Online Now 1652

Off-Topic

On this Board 696
Record: 1825 (5/20/2013)

Online now 1586
Record: 11761 (2/27/2012)

Boards ▾

Inside Scoop

The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports

Terps Sports

Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports

General Sports Water Cooler

A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics

Off-Topic

Test/Feedback Forum

Feedback for IMS and 247Sports

The Ticket Exchange

Reply

Obama vs. Romney 2012: Debates - Foreign Policy Monday Night

  • sohlman6 said...

    Meanwhile he will continue the exact same policies of Obama, just shifting his priorities more towards Bush.

    What the hell does this even mean?

    It's hilarious when people keep trotting out the line that Politician X is going to be the same as Politician Y. No, Romney is going to be Romney. He has no intention of mimicking another President. Although some issues are still relevant as in years past, he'll address them as he sees fit. So will Obama.

    frode

  • Kaisersayzo said...

    Frode:

    Honest question. If Obama just a week ago had one position and then completely changed that position....would you be praising him?

    I can't tell you if I'd praise someone if I don't know what the issue is or what his position before or after is. Also depends on whether said position actually solves a problem or plays politics.

    frode

  • rthhokie92 said...

    You realize thats not a controvesial plan. Do you know what it costs to run an aircraft carrier with 4000 sailors on it? (As compared to what it will cost to run the the new generation of carriers who will be run with about half the sailors?) The costs are staggering. This also sits aside that - you know - ships and planes age and have to be replaced.

    I would think building new warships shouldn't even be on the radar (heheh) on what to spend money on. We already have the largest Navy in the world. The US amphibious warfare fleet alone is bigger than most nations navies. We have Naval bases in all corners of the world. We need to cut spending to the military. They already get way, way too much money.

    This post was edited by redraven1 on 10/23/2012 at 11:05 AM

    redraven1

  • Forget about being two-faced...Romney has 4-5 faces he rotates depending on who he's talking to.

    carlterp

  • Kaisersayzo said...

    Frode:

    Honest question. If Obama just a week ago had one position and then completely changed that position....would you be praising him?

    Did people praise Obama for his gay marriage stance?

    redraven1

  • bkmalik said...

    The "less expensive" smaller ships we're already building cost nearly a billion a piece when they were supposed to cost nearly half that. Ignoring the fact that the maintenance programs have been substandard and overbudget as well.

    If Romney's thing is reducing deficit and government spending, building a bunch of new warships isn't going to do it.

    Building a bunch of new warships WILL satisfy the military industrial complex, though. Which means jobs for some.

    LeafeeWolf

  • frode said...

    What the hell does this even mean?

    It's hilarious when people keep trotting out the line that Politician X is going to be the same as Politician Y. No, Romney is going to be Romney. He has no intention of mimicking another President. Although some issues are still relevant as in years past, he'll address them as he sees fit. So will Obama.

    It means that all of it will stay the same. The "choosing winners and losers", the infrastructure investment, the education spending, the energy policy, Obamacare, tax policy, foreign policy; all of it will stay about the same as it is under Obama. And you're OK with that. You're already rationalizing huge, dramatic shifts in Romney's policies from the primary to the general elections, and once he's elected, you'll rationalize any other changes. This will mean that, on the most important policy issues, Romney will be about the same as Obama. Meanwhile, you just spent the last 4 years thinking those policies were bringing about the end of Western Civilization. And the worst part about all of this is, you can't even see the humor in all this.

    sohlman6

  • sohlman6 said...

    It means that all of it will stay the same. The "choosing winners and losers", the infrastructure investment, the education spending, the energy policy, Obamacare, tax policy, foreign policy; all of it will stay about the same as it is under Obama. And you're OK with that. You're already rationalizing huge, dramatic shifts in Romney's policies from the primary to the general elections, and once he's elected, you'll rationalize any other changes. This will mean that, on the most important policy issues, Romney will be about the same as Obama. Meanwhile, you just spent the last 4 years thinking those policies were bringing about the end of Western Civilization. And the worst part about all of this is, you can't even see the humor in all this.

    You seem to be awfully confident nothing will change. I think plenty of things are going to change.

    You're also being really ridiculous trying to put so many words in my mouth and assigning me my positions. It's just ignorant.

    frode

  • SATerp said...

    I doubt that many other schools' boards are as liberal as this one. Many here are products of the state of MD educational system and never had a chance to think for themselves.

    So rich coming from a senile dude in Texas. Has God been inserted into every page on your schoolbooks yet?

    hgoodman

  • Kaisersayzo said...

    Frode:

    Honest question. If Obama just a week ago had one position and then completely changed that position....would you be praising him?

    Didnt seem to bother you in 2008. He was the great Messiah then. He was also very vague and used lots of platitudes. We was all things to all people. "Reagan was great." He dodged and weaved and the media bought into his "soring rethoric" without anything. Heck, the dude admitted doing cocaine in his book. That was a huge issue for W...and there was never any direct evidence or admission. Media ignored it.

    The irony that Obama is flustered by getting some of the same medicine in return is good stuff. Forgive me if I chuckle at the media is letting him "get away with it" We arent even at 10% of the media complicity we had in 08.

    rthhokie92

  • LeafeeWolf said...

    Building a bunch of new warships WILL satisfy the military industrial complex, though. Which means jobs for some.

    The governments shouldnt be in the business of creating jobs.

    This post was edited by redraven1 on 10/23/2012 at 11:18 AM

    redraven1

  • frode said...

    You seem to be awfully confident nothing will change. I think plenty of things are going to change.

    You're also being really ridiculous trying to put so many words in my mouth and assigning me my positions. It's just ignorant.

    Really, what major policy change will happen?

    As an example, I'm going to use Obamacare. Obama's first term just showed why you don't mess with healthcare policy. It is messy, complicated and politically extremely painful. You really think that Romney's first act in office is going to be attempting to break a Senate filibuster for God knows how long? Meanwhile, pissed of liberals (including in the media) re-litigate Obamacare on their terms, making sure people realize all of the good things in it that will be gone in the event of a repeal. Sure, he could do it with reconciliation, but you know who wants that the least, fucking Boehner and McConnell. They know it will end up causing the same type of wave that they rode into power!

    So he'll try once, say Senate dems blocked it, you'll blame Harry Reid and everyone will be happy. But he doesn't really want to spend the political capital necessary for a full repeal, hell, it's his fucking idea. It's just such a joke.

    sohlman6

  • rthhokie92 said...

    You seem to forget that Obama has spent more in 3 years...than Bush did in his entire 8. We still have Trillion dollar deficits. What does Obama do? He doesnt focus on the economy, jobs or the deficits. He spends all his time and political capital on an entitlement that will had another trillion or two to the deficit the next decade. So, excuse me if I dont cede the moral high ground to Barry on his spending.

    First, recent deficits are as much the result of revenues collapsing due to a near Depression as they are due to spending. Second, Obamacare was fully paid for and actually raises over $100 billion on net over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan CBO. Third, in pursuit of job creation, the Obama Administration, in its first legislative action, got the Recovery Act passed, which created or saved several million jobs and boosted economic growth (according to the CBO, most Wall Street forecasters, and the vast majority of independent economists). Fourth, Obama and Democrats extended all of the Bush-era tax cuts in 2010 through 2012 as well as granting payroll tax cuts and enhanced business expensing on purchases of new plants and equipment -- in other words, all of the tax cuts (and more) that Republicans say they wanted. Fifth, the President sent up the American Job Act last September that contained a number of tax credits to employers who increase their payrolls which House Republicans have so far failed to act on, preferring instead to ceremonially repeal Obamacare or parts of it over thirty different times.

    Terpmenacestan

  • sohlman6 said...

    Really, what major policy change will happen?

    As an example, I'm going to use Obamacare. Obama's first term just showed why you don't mess with healthcare policy. It is messy, complicated and politically extremely painful. You really think that Romney's first act in office is going to be attempting to break a Senate filibuster for God knows how long? Meanwhile, pissed of liberals (including in the media) re-litigate Obamacare on their terms, making sure people realize all of the good things in it that will be gone in the event of a repeal. Sure, he could do it with reconciliation, but you know who wants that the least, fucking Boehner and McConnell. They know it will end up causing the same type of wave that they rode into power!

    So he'll try once, say Senate dems blocked it, you'll blame Harry Reid and everyone will be happy. But he doesn't really want to spend the political capital necessary for a full repeal, hell, it's his fucking idea. It's just such a joke.

    Any effort to repeal Obamacare will need to come from Congress. Romney can only sign bills.

    frode

  • sohlman6 said...

    Really, what major policy change will happen?

    As an example, I'm going to use Obamacare. Obama's first term just showed why you don't mess with healthcare policy. It is messy, complicated and politically extremely painful. You really think that Romney's first act in office is going to be attempting to break a Senate filibuster for God knows how long? Meanwhile, pissed of liberals (including in the media) re-litigate Obamacare on their terms, making sure people realize all of the good things in it that will be gone in the event of a repeal. Sure, he could do it with reconciliation, but you know who wants that the least, fucking Boehner and McConnell. They know it will end up causing the same type of wave that they rode into power!

    So he'll try once, say Senate dems blocked it, you'll blame Harry Reid and everyone will be happy. But he doesn't really want to spend the political capital necessary for a full repeal, hell, it's his fucking idea. It's just such a joke.

    If there is a President Romney, his actions (or lack of) on Obamacare will be very, very interesting.

    PaulUMD