|
|
On November 01 2012 09:55 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 08:55 kwizach wrote:On November 01 2012 08:51 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 08:42 kwizach wrote:The information there seems to come from interviews with "American, European and Israeli officials involved in the program, as well as a range of outside experts". What's unusual about this? Bob Woodward wrote a similar book about the Afghan surge under Obama. edit: the second article is apparently about the leaks that happened later, and it makes clear Obama and his administration are very serious about holding the person responsible for the leaks accountable. I don't really see what here is supposed to indicate the leaks are not taken seriously. if you're looking for a justification, you're not getting one. there are hundreds of articles that a simple google search will unearth on this topic. seriously, just stop now. even if you convince me i was wrong (which you really can't, as it's just a factor in my opinion), i've said multiple times that it's not even what convinced me to vote for Romney. there is no point to debating it with me. I'm not denying the leaks happened - I read about them myself when they did. I thought you had evidence of them happening for political gains, which I thought was the reason you were very disappointed with the Obama administration on the matter. Apparently, it wasn't the case, and the administration took the leaks seriously. I therefore have my answer. Someone within the administration leaked them, and the only purpose for the leak was political gain. This is basically known.
It's not known. How is it known? Is every leak ever for political gain? If not, why should this one necessarily be for political gain? The leak pretty much opened one of the only lines of attack at that point for Republicans on national security - it was politically risky more than anything.
|
I just find it appalling that we spend trillions, largely via military, in "rebuilding" Iraq and Afghanistan, but Romney was ready to debate the federal responsibility of rebuilding an American city wrecked by a natural disaster. Again, when asked directly about it, in the debates, Romney said,"Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that’s even better. Instead of thinking in the federal budget, what we should cut—we should ask ourselves the opposite question. What should we keep?"
What should we keep? How about keeping our cities intact and our people safe, in a national effort? How is that wrong? His answer to this "budgetary problem of FEMA" seems to me to go directly against the very nature of the office he is running for. Protect us, fool.
But to be fair, that answer Romney gave is weeks old. Having seen yet another devastating hurricane, this time bringing state-wide destruction across the eastern coast, Romney has "clarified" his position by completely contradicting his not-yet-month-old previous statement:When a reporter from the National Journal asked the Romney campaign about the candidate’s stance on disaster relief, a press spokeswoman e-mailed back: “Gov. Romney believes that states should be in charge of emergency management in responding to storms and other natural disasters in their jurisdictions. As the first responders, states are in the best position to aid affected individuals and communities, and to direct resources and assistance to where they are needed most. This includes help from the federal government and FEMA.” So Romney is in favor of keeping FEMA, after all—or is he? http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2012/10/romney-has-a-christie-problem-and-a-fema-problem.html#ixzz2AvdQExpa
Surely, this change, however coincidentally it may be politically-opportune, is heartfelt. This is a very inspiring Presidential candidate.
|
|
|
One of my best friends and college roommate lives in a Columbus neighborhood full of Somalis. It is a rather startling sight at first, but their presence has been known for some time, and while their English can be difficult to understand, they do mostly seem to speak it.
|
“I think the auto issue ... that has solidified things for Obama,” said EPIC-MRA pollster Bernie Porn, referring to the 2009 investment and structured bankruptcy of General Motors and Chrysler which was led by the administration and is widely credited with helping both automakers return to profitability. In recent days, Romney — who said in 2008 he would have limited government help for the companies — has suggested in radio and TV spots in Ohio that the rescue did more for jobs in China than the U.S., despite the creation of thousands of jobs in Michigan and across the country...
Half of those polled said the rescue of GM and Chrysler was a deciding factor in their support – and of those, nearly two-thirds backed Obama. Among the slightly less than half that said it wasn’t a deciding factor, Romney had the edge, but by less -- 56% to 33%. Meanwhile, the number of Michigan voters giving Obama favorable marks rose 4 percentage points to 55% from the early October survey; Romney’s remained constant at 45%.
Source
|
Karl Rove is predicting that Romney will win 51-48 with 279 electoral votes or so. His interpretation of the polling numbers is interesting and basically in line with my thoughts.
Source.
|
From Drudge:
"SEX SCANDAL TO HIT CAMPAIGN...
STORY SAID TO INVOLVE POWERFUL SENATOR, SOURCES TELL DRUDGE. DAILY CALLER PLANS LATE NIGHT RELEASE..."
Always something to add at the last second.
So, who do we think it will be? And will a sex scandal with a random senator affect the presidential campaign?
|
Yeah, I am guessing it will be a democrat given that the Daily Caller is breaking it. Maybe Bill Nelson? Maybe the democrat in Montana?
|
How would a Senate sex scandal affect the presidential race?
|
On November 01 2012 11:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
How would a Senate sex scandal affect the presidential race?
Only Drudge can say!
|
|
|
Harry Reid and Michele Bachmann caught together, would be the story of the year.
|
It has to be a young male for it to be a scandal.
Hell...John Edwards was banging Rielle Hunter while his wife had cancer, and that was known by everybody... and it wasn't news until he got caught visiting the baby.
|
On November 01 2012 11:45 RCMDVA wrote:
It has to be a young male for it to be a scandal.
Hell...Edwards was banging Rielle Hunter while his wife had cancer was known by everybody and it wasn't news until he got caught visiting the baby.
Why would it have to be a young male? We as a society hold women to much higher standards when it comes to sex scandals. Would be a much bigger blow to any lady's campaign than any mans imo.
|
he means fucking a young man
|
On November 01 2012 11:48 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 11:45 RCMDVA wrote:
It has to be a young male for it to be a scandal.
Hell...Edwards was banging Rielle Hunter while his wife had cancer was known by everybody and it wasn't news until he got caught visiting the baby. Why would it have to be a young male? We as a society hold women to much higher standards when it comes to sex scandals. Would be a much bigger blow to any lady's campaign than any mans imo.
Because Kirsten Gillabrand and Kelly Ayotte are the only two cute female Senators under 50.
|
On November 01 2012 11:51 sam!zdat wrote:
he means fucking a young man
thanks for the clarification.
|
On November 01 2012 11:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
How would a Senate sex scandal affect the presidential race?
I don't see how it possibly can unless it's the Senate race in Ohio.
|
On November 01 2012 11:26 xDaunt wrote:Karl Rove is predicting that Romney will win 51-48 with 279 electoral votes or so. His interpretation of the polling numbers is interesting and basically in line with my thoughts. Source.
You can find pundits predicting EVERYTHING, but people should take what Rove says seriously. He's a man who values his reputation as an expert and he wouldn't be throwing this opinion out there if he didn't honestly believe it. When he says he thinks Romney will win, he honestly believes it.
Now, he of course could still be totally wrong, but he's not just blowing somke.
|
On November 01 2012 11:26 xDaunt wrote:Karl Rove is predicting that Romney will win 51-48 with 279 electoral votes or so. His interpretation of the polling numbers is interesting and basically in line with my thoughts. Source.
This actually me me laugh out loud. A few weeks ago he downplayed the national polling numbers as highly misleading and now they're so accurate he can predict a 51-48 percent win? I think Romnesia is becoming an epidemic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
