[jtkratzer]

Kissing the Muslim world's ass? This is such a telling statement about your mentality.

What do you call bowing to the Saudi Prince? What do you call a foreign policy of appeasement toward the Middle East? There's been nothing significant done about Iran. He himself said the US would begin intervening in Syria if they move chemical or biological weapons - something that was reported we had intel they were doing a couple weeks ago and nothing has been done.

A) That you think there's a 'Muslim world' which is united against the West purely idealogically, our enemies pure and simple (nothing to do with the invasions, drone strikes, and general meddling in their government).

There is foreign influence from every major, industrialized, first world country on this planet. The fact that the majority of Islamic terrorism is directed at the US is not a coincidence. Have you forgotten the drone strikes and invasions were a response to an act of terror and the Suddam regime? Was the US intervening during the first Gulf War "meddling" or was in protecting the sovereignty of Kuwait and our foreign interests?

There is a Muslim World united against the West. Are you blind or do you not see the images and videos of the protests across northern Africa and the Middle East with chants of "Death to America" and "Death to Obama" or are you ignoring those?

B) That you would characterise trying to speak to Muslim countries in a grown up, respectful manner, and trying to undo some of the hurt inflicted during the Bush years, as ass kissing. Or perhaps, in some twisted way, you think that not punishing the citizens of Muslim countries for toppling their undemocratic, corrupt, US-sponsored dictators is 'ass kissing'?

No, there's a difference between appeasing (ass kissing) and diplomacy (mutual respect and working together). When countries we're engaged with militarily don't want to take a legitimate stand against terrorism or government corruption, why should we acknowledge them the same way we acknowledge any other country?

C) That you ignore the fact that despite his reaching out to various Muslim countries, Obama-sanctioned drone strikes on the Af-Pak borders are taking out unprecedented numbers of civilians; a funny way to kiss someone's ass.

The drone strikes are something he increased since the Bush years did so after initially not favoring them. He was going to close Gitmo when he entered office and hasn't done that, though he recently said he wanted to try Osama bin Laden under US law and wants to bring accused terrorists to the US and housing them in a prison, I think in Illinois. The guy flip flops.

Did the government claim the defeat of Al-Qaeda?

"We've blunted the Taliban's momentum in Afghanistan, and in 2014 our longest war will be over," he said."
Barack Obama convention speech | WBEZ 91.5 Chicago

al-Qaeda on the path to defeat...not true. They've experienced a resurgence in Afghanistan and across northern Africa.

You Tube

You Tube

Taliban Has Been Broken, Obama Says

Obama Brags About Defeating Al-Qaeda on Same Day US Military Deaths in Afghanistan Reaches 2,000 (Video) | The Gateway Pundit

60 Minutes refutes Obama deception on Al Qaeda being defeated

The Taliban Was Dead But Has Been Resurrected On Obama's Watch - Investors.com

Was Al-Qaeda responsible for the Libyan embassy attack? This, to the best of my knowledge, has not yet been conclusively ascertained. Certainly it was not clear in the immediate aftermath of the attack:

It was known less than 48 hours after the incident that it was not a random uprising or a demonstration that got out of hand, rather an act of terrorism on 9/11, but the administration continued to push it as such.

The results of the investigation won't be released until after the election for political reasons, but I think you're ignorant to think this was not al-Qaeda or an affiliated group.

From what I have read, it seems most likely to me that militants carried out the attack, definitely anti-US and pro-Gadaffi and therefore probably Al-Qaeda sympathisers, and possibly actually co-ordinated by Al-Qaeda. The prompting for the attack may have been retribution for the recent killing of an Al Qaeda leader, or to mark 9/11, or in response to the movie, or a bit of all of these.

How many reports have indicated that most people in Libya hadn't seen the video blamed for this incident by the Obama administration. Do you know the US spent something like $70,000 on TV ads in Libya to apologize for the video after the attack on our embassy? That's kissing someone's ass when we should have shown that actions like that won't be tolerated.

Egypt should lose the $2 billion in aide for their actions at our embassy there.

These ****s never burn our foreign aide dollars, only our flags and embassies and murder Americans.

You sound like an Obama sympathizer that thinks America is wrong for being the greatest country on the planet. You sound like you should be on his world apology tour.

[jeffkrol]

What do you call bowing to the Saudi Prince? What do you call a foreign policy of appeasement toward the Middle East? There's been nothing significant done about Iran. He himself said the US would begin intervening in Syria if they move chemical or biological weapons - something that was reported we had intel they were doing a couple weeks ago and nothing has been done.



There is foreign influence from every major, industrialized, first world country on this planet. The fact that the majority of Islamic terrorism is directed at the US is not a coincidence. Have you forgotten the drone strikes and invasions were a response to an act of terror and the Suddam regime? Was the US intervening during the first Gulf War "meddling" or was in protecting the sovereignty of Kuwait and our foreign interests?

There is a Muslim World united against the West. Are you blind or do you not see the images and videos of the protests across northern Africa and the Middle East with chants of "Death to America" and "Death to Obama" or are you ignoring those?



No, there's a difference between appeasing (ass kissing) and diplomacy (mutual respect and working together). When countries we're engaged with militarily don't want to take a legitimate stand against terrorism or government corruption, why should we acknowledge them the same way we acknowledge any other country?



The drone strikes are something he increased since the Bush years did so after initially not favoring them. He was going to close Gitmo when he entered office and hasn't done that, though he recently said he wanted to try Osama bin Laden under US law and wants to bring accused terrorists to the US and housing them in a prison, I think in Illinois. The guy flip flops.



"We've blunted the Taliban's momentum in Afghanistan, and in 2014 our longest war will be over," he said."
Barack Obama convention speech | WBEZ 91.5 Chicago

al-Qaeda on the path to defeat...not true. They've experienced a resurgence in Afghanistan and across northern Africa.
President Obama Says "Al Qaeda On The Path To Defeat" - YouTube

Taliban Has Been Broken, Obama Says

Obama Brags About Defeating Al-Qaeda on Same Day US Military Deaths in Afghanistan Reaches 2,000 (Video) | The Gateway Pundit

60 Minutes refutes Obama deception on Al Qaeda being defeated

The Taliban Was Dead But Has Been Resurrected On Obama's Watch - Investors.com




It was known less than 48 hours after the incident that it was not a random uprising or a demonstration that got out of hand, rather an act of terrorism on 9/11, but the administration continued to push it as such.

The results of the investigation won't be released until after the election for political reasons, but I think you're ignorant to think this was not al-Qaeda or an affiliated group.




How many reports have indicated that most people in Libya hadn't seen the video blamed for this incident by the Obama administration. Do you know the US spent something like $70,000 on TV ads in Libya to apologize for the video after the attack on our embassy? That's kissing someone's ass when we should have shown that actions like that won't be tolerated.

Egypt should lose the $2 billion in aide for their actions at our embassy there.

These ****s never burn our foreign aide dollars, only our flags and embassies and murder Americans.

You sound like an Obama sympathizer that thinks America is wrong for being the greatest country on the planet. You sound like you should be on his world apology tour.

WOW! You got my flag flying.. (sarcasm).... Too much hate and "war colored" glass viewing to even begin.. hope you were just blowing off some steam...

for fun:

Media Bias

Does it exist? "I don't think ABC or NBC or CBS are activist organizations," Stewart says. He then calls Fox News "the lupus of news," an autoimmune virus that's "gone overboard."

"FNC making a billion dollars a year, so something's going right," O'Reilly says.

"Yes, you can't make money selling crap in America," Stewart says.

[jtkratzer]

It's not hate. They murdered thousands of innocent people on 9/11 and have killed thousands of service men and women in terror attacks like Libya, USS Cole, etc - not during war, not acts of war, terrorist attacks.

Excuse me for being a living, breathing American proud of my country and willing to stand up for what's right and say what needs to e said. I'm a US Marine and this country shouldn't back down from a war waged against our people by terrorists.

That's not hate. I don't hate anyone. You're just a typical sheep that needs someone to watch over you because you're unwilling or unable to concern yourself with anything more than the "grass" at your feet that looks so delicious. Or you're just ignorant to how the world and evil people actually work.

[jtkratzer]

Liberals like you are just like a Magic 8 ball...you give them a shake or challenge their views and you regurgitate a random, but predictable response. It's always something about hate, sexism, or racism. You don't address points made in response to your post. You just want to throw out something incendiary and run away.

If I say I don't condone homosexuality, I'm a hate filled homophobe. If I don't want to pay for birth control other than my wife or daughter, I'm hate filled, sexism, and/or waging a war on women, if I disagree with Obama on anything, I'm a hate filled racist.

It's never about ideas and discussion, it's guerrilla warfare with you and you can't debate facts because they're not in your favor. Look at te debate the other night - it's so obvious Obama has been coddled and protected by the media, he didn't know how to handle the tough questions or anyone *gasp* actually challenging his ideas.

You can ignore reality and sleep on a park bench somewhere at an Occupy camp, and throw out your accusations of hate or whatever the theme of the day is, but the rest of the world world continues on whether you accept that there are people who hate you simply because you're American and don't live under or accept Sharia law.

You think those journalists who had their heads cut off thought they were peace loving people struggling for their way of life or homeland? Doubt it.

Disclaimer - typed on a phone, ignore goofy autocorrect or weird misspellings.

---

Last edited by jtkratzer; 10-08-2012 at 05:14 AM.

[kswier]

It's not hate. They murdered thousands of innocent people on 9/11 and have killed thousands of service men and women in terror attacks like Libya, USS Cole, etc - not during war, not acts of war, terrorist attacks.

Excuse me for being a living, breathing American proud of my country and willing to stand up for what's right and say what needs to e said. I'm a US Marine and this country shouldn't back down from a war waged against our people by terrorists.

That's not hate. I don't hate anyone. You're just a typical sheep that needs someone to watch over you because you're unwilling or unable to concern yourself with anything more than the "grass" at your feet that looks so delicious. Or you're just ignorant to how the world and evil people actually work.

I think the question is a bit bigger than whether or not we should back down from terrorists. The question is what the root cause of terrorism in the middle east is. I do not believe that the middle east just woke up one day and decided to hate America, and I do not believe that believe it is a war of religion (though religion has been hijacked as a means of recruitment). I think a lot of the hate is caused by Americas involvement in the region. This hate fuels terrorists attacks, and then we feel like we need to be more involved in the region (because we can't back down from terrorists), which fuels more terrorists attacks (and the cycle goes on).

Also, it is not necessarily a choice between going to war or backing down from terrorists. There are other options as well. I have often wondered what would have happened if we had invested the billions of dollars that we have been spent on the war on building an intelligence network and conducting special forces operations that were specifically targeted at al-Qaeda. I have a feeling that the we would be just as safe , if not safer, and that the middle east would not hate us as much.

[Na Horuk]

lol bowing to a prince is a problem? When you meet a woman on a date, do you just punch her in the gut and tell her what you want? Or do you dress nicely, have a conversation, are mindful of the fact that she might not see things like you do, etc.? Its completely normal to be nice to people if you want to have any sort of working relationship with them, business or otherwise. Bowing doesn't cost anything and gets things done. Just the fact that being mindful of other cultures is considered a weakness is mind boggling.
And keep in mind, those terrorists were fragment groups, not "the state". The actual US soldiers do far more heinous things and you always just say "bad apples, it doesn't represent the military nor the country". Well what, and those terrorists represent every single person in that region? The middle east has more nations, languages, religions and a longer history than the USA.
Read the book Orientalism, it explains why your views are so wrong and warped. Its not your fault, really, but you can still fight it and come to a better understanding.
The world doesn't hate America, its just that you have a massive army that you keep using to bully and drain weaker nations, and use your political power to get away with it. And one more thing, those terrorists on 9/11? Weren't most of them educated in the west? And weren't they all extreme right wing, anti multiculturalism?

[stevewig]

Liberals like you are just like a Magic 8 ball...you give them a shake or challenge their views and you regurgitate a random, but predictable response. It's always something about hate, sexism, or racism. You don't address points made in response to your post. You just want to throw out something incendiary and run away.

If I say I don't condone homosexuality, I'm a hate filled homophobe. If I don't want to pay for birth control other than my wife or daughter, I'm hate filled, sexism, and/or waging a war on women, if I disagree with Obama on anything, I'm a hate filled racist.

It's never about ideas and discussion, it's guerrilla warfare with you and you can't debate facts because they're not in your favor. Look at te debate the other night - it's so obvious Obama has been coddled and protected by the media, he didn't know how to handle the tough questions or anyone *gasp* actually challenging his ideas.

You can ignore reality and sleep on a park bench somewhere at an Occupy camp, and throw out your accusations of hate or whatever the theme of the day is, but the rest of the world world continues on whether you accept that there are people who hate you simply because you're American and don't live under or accept Sharia law.

You think those journalists who had their heads cut off thought they were peace loving people struggling for their way of life or homeland? Doubt it.
........

Read your own text man (not only the example quoted here) - you yourself come over as hate filled and full of contempt for anyone with different view to yourself, such as all Liberals, homosexuals and feminists!

Did you ever consider the fact that maybe you are an extremist yourself, and if not why not?

---

Last edited by stevewig; 10-08-2012 at 06:33 AM.

[jeffkrol]

It's not hate. They murdered thousands of innocent people on 9/11 and have killed thousands of service men and women in terror attacks like Libya, USS Cole, etc - not during war, not acts of war, terrorist attacks.

FEW if any countries, states, nor religions have "clean hands" in murder.. JUST a fact.............

Excuse me for being a living, breathing American proud of my country and willing to stand up for what's right and say what needs to e said. I'm a US Marine and this country shouldn't back down from a war waged against our people by terrorists.

YOU are deciding what is "backing down" and what isn't... Shouldn't that be left to your "commander and chief"???

That's not hate. I don't hate anyone. You're just a typical sheep that needs someone to watch over you because you're unwilling or unable to concern yourself with anything more than the "grass" at your feet that looks so delicious. Or you're just ignorant to how the world and evil people actually work.

I am quite aware as to how "evil people" work ..and also it is defined differently throughout the world with unfortunately with the same end......... death.....or the inability to see the other side as human.. main goal of war training.. Create a group that is sub-human.. much easier to kill the lot..............

[jtkratzer]

I think the question is a bit bigger than whether or not we should back down from terrorists. The question is what the root cause of terrorism in the middle east is. I do not believe that the middle east just woke up one day and decided to hate America, and I do not believe that believe it is a war of religion (though religion has been hijacked as a means of recruitment). I think a lot of the hate is caused by Americas involvement in the region. This hate fuels terrorists attacks, and then we feel like we need to be more involved in the region (because we can't back down from terrorists), which fuels more terrorists attacks (and the cycle goes on).

Also, it is not necessarily a choice between going to war or backing down from terrorists. There are other options as well. I have often wondered what would have happened if we had invested the billions of dollars that we have been spent on the war on building an intelligence network and conducting special forces operations that were specifically targeted at al-Qaeda. I have a feeling that the we would be just as safe , if not safer, and that the middle east would not hate us as much.

There are limited resources of the "special forces" or operatives in the intelligence agency to conduct that number and duration of operations. The ration of time for deployments to non-deployed in Iraq was rarely 1:2 using practically the entire US armed forces, to include the reserves. How can you expect a tiny fraction of that to carry out military operations of that scale?

Ever heard of Operation Red Wing or the book "Lone Survivor" written by the only Navy SEAL to survive the operation? I don't think you're tactics are plausible. Had we funded/equipped the Russians rather than the Mujahideen during the Afghan War, perhaps we wouldn't have ever had to deal with Afghanistan again.

When has the world ever seen successful negotiations with religious-based terrorism? It just doesn't happen.

The acts of terrorism have been seen across Europe and SE Asia as well. This isn't strictly limited to or directed at the US.

lol bowing to a prince is a problem? When you meet a woman on a date, do you just punch her in the gut and tell her what you want? Or do you dress nicely, have a conversation, are mindful of the fact that she might not see things like you do, etc.? Its completely normal to be nice to people if you want to have any sort of working relationship with them, business or otherwise. Bowing doesn't cost anything and gets things done. Just the fact that being mindful of other cultures is considered a weakness is mind boggling.
And keep in mind, those terrorists were fragment groups, not "the state". The actual US soldiers do far more heinous things and you always just say "bad apples, it doesn't represent the military nor the country". Well what, and those terrorists represent every single person in that region? The middle east has more nations, languages, religions and a longer history than the USA.
Read the book Orientalism, it explains why your views are so wrong and warped. Its not your fault, really, but you can still fight it and come to a better understanding.
The world doesn't hate America, its just that you have a massive army that you keep using to bully and drain weaker nations, and use your political power to get away with it. And one more thing, those terrorists on 9/11? Weren't most of them educated in the west? And weren't they all extreme right wing, anti multiculturalism?

There's a difference between trying to have sex with someone you take out on a date and foreign policy. Politics is about power and the US is more powerful than most of the countries Obama visited on his world apology tour.

There's absolutely possibility for people to disagree, or agree to disagree. But that's between rational people and who aren't intent on killing one or both sides.

No kidding on the terrorists represent portions or people, not entire countries, but when countries house, harbor, and support terrorism and those groups responsible for terror, they become complicit in it. If my brother murders someone, he's the murderer, but if I allow him to hid out at my place, I'm going to be on the hook for violating the law. It's common sense. We're not there to fight an all out air/land war with the entire population of Afghanistan. We're spending billions there to improve their infrastructure and economy. Do you have any idea how many schools, roads, bridges, and hospitals have been built there? We're trying to give people a chance to experience freedom and education and escape religious-based tyranny.

Read your own text man (not only the example quoted here) - you yourself come over as hate filled and full of contempt for anyone with different view to yourself, such as all Liberals, homosexuals and feminists!

Did you ever consider the fact that maybe you are an extremist yourself, and if not why not?

There is a huge difference between having conviction and purpose and sounding hate filled. Most people are so apathetic or ignorant about the world around them, someone who makes statements like I do might be misunderstood, but I do not hold hate in my heart.

I don't have a problem with homosexuals...one of my best friends, he's like a brother to me, and was a groomsman in my wedding is gay. He and his boyfriend spent a week here visiting recently and they're great people and had a blast with my kids.

Sandra Fluke is an idiot, but I don't have a problem with women wanting equality across the board. I have a problem with women thinking anyone other than themselves should pay for their birth control and I don't agree with a lot of abortion.

Again, not hate, disagreement. Liberals like to put words in people's mouths and accuse them of hate, racism, or sexism solely based on disagreeing with someone's point of view. I got called a racist because I disagree with Obama's policies. It has nothing to do with his skin color, but that's liberals in the US.

FEW if any countries, states, nor religions have "clean hands" in murder.. JUST a fact.............



YOU are deciding what is "backing down" and what isn't... Shouldn't that be left to your "commander and chief"???


I am quite aware as to how "evil people" work ..and also it is defined differently throughout the world with unfortunately with the same end......... death.....or the inability to see the other side as human.. main goal of war training.. Create a group that is sub-human.. much easier to kill the lot..............

When the commander in chief actually makes a decision rather than riding on the military policies of his predecessor he so often likes to berate, blame, and insult.

Have you completed "war training," as you call it? Maybe that's something you read in a book or something you learned about a foreign military or something from the past, but it's certainly not the case now. I can tell you the capabilities and tactics of our current enemies are very much respected. Why do you think the Marines got absolutely slammed for a video of them urinating on dead bodies? Why do you think the entire Marine Corps, every single Marine, received a Commandant-directed ethics training over the last couple months?

Just another thing liberals tend to do - act and talk like they know what they're talking about by repeating things they see or hear on TV.





Can we get back on track about the hypocrisy of donations...

[joe.penn]

@jtkratzer - thank's for your service to our great nation [that will hopefully soon or in the near future be as great as we once were]. Me and my family has incredible respect for any person in uniform that is willing to sacrifice their lives for the well being of others.

If you haven't figured out by now there is a small (really very small) handful of liberals here on the boards that do nothing but entertain themselves by bashing others when their political views are different, in short, the current crook in office can do no wrong. Anyways, hats of to him also, he be giving free phones out using my hard earned tax money.

You Tube

You Tube

[kswier]

The ration of time for deployments to non-deployed in Iraq was rarely 1:2 using practically the entire US armed forces, to include the reserves. How can you expect a tiny fraction of that to carry out military operations of that scale?

I don't expect them to carry out an operation on that scale. I was thinking a much smaller scale targeted at specific al-Qaeda leaders rather than regime change. I think this combined with increased intelligence gathering could have kept the Americans at home safe from new terrorist attacks. And I think it would have reduced al-Qaeda's ability to recruit new members (basically I am advocating the Ron Paul foreign policy approach...thought probably not quite to the same extent).

Though I admit I am not an expert at foreign or military affairs, so perhaps my tactics are not plausible. I just feel like if we had spent one trillion+ dollars on intelligence and intercepting threats (within America) it would have been possible to achieve a similar level of safety within America, and the middle east might be a bit less angry at us. I understand the concept of projecting power overseas, but am unsure if it was the correct strategy in this case.

Anyhow, just my thoughts. It is interesting hearing yours as well (particularly since you have a greater military background than myself ).

Can we get back on track about the hypocrisy of donations

Yes! I don't like them...I think they are ruining the country. Politicians (republicans and democrats) create policies that serve their large donors. I think America would be better of if the voices of special interests were smaller, and the voices of common Americans were larger. I don't think any of the political adds on TV do us any service; I think they are often manipulative and inaccurate. I think campaigns would be better if politicians had much smaller campaign budgets that were funded by grassroots voters ($500 or less). Then the candidates could spread word about their ideas through news organizations instead of expensive campaign adds that say nothing (and that are designed as part of a carefully calculated marketing campaign).

[jeffkrol]

Letterman then initiated a celebratory high five with O'Reilly after the latter said that the war in Iraq "should not have happened in hindsight." Letterman and O'Reilly agreed that it turned out Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction which prompted Letterman to leap out of his chair with his hand raised high in the air.

"Up high! Come on, up high....come on, Billy! Come on! Come on!" Letterman taunted O'Reilly, who remained in his chair shaking his head.

After more pleading, Letterman warned, "I'll give you one more chance, Bill."

"I'm not high-fiving you on a war!" O'Reilly said.

Bill O'Reilly, David Letterman High Five Over Iraq War (VIDEO)

[snostorm]

OK, back to the OP. . .

Let's see where this can go. . .

This "outsourcing money" scandal attempt doesn't look like a winner for the Romney camp. To pursue this, they'd be stipulating that Bain Capital was/is a major outsourcer of American jobs, and because Romney has denied this repeatedly, they would also be stipulating that he misrepresented what they had done. Without these admissions, there is no "outsourcing money", and no conflict./hypocrisy. The donor execs could, of course fess up and document their outsourcing activities with Bain, then maybe the worst happens for the Ds -- a short written statement on a Friday afternoon stating how they will donate the ill-gotten gains to charity, but had no idea what exactly the Bain execs did within the company,and there was no way they could know. . .and it's unlikely that it would even come to that --

"Outsourcing money" is meaningless since money is fungible -- and Bain execs likely have much more than they made "on the job" at Bain. Even if the Bain execs say that they were in charge of departments that solely worked with outsourcing, a case could be made easily that this was just an inept "dirty tricks" scam on the part of Bain and the Rs -- badly conceived and played. If the Bain execs turn out to be enthusiastic Obama and Dem supporters, that's bad for Romney too since even Romney's employees and wealthy colleagues won't support him. So much for Mitt the Good Guy. . .

At the very unlikely worst, the Ds lose maybe $100K (less than peanuts in a $1B campaign) and are mildly annoyed, if even that. The Rs now have to defend Bain and Romney for another week right before the election trying to salvage whatever image of Romney as the caring human being and job creator they might have created during the convention. Since the source was a Right Wing claim, the charges that Bain and Romney were involved in sending American jobs overseas would be harder to shake. . .Lose/lose for the Rs and less than a mosquito bite for the Ds at worst.

The guys who came up with this are clueless at best. . .with friends like that, who needs enemies?

[jtkratzer]

@jtkratzer - thank's for your service to our great nation [that will hopefully soon or in the near future be as great as we once were]. Me and my family has incredible respect for any person in uniform that is willing to sacrifice their lives for the well being of others.

If you haven't figured out by now there is a small (really very small) handful of liberals here on the boards that do nothing but entertain themselves by bashing others when their political views are different, in short, the current crook in office can do no wrong. Anyways, hats of to him also, he be giving free phones out using my hard earned tax money.



Original Obamaphone Lady: Obama Voter Says Vote for Obama because he gives a free Phone - YouTube

I'm surprised I haven't been called a baby killer yet.

The liberal crowd seems loud here because it seems there aren't many who challenge their ideological, utopian ideas.

I don't expect them to carry out an operation on that scale. I was thinking a much smaller scale targeted at specific al-Qaeda leaders rather than regime change. I think this combined with increased intelligence gathering could have kept the Americans at home safe from new terrorist attacks. And I think it would have reduced al-Qaeda's ability to recruit new members (basically I am advocating the Ron Paul foreign policy approach...thought probably not quite to the same extent).

Though I admit I am not an expert at foreign or military affairs, so perhaps my tactics are not plausible. I just feel like if we had spent one trillion+ dollars on intelligence and intercepting threats (within America) it would have been possible to achieve a similar level of safety within America, and the middle east might be a bit less angry at us. I understand the concept of projecting power overseas, but am unsure if it was the correct strategy in this case.

Anyhow, just my thoughts. It is interesting hearing yours as well (particularly since you have a greater military background than myself ).



Yes! I don't like them...I think they are ruining the country. Politicians (republicans and democrats) create policies that serve their large donors. I think America would be better of if the voices of special interests were smaller, and the voices of common Americans were larger. I don't think any of the political adds on TV do us any service; I think they are often manipulative and inaccurate. I think campaigns would be better if politicians had much smaller campaign budgets that were funded by grassroots voters ($500 or less). Then the candidates could spread word about their ideas through news organizations instead of expensive campaign adds that say nothing (and that are designed as part of a carefully calculated marketing campaign).

We have been targeting the leadership with the drones and intelligence operatives/special forces. When one is knocked off, another pops up and replaces him. It's like the whack a mole game. The quality of leadership is diminishing based on those results though, but the majority of the ground forces are working on the "hearts and minds" of the populace, infrastructure, economy, and providing and teaching the Afghans to provide their own security.

Ending government corruption and a force stable enough, strong enough, and with sufficient competency will be the foundation of success in Afghanistan.

Stopping stuff like this is one reason why we're there:
BBC News - Malala Yousafzai: Pakistan activist, 14, shot in Swat

The US is damned no matter what. If we ignore atrocities of civil war in Africa, we're bad people and ignoring their plight. If we intervene, we're baby killers.

OK, back to the OP. . .

Let's see where this can go. . .

This "outsourcing money" scandal attempt doesn't look like a winner for the Romney camp. To pursue this, they'd be stipulating that Bain Capital was/is a major outsourcer of American jobs, and because Romney has denied this repeatedly, they would also be stipulating that he misrepresented what they had done. Without these admissions, there is no "outsourcing money", and no conflict./hypocrisy. The donor execs could, of course fess up and document their outsourcing activities with Bain, then maybe the worst happens for the Ds -- a short written statement on a Friday afternoon stating how they will donate the ill-gotten gains to charity, but had no idea what exactly the Bain execs did within the company,and there was no way they could know. . .and it's unlikely that it would even come to that --

"Outsourcing money" is meaningless since money is fungible -- and Bain execs likely have much more than they made "on the job" at Bain. Even if the Bain execs say that they were in charge of departments that solely worked with outsourcing, a case could be made easily that this was just an inept "dirty tricks" scam on the part of Bain and the Rs -- badly conceived and played. If the Bain execs turn out to be enthusiastic Obama and Dem supporters, that's bad for Romney too since even Romney's employees and wealthy colleagues won't support him. So much for Mitt the Good Guy. . .

At the very unlikely worst, the Ds lose maybe $100K (less than peanuts in a $1B campaign) and are mildly annoyed, if even that. The Rs now have to defend Bain and Romney for another week right before the election trying to salvage whatever image of Romney as the caring human being and job creator they might have created during the convention. Since the source was a Right Wing claim, the charges that Bain and Romney were involved in sending American jobs overseas would be harder to shake. . .Lose/lose for the Rs and less than a mosquito bite for the Ds at worst.

The guys who came up with this are clueless at best. . .with friends like that, who needs enemies?

Bain did outsource jobs, no different than GE and the auto industry because the choice was to close the business and lose all American jobs or outsource some to save a portion of the company and work to fix their issues and bring the jobs back.

It's still the principle of accepting donations from someone who vehemently disagree with. Would you say the same thing about Obama accepting donations from a neo-nazi or KKK organization?

I'm not seeing anything in the media about this? Shocking, really, that the media doesn't cover this (sarcasm), just like altitude sickness was the reason Obama belly flopped on the debate. Of the fact that they're saying nothing now about the debate that Romney is a liar.

Obama is a hypocrite no matter how you look at it. He said he was going to change Washington, bring the country together, and get the political process to the point where we can disagree without rhetoric, name calling, and insults. He said that shortly after being inaugurated. Look at him now. Obama said he was going to work with both parties and end the partisan politics - we've probably been more divided over the last 4 years since the Civil War.

[joe.penn]

The liberal crowd seems loud here because it seems there aren't many who challenge their ideological, utopian ideas.

No, it's not that and it's definitely not a crowd, maybe more like a posse of around 5 or so that seek attention, and there's not many who challenge because most are busy working and making a living and don't have time to read into their constant toxic spew.