The Glade 4.0

The impression that I got from the debate, watching it with some beers and a friend of mine, was that Romney wasn't really answering very many of the actual questions. That was my biggest takeaway.

Let me warn you and let me warn the Nation against the smooth evasion which says, "Of course we believe all these things; we believe in social security; we believe in work for the unemployed; we believe in saving homes. Cross our hearts and hope to die, we believe in all these things; but we do not like the way the present Administration is doing them. Just turn them over to us. We will do all of them- we will do more of them we will do them better; and, most important of all, the doing of them will not cost anybody anything."

He's addressing the same issue two different ways...."Emphasis matters" certainly allows him to present the same plan in the light most favorable for a given audience, but it's hardly manipulative or misleading. "Emphasis" does not a policy shift make.

I will act swiftly to tear down the vast edifice of military spending the current Administration has imposed on our country. I will also seek to make structural changes to the military bureaucracy that ensure peaceful relations remain front and center when military decisions are made. As President, I will work to repeal laws like the 2008 NDDA [or whatever] that have given bureaucrats unprecedented discretion to craft unpredictable, peace-destroying policies.

I will also initiate the immediate review of all military policies of the current Administration with the goal of eliminating any that unduly burden our peaceful relations. And I will impose a budgetary cap on all defense programs at zero dollars, meaning that a every defense program must go through a process to identify offsetting cost reductions from the existing military budget. Other initiatives in my administration will include a new, diplomacy-conscious approach to military policy; an increased role for Congress in the approval of new military policies; and reforms to the military procurement system.

The military is essential. You can't maintain peace if you don't have a military. As a peace-loving country, we need the military there. You can't have potential enemies able to take aggressive actions unchecked. I mean, you have to have the military so you can maintain peace. Every peaceful country has a good military.

At the same time, the military can become too big. Military policy can become outdated. And what's happend with some of the legislation that's been passed during the president's term, you've seen the military become too big and it's damaged our peaceful relations. Let me give you an example. The 2008 NDDA was passed, and it includes within it a number of provisions that I think have some unintended consequences that are harmful to our peaceful relations. I would repeal and replace it. We're not going to get rid of the whole military. You have to have a military. And there's some parts of the 2008 NDDA that make all the sense in the world.

Okay, Democrats want a Clinton in the White House. Republicans don't want it to be Bill. I have a compromise that makes everyone happy:



They still call it the White House, but that's a temporary condition. Can you dig it, CC?

Riiiight. So if Obama, when he was a candidate in 2008, had regularly said stuff like this in his campaign rallies:


And then turned around and said this in a debate:


You wouldn't think he was being just a wee bit disingenuous about his views and plans vis-a-vis the military?

Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions.

You know, when the massacre happened at Virginia Tech, I think all of us were grief stricken and shocked by the carnage. But in this year alone, in Chicago, we've had 34 Chicago public school students gunned down and killed. And for the most part, there has been silence. We know what to do. We've got to enforce the gun laws that are on the books. We've got to make sure that unscrupulous gun dealers aren't loading up vans and dumping guns in our communities, because we know they're not made in our communities. There aren't any gun manufacturers here, right here in the middle of Detroit. But what we also have to do is to make sure that we change our politics so that we care just as much about those 30-some children in Chicago who've been shot as we do the children in Virginia Tech. That's a mindset that we have to have in the White House and we don't have it right now.

http://www.eclectablog.com/2012/10/president-obamas-take-on-last-nights-debate-youre-going-to-love-this.html

You lost me at "I read an fascinating piece at Daily Kos"

Come on, man. That was the biggest, most biased POS I think anyone has posted on this site.

Riiiight. So if Obama, when he was a candidate in 2008, had regularly said stuff like this in his campaign rallies:

<Snip>

You wouldn't think he was being just a wee bit disingenuous about his views and plans vis-a-vis the military?

It's sad that you didn't even realize that my link was about Obama's thoughts on the debate last night and not about the idiot's commentary before the transcript. They have nothing to do with one another. You disregarding the Presiden't commentary because it was preceeded by someone's thoughts, regardless of where they were from, is one of the most biased POS things I've seen posted on this site.

Wow. I mean...****, I don't really know how to address that other than to say that I think you're giving politicians waaaaaay to much room to be misleading and manipulative by saying different things to different audiences.

I figured the title of, "President Obama's Take on Last Night's Debate" would have done it. Certainly Arathain didn't think that the article commentator was Obama?

Well, it does... So, uh... Yeah.

No, see that's the problem. He's saying the SAME thing, two different ways to two different audiences.

Yes, it can leave two different impressions as to the importance of it, but it's not a change in policy to say the same policy two different ways.

RD: This glass is half empty. This presents a challenge. We have 20 miles of desert to cross, and this will only get us half way. You will all need to sacrifice a portion of your water to fill the cup so our team can cross the desert.
RD: This glass is half full! We have 20 miles of desert to cross, and we already have enough water to get us halfway there. We just need a little contribution from each of you, and we'll complete this task in no time!

Both say the same thing. It's not a change in policy. It's not a shift, or abandonment of a position in any way, such as the dems are accusing Romney of.

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

A link, not even dressed, without comment does not tell me you care about only one specific thing at that link.

It's not that I only cared about one specific thing. I cared about the majority of the link, which got disregarded due to one comparatively minor specific thing (some idiot's opinion). I linked it because it was the first page that I found with Obama's post-debate thoughts, which I hoped to be obvious by the title of the page.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/04/gore-blames-denver-altitude-for-obama-debate-performance/

Acording to Gore the altitude effected Obama's attitude.

In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin