous debates.

The election is about two weeks away, it will be interesting to see how it all pans out.




Side note: I thought the moderator last night was great. He kept them on topic and admonished both candidates when they started to drift away. He only cut them off once last night, and even when he did, Romney smiled at him and didn't press it. The only objectionable question he had was the hypothetical about Israel. Other than that, everything went as well as you could ask from a moderating standpoint.

 

[Mayhem]

But I think Romney made a very poignant remark when he commented that we can't just fight our way out of trouble in the Middle East. It's going to require some cooperation to achieve peace and I think Mitt did a great job in laying out his plans for achieving a lasting peace.

I'm not arguing with you, but where has it been in the President's game plan to "fight our way out of trouble"?

 

[PlumpRump]

What the genius military strategists at the Daily KOS are not pointing out, or flat out failing to recognize, is the fact that the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman are literally surrounded by about 15 US Military bases spread throughout Saudi Arabia, Oman, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait and Pakistan, and the United States, should they so choose, would be easily able to blockade any sea travel by the Iranians via the Persian Gulf and Sea of Oman. So, realistically, from a military standpoint, or in a wartime situation, the Mediterranean Sea, which is bordered by Syria is the only viable strategic option for an Iranian supply chain. Also, there have been claims for more than a year the Iran is currently in the process of building a permanent Naval base in Syria. If they have such easy and unfettered access to the oceans, why would a Naval base in Syria be necessary? Maybe because Syria is one of the last resorts for ocean access to Iran? Maybe because Israel is around 1,000 miles closer to Syria than Iran? Maybe because the Mediterranean sea, in regards to an Iranian ****** on Israel, would be far more ideal than sailing through the Persian Gulf and fighting their way up through the Gulf of Aden, then the Red Sea and through the Suez Canal?

I don't know why the left is so giddy at this perceived gaffe, the statement actually seems to be on the mark. Even the Washington Post "fact checkers" admit that "Romney’s comments are more accurate than they first seem." And remind me, again, what was it that the President did in the debate other than, again, play defense on his failed policies? Nobody in here ever seems to be able to, or to be interested in articulating an effective defense of the President and his policies, and seem far more interested in the Wizard of Oz-esque "Pay-no-attention-to-that-man-behind-the-curtain" Chewbacca defense. The left's diversion tactics could well come back to bite them in the ass in 2 weeks.

 

[Johan]

What the genius military strategists at the Daily KOS are not pointing out, or flat out failing to recognize, is the fact that the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman are literally surrounded by about 15 US Military bases spread throughout Saudi Arabia, Oman, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait and Pakistan, and the United States, should they so choose, would be easily able to blockade any sea travel by the Iranians via the Persian Gulf and Sea of Oman. So, realistically, from a military standpoint, or in a wartime situation, the Mediterranean Sea, which is bordered by Syria is the only viable strategic option for an Iranian supply chain. Also, there have been claims for more than a year the Iran is currently in the process of building a permanent Naval base in Syria. If they have such easy and unfettered access to the oceans, why would a Naval base in Syria be necessary? Maybe because Syria is one of the last resorts for ocean access to Iran? Maybe because Israel is around 1,000 miles closer to Syria than Iran? Maybe because the Mediterranean sea, in regards to an Iranian ****** on Israel, would be far more ideal than sailing through the Persian Gulf and fighting their way up through the Gulf of Aden, then the Red Sea and through the Suez Canal?

Ok, but you may have noticed that Iran has no common border with Syria. If Some iranian convoy is to reach some port in Syria, it would have to cross northern Iraq. And, with the Iraqi current situation, I don't think the convoy would reach Syria intact (or maybe it won't reach it, at all).

 

[Mayhem]

What the genius military strategists at the Daily KOS are not pointing out, or flat out failing to recognize, is the fact that the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman are literally surrounded by about 15 US Military bases spread throughout Saudi Arabia, Oman, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait and Pakistan, and the United States, should they so choose, would be easily able to blockade any sea travel by the Iranians via the Persian Gulf and Sea of Oman. So, realistically, from a military standpoint, or in a wartime situation, the Mediterranean Sea, which is bordered by Syria is the only viable strategic option for an Iranian supply chain. Also, there have been claims for more than a year the Iran is currently in the process of building a permanent Naval base in Syria. If they have such easy and unfettered access to the oceans, why would a Naval base in Syria be necessary? Maybe because Syria is one of the last resorts for ocean access to Iran? Maybe because Israel is around 1,000 miles closer to Syria than Iran? Maybe because the Mediterranean sea, in regards to an Iranian ****** on Israel, would be far more ideal than sailing through the Persian Gulf and fighting their way up through the Gulf of Aden, then the Red Sea and through the Suez Canal?

I don't know why the left is so giddy at this perceived gaffe, the statement actually seems to be on the mark. Even the Washington Post "fact checkers" admit that "Romney’s comments are more accurate than they first seem." And remind me, again, what was it that the President did in the debate other than, again, play defense on his failed policies? Nobody in here ever seems to be able to, or to be interested in articulating an effective defense of the President and his policies, and seem far more interested in the Wizard of Oz-esque "Pay-no-attention-to-that-man-behind-the-curtain" Chewbacca defense. The left's diversion tactics could well come back to bite them in the ass in 2 weeks.

A rather convenient "argument". Do you really think that an Iranian naval presence would go unnoticed or untargeted?

Please articulate the President's "failed policies" overseas. He's been doing a terrific job with Iraq, Israel, he's getting us out of Afghanistan (not quick enough, I grant, but he's doing it), bin Laden gone, Gaddhafi gone, Mubarak gone. The world likes him and the only ones who don't, **** America regardless of who is in charge. And he has kept us from becoming entangled in Syria, which is reason alone to vote for him. Don't even think for a second that any buck-stops-here Republican wouldn't have been shipping them weapons by now. And we've danced that dance too many times.

 

[Deepcover]

I felt Obama was the successor in the third and final debate. He looked more confident, a commander in chief, more strong and decisive. Romney looked less of a leader using a wrong strategy approach and agreed with Obama when it came to foreign policy issues. They both sounded the same with no real difference...I don't even think Americans care about the FP debate rather more for domestic issue and the economy...Overall the whole final debate felt medicore with Obama as the confident successor. It'll be a close race come vote day much like the Kerry-W. Bush elections.

The first moderator Jim Lehrer sucked and was clearly biased.
Candy Crowley was good. She looked kinda scared when the two men were ready to duke it out.
Bob Schaffer did his thing.

RIP George McGovern who should've been president back in 72.

 

[StanScratch]

Ok, but you may have noticed that Iran has no common border with Syria. If Some iranian convoy is to reach some port in Syria, it would have to cross northern Iraq. And, with the Iraqi current situation, I don't think the convoy would reach Syria intact (or maybe it won't reach it, at all).

It is not just the current situation in Iraq...Iran and Iraq have never been known as allies. Granted, the war they fought was almost 25 years ago, but the two are not exactly on hugging terms right now.
So, they might have to go through Turkey, instead THEN Syria. Turkey and Iran are friends.
Well, were friends. Since installing a missile shield in Turkey, relationships have soured a bit. And soured a bit more after Iran said it would strike Turkey should other countries strike Iran. And soured a bit more after Turkey has become a bit of a regional leader during Arab Spring.
So, maybe Iran just has to go through Saudi Arabia, Jordan to get to Syria? No?
****.

 

[PlumpRump]

A rather convenient "argument". Do you really think that an Iranian naval presence would go unnoticed or untargeted?

Please articulate the President's "failed policies" overseas. He's been doing a terrific job with Iraq, Israel, he's getting us out of Afghanistan (not quick enough, I grant, but he's doing it), bin Laden gone, Gaddhafi gone, Mubarak gone. The world likes him and the only ones who don't, **** America regardless of who is in charge. And he has kept us from becoming entangled in Syria, which is reason alone to vote for him. Don't even think for a second that any buck-stops-here Republican wouldn't have been shipping them weapons by now. And we've danced that dance too many times.

What's "convenient" about it? That you don't have any retort to it? So what you're really saying is "Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks?"

-Seems to me that an Iranian nuclear program has gone largely unnoticed and untargeted for the last 4 years, with Dems seemingly unconcerned, so why would this be any different?

-Terrific job with Iraq? Iraq is a disaster, in case you haven't been paying attention. Civil liberties and religious freedom are non-existent; Iranian influence has visibly increased as can be seen with their use of Iraqi airspace to aid their dealings with, wait for it, Syria; and the re-emergence of Al-Qaeda, to name a few.

-Terrific job with Israel? Why, then, do many top Israeli officials feel "alone, isolated, threatened, and totally bewitched at America's policies?" Why has the President snubbed Netanyahu and taken an absentee stand on Palestine, essentially telling them to delay their push for statehood through the UN until after the election so he doesn't have to publicly take sides while at the same time calling Israel our greatest ally in the region? Refusing to side with Israel in acknowledging Jerusalem as the capital of the state? Omitting Israel from his so-called apology tour further showing his real stance of distancing ourselves, politically and militarily from "our greatest ally in the region?" This is your idea of doing a terrific job with Israel? I would **** to see what a terrible job in Israel would look like.

-Bin Laden is not Obama's achievement, alone. Again, you're giving way too much credit where it is not deserved.

-Yeah, Libya seems to be doing swimmingly a year after Gadhafi was ******. You're right, Libya is far more safe and friendly to the US than a year ago. Libyans love us, obviously.

-We should vote for Obama because he has "kept us from getting entangled in Syria?" Yeah, he's been pretty tough on Assad, hasn't he? Not like Syria is a strategic partner of Iran, or a state sponsor of terrorism or anything.

-Mubarak is gone, and the Muslim Brotherhood is now in power in Egypt. They, too seem to be doing rather well, with a declining sense of radicalism and absolutely no hostilities towards the US. Booking my trip to Egypt right now, as a matter of fact.

-You actually say "The world likes him..." Funny, that in Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan and Pakistan, the U.S. was more popular under President George W. Bush in 2008 than it is right now under President Obama. However, if by "the world," you mean Russia, then yes, you are probably right.


And, again, with the typical diversion tactics. "Don't even think for a second that any buck-stops-here Republican wouldn't have been shipping them weapons by now..." That statement is completely irrelevant. Obama, not a "buck-stops-here Republican," has been in the White House for the last 4 years.

"Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm defending Obama's policies, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense!

 

[meesterperfect]

this pissed him off.


ROMNEY: The president in his campaign some four years ago said he'd meet with all the world's worst actors in his first year. He'd sit down with Chavez and Kim Jong-il, with Castro and with president Ahmadinejad of Iran. I think they looked and thought, "Well, that's an unusual honor to receive from the president of the United States." And then the president began what I have called an apology tour, of going to various nations in the Middle East and criticizing America. I think they looked at that and saw weakness.

OBAMA: Nothing, uh, Governor Romney just said is true, starting with this notion of me apologizing. This has been, uhh, probably the biggest whopper that's been told during the course of this campaign. And every fact-checker and every reporter [who] has looked at it, Governor, has said this is not true.

Cairo 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_889oBKkNU
Apologizing for Iraq
"Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of ******* by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year."
We're sorry.
He's gonna get rid of all nukes( even Putins?).
yep, can't protect an embassy from getting attacked 3 times until people were ******** but he's gonna stop Iran from getting nukes and use them.
Its true because he said it.

"In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. And that's why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons.'
We're sorry.

Apologizing for Iraq some more. Showing he has no problem with Iran having nukes.
"There's been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation on any other.".
We're sorry.

Mexico 2009
Blaming the USA for Mexican **** mafia ********.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgkh_1sgFrs&feature=related
And he proved it with the fast and furious cover up.
We're sorry.

Strasbourg France 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ez0lU-VLnA
"In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America's shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive."
We don't appreciate Europe. Tell that to all the Americans who fought and died to defend it and keep their freedom.
We're sorry.

He tends not to use labels on folks

there's a ton more out there too.

 

[darkwarrior3007]

The only one I see apologizing is you MP. I must ask, why are you sorry? Why are you apologizing for America? Don't you know we don't apologize? You make us seem weak when you do that.

 

[Mayhem]

What's "convenient" about it? That you don't have any retort to it? So what you're really saying is "Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks?" I gave my response. There is no way Iran sets up a Naval presence in Syria that lasts more than 10 minutes, regardless of how hostilities begin.

-Seems to me that an Iranian nuclear program has gone largely unnoticed and untargeted for the last 4 years, with Dems seemingly unconcerned, so why would this be any different? Seriously? Seriously! I suggest you find a better news source if you fell Iran's nuke program has been unnoticed. How are you on the internet and saying that this isn't being dealt with? And let me ask you this, if you were President, what would you be doing right now?

-Terrific job with Iraq? Iraq is a disaster, in case you haven't been paying attention. Civil liberties and religious freedom are non-existent; Iranian influence has visibly increased as can be seen with their use of Iraqi airspace to aid their dealings with, wait for it, Syria; and the re-emergence of Al-Qaeda, to name a few You are painting Iraqs problems as ours. I gives a flying fuck about Iraqi civil liberties. I don't recall any of them marching with Dr. King, and they can sort their own problems out. Their problems ain't worth our people dying for.

-Terrific job with Israel? Why, then, do many top Israeli officials feel "alone, isolated, threatened, and totally bewitched at America's policies?" Why has the President snubbed Netanyahu and taken an absentee stand on Palestine, essentially telling them to delay their push for statehood through the UN until after the election so he doesn't have to publicly take sides while at the same time calling Israel our greatest ally in the region? Refusing to side with Israel in acknowledging Jerusalem as the capital of the state? Omitting Israel from his so-called apology tour further showing his real stance of distancing ourselves, politically and militarily from "our greatest ally in the region?" This is your idea of doing a terrific job with Israel? I would **** to see what a terrible job in Israel would look like. Israel/Palestine has been a nightmare for MY entire life (and longer, of course) and I'm 47. Again, their problem, not ours. And when did this big concern with Israel start around here? Once upon a time, there was so much vitriol being posted towards "Israel-firsters" around here, my screen was in danger of melting. When did this change? Check your history. Israel has abundantly shown it can take care of itself.

-Bin Laden is not Obama's achievement, alone. Again, you're giving way too much credit where it is not deserved. And let's just disregard the endless victory lap that Dubya would have done if he had managed to not be a disasterous CiC and managed to do it himself. Choosing to forget a certain Aircraft Carrier-borne Photo-op with "Mission Accomplished" splashed across the superstructure loses you credibility points in the "taking credit" dept.

-Yeah, Libya seems to be doing swimmingly a year after Gadhafi was ******. You're right, Libya is far more safe and friendly to the US than a year ago. Libyans love us, obviously. Gaddhafi ******, true or false? Again, if you were President, what magic wand would you wave where Libya isn't a nightmare? And while we're on the subject, just how much power do YOU confer on one man, sitting in a round room? You and your ilk seem to imply some form of other-worldly powers of global control on the Presidency.

-We should vote for Obama because he has "kept us from getting entangled in Syria?" Yeah, he's been pretty tough on Assad, hasn't he? Not like Syria is a strategic partner of Iran, or a state sponsor of terrorism or anything. What Should He Be Doing Differently? Sending in troops. Sending in bombers? What? What is going to make you happy?

-Mubarak is gone, and the Muslim Brotherhood is now in power in Egypt. They, too seem to be doing rather well, with a declining sense of radicalism and absolutely no hostilities towards the US. Booking my trip to Egypt right now, as a matter of fact. I'm getting tired of posting the same questions to you so I'll try another one. What is President Romney going to do to make Egyptians vote for someone he wants, rather than someone they want?

-You actually say "The world likes him..." Funny, that in Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan and Pakistan, the U.S. was more popular under President George W. Bush in 2008 than it is right now under President Obama. However, if by "the world," you mean Russia, then yes, you are probably right. Tht's so patently false that it doesn't deserve the dignity of a response.


And, again, with the typical diversion tactics. "Don't even think for a second that any buck-stops-here Republican wouldn't have been shipping them weapons by now..." That statement is completely irrelevant. Obama, not a "buck-stops-here Republican," has been in the White House for the last 4 years. You don't like him. We get it. Again, you are just making silly accusations based on dislike rather than any tangible proof or empirical data.

...

 

[Sam Fisher]

Here is Obama's remarks during the debate:

“But I think Governor Romney maybe hasn’t spent enough time looking at how our military works. You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.”

From TGP:

Now here’s the truth…
Marines still use bayonets.
Horses were used by the military during the Iraq invasion.

Obama also does not know the difference between a ship and a boat.
Submarines are boats – not ships.
What an embarrassment.


Read more at http://www.reagancoalition.com/arti...obama-military-gaffe.html#J712qvPk6QE2sdw2.99