Front Office Football Central
Page 350 of 527 « First < 250300340341342343344345346347348349 350 351352353354355356357358359360400450 > Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)
-   Off Topic (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012 (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=69042)

bronconick 07-15-2012 08:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch (Post 2688557)
You mean, like the "blank check alliances" from WWI where England and France mobilized against Germany because Germany mobilized against Russia because Russia mobilized against Serbia? And then millions of people were slaughtered for no reason? I haven't seen that sort of alliance from the USA and the UK or others.

And certainly you aren't suggesting we go back to the strategy of segregated isolation like when France and England obliterated the Germans economically in post WWI and abandoned those people to the hatred of the Nazi ideology? Causing a whole new war where 60 to 80 million people died?

I think we've come a long way in our alliance development, no? Relatively speaking, the alliances of the last 60 years have been EXTREMELY advantageous to our allies. I'd say the USA has learned a thing or two about how to work with others, not the other way around.

We have nothing even remotely close to a "blank check" that you speak of. Our effort in Iraq drew up only token support from anyone. How does that translate into a blank check?

But history has proven that the lesson isn't to choose between a "blank check alliance" and the 180 reversed segregated isolation. Both of those have led to disaster. The US has done an extraordinary job of balancing the liberties of all (including our former enemies) while leading the industrialized world through decades of relative calm. To me, the US efforts after WWII of reorganizing the worlds diplomacy has been nothing short of brilliant and the effects are still enjoyed to this day.

Outside of the (perhaps necessary) imperialistic diplomacy in the middle east which continually leaves us the options of hated dictators that when overthrown bring in anti-American leadership for the first periods of their democracies, I'd agree.

Most of those countries are so newly established post WWI/WWII that a more nuanced approach may not have worked anyway, but. *shrug*

Grover 07-15-2012 09:00 AM
I have to say I've enjoyed the discussion between Marc and Dutch and everyone else, because I'm learning quite a bit about things that were most certainly before my time.

Marc Vaughan 07-15-2012 09:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch (Post 2688557)
You mean, like the "blank check alliances" from WWI where England and France mobilized against Germany because Germany mobilized against Russia because Russia mobilized against Serbia? And then millions of people were slaughtered for no reason? I haven't seen that sort of alliance from the USA and the UK or others.
I think one of the reasons for that sort of 'blind' alliance (and the huge slaughter of troops) back then was down to a LOT of factors which are now obsolete:
  1. Acceptance of a much stricter class system (the upper class who controlled such wars really did view themselves as 'apart' from the lower class and thus losses were 'acceptable' in a way which simply isn't the case today).
  2. General acceptance of authority and risk of death in society (ie. people didn't live as long and often died because of dangers in a profession, health issues etc.).
  3. Less knowledge of the world / fear of unknown countries & societies
  4. Limited weaponry (ie. no massively devastating missiles)
  5. Limited communication
  6. Limited education for the masses (compared to today)

Back in WW1 the way the Germans were demonised in propoganda to the English lower classes with their fear of them making the sacrifice they made far more acceptable to them.

The lack of knowledge/education available to the English lower classes meant they were far more accepting of the propoganda - I recall one of the things we were taught in History was about the shock of the troopers when they first came across German corpses and realised from the crosses etc. on the bodies that they were also Christians.

Dutch 07-15-2012 10:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bronconick (Post 2688568)
Outside of the (perhaps necessary) imperialistic diplomacy in the middle east which continually leaves us the options of hated dictators that when overthrown bring in anti-American leadership for the first periods of their democracies, I'd agree.

Most of those countries are so newly established post WWI/WWII that a more nuanced approach may not have worked anyway, but. *shrug*

You're right, but I will say that the dramatic shift in the Middle East is similiar to the dramatic shifts that happened in post-colonial Africa. There is this myth that independence brings with it--industrialized nation status, which is simply not true. But you have to start with independence/liberty, democracy (or representative democracy) and then the people basically get to "choose your own adventure". Once the people realize that THEY voted those backwards Islamic brotherhoods in but THEY can vote them out, it's a whole new ballgame.

The idea of eliminating dictatorships isn't to install puppet governments (which would be a short-term gain at best) but to allow the people to do what they want. If they choose to hate America, so be it, gives our military reason to stay prepared and our alliances together.

Dutch 07-15-2012 10:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan (Post 2688574)
I think one of the reasons for that sort of 'blind' alliance (and the huge slaughter of troops) back then was down to a LOT of factors which are now obsolete:
  1. Acceptance of a much stricter class system (the upper class who controlled such wars really did view themselves as 'apart' from the lower class and thus losses were 'acceptable' in a way which simply isn't the case today).
  2. General acceptance of authority and risk of death in society (ie. people didn't live as long and often died because of dangers in a profession, health issues etc.).
  3. Less knowledge of the world / fear of unknown countries & societies
  4. Limited weaponry (ie. no massively devastating missiles)
  5. Limited communication
  6. Limited education for the masses (compared to today)
Back in WW1 the way the Germans were demonised in propoganda to the English lower classes with their fear of them making the sacrifice they made far more acceptable to them.

The lack of knowledge/education available to the English lower classes meant they were far more accepting of the propoganda - I recall one of the things we were taught in History was about the shock of the troopers when they first came across German corpses and realised from the crosses etc. on the bodies that they were also Christians.

I agree, lack of knowledge is a prime conditioner for propaganda. Of course, the Germans being "demonised" was probably a neccessary evil (white lies?) because prior to the communist threat, fascism was even more insane...so I don't mind the intent there.

Dutch 07-15-2012 10:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grover (Post 2688570)
I have to say I've enjoyed the discussion between Marc and Dutch and everyone else, because I'm learning quite a bit about things that were most certainly before my time.

I generally stay away from these sorts of discussions, but since Marc is such a well respected member of this board, I wanted to make sure he understood the inaccuracies and wrong-headedness of his pacifism. :)

Edward64 07-15-2012 07:07 PM
Low class. I can get this being done to Bill but to the victim is pretty sad.

Protests as Clinton holds meetings in Egypt - CNN.com
Quote:
Egyptian protesters threw tomatoes and shoes at U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's motorcade Sunday and shouted, "Monica, Monica, Monica" as she left the newly reopened U.S. Consulate in Alexandria.

Clinton said she was in the city to answer critics who believe Washington has taken sides in Egyptian politics. There were already vocal protesters at the start of her visit to the consulate, forcing the ceremony to be moved inside.
:
:
The protesters threw the tomatoes, shoes and a water bottle as the staff walked to their vans after the ceremony and riot police had to hold back the crowd. A tomato hit an Egyptian official in the face.

Clinton's van was around the corner from the protesters, and a senior State Department official said her car was not hit.

The chants of "Monica" refer to Monica Lewinsky, the White House intern who had an affair with Clinton's husband, former President Bill Clinton.

Earlier Sunday, Clinton held a closed-door meeting with the head of Egypt's military leadership, Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, whose military council is in a political tug of war with new President Mohamed Morsy.

RainMaker 07-15-2012 07:26 PM
That's pretty tame compared to how Egypt typically treats women.

sterlingice 07-15-2012 07:37 PM
Kindof surprised Karl Rove was orchestrating rallies over in the Middle East. Good of him to get out of the house every once in a while

Also, Egypt knows or cares who Bill Clinton was doing? That's two Presidents ago. I'm pretty sure Sarcozy was having an affair or two but I don't remember their names. I'm not even sure I knew their names. I didn't think people in other parts of the world knew or cared.

SI

sabotai 07-15-2012 08:34 PM
Quote:
Egyptian protesters threw tomatoes and shoes at U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's motorcade Sunday and shouted, "Monica, Monica, Monica" as she left the newly reopened U.S. Consulate in Alexandria.

I guess 1998 finally made it to Egypt?

Grover 07-15-2012 08:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sabotai (Post 2688771)
I guess 1998 finally made it to Egypt?

My God are they going to hate Limp Bizkit.

sterlingice 07-15-2012 08:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grover (Post 2688772)
My God are they going to hate Limp Bizkit.

Gotta ask: was that the first awful pop culture thing that came to mind or did you go through a few and settle on Limp Bizkit as the worst?

SI

Grover 07-15-2012 08:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sterlingice (Post 2688782)
Gotta ask: was that the first awful pop culture thing that came to mind or did you go through a few and settle on Limp Bizkit as the worst?

SI

It was the first.

Passacaglia 07-15-2012 10:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sterlingice (Post 2688754)
Kindof surprised Karl Rove was orchestrating rallies over in the Middle East. Good of him to get out of the house every once in a while

Also, Egypt knows or cares who Bill Clinton was doing? That's two Presidents ago. I'm pretty sure Sarcozy was having an affair or two but I don't remember their names. I'm not even sure I knew their names. I didn't think people in other parts of the world knew or cared.

SI

Are you sure you're American? If you were, you would know that everyone cares about us. :p

Julio Riddols 07-15-2012 10:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grover (Post 2688783)
It was the first.

As it should always be.

Edward64 07-16-2012 08:34 AM
Nothing new, same stuff that we have been debating on. Just another POV.

Five Obamacare Myths - NYTimes.com
Quote:
ON the subject of the Affordable Care Act — Obamacare, to reclaim the name critics have made into a slur — a number of fallacies seem to be congealing into accepted wisdom. Much of this is the result of unrelenting Republican propaganda and right-wing punditry, but it has gone largely unchallenged by gun-shy Democrats. The result is that voters are confronted with slogans and side issues — “It’s a tax!” “No, it’s a penalty!” — rather than a reality-based discussion. Let’s unpack a few of the most persistent myths.
:
:
THE UNFETTERED MARKETPLACE IS A BETTER SOLUTION. To the extent there is a profound difference of principle anywhere in this debate, it lies here. Conservatives contend that if you give consumers a voucher or a tax credit and set them loose in the marketplace they will do a better job than government at finding the services — schools, retirement portfolios, or in this case health insurance policies — that fit their needs.

I’m a pretty devout capitalist, and I see that in some cases individual responsibility helps contain wasteful spending on health care. If you have to share the cost of that extra M.R.I. or elective surgery, you’ll think hard about whether you really need it. But I’m deeply suspicious of the claim that a health care system dominated by powerful vested interests and mystifying in its complexity can be tamed by consumers who are strapped for time, often poor, sometimes uneducated, confused and afraid.

“Ten percent of the population accounts for 60 percent of the health outlays,” said Davis. “They are the very sick, and they are not really in a position to make cost-conscious choices.”

Edward64 07-16-2012 08:38 AM
Not sure if this was better here or in the official Zombie Apocalypse thread. Its great how its all things zombie now.

The myth of the 'Zombie Economy' - Jul. 16, 2012
Quote:
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Welcome to what's being called the "Zombie Economy."

The recovery seemed to be picking up in the winter, only to then taper off in the summer. Several major indicators are barely showing a pulse these days, leading many to compare the U.S. economy to the walking dead.

Edward64 07-16-2012 09:05 AM
Its likely Romney-Pawlenty per NY Times ...

Pawlenty Looked at as Romney Running Mate - NYTimes.com
Quote:
After a short-lived presidential bid of his own last year, Mr. Pawlenty is again being considered for the Republican ticket. His fate is in the hands of Mr. Romney, a rival-turned-friend, who is on the cusp of announcing his vice-presidential selection. Mr. Romney has reached a decision, his friends believe, and he may disclose it as soon as this week.

The country received only an abbreviated introduction to Mr. Pawlenty, 51, a former two-term governor of Minnesota, whose working-class roots, experience outside Washington and evangelical faith have formed the core of his appeal to a broad spectrum of Republicans.

While Mr. Romney has kept more distance from the rest of his primary challengers, he has embraced Mr. Pawlenty, seeking his advice about running against President Obama and sending him to Republican events on his behalf. They began forging a closer relationship last year on a visit to the Romney family’s lakeside home in New Hampshire, aides said, and during debates this year when Mr. Pawlenty often traveled with the Romney campaign after dropping out of the race himself.

He has emerged as one of the most energetic cheerleaders and forceful defenders of Mr. Romney, firing back against Republican skeptics and Democratic critics alike. All but forgotten are the days when Mr. Pawlenty coined the troublemaking term “Obamneycare,” suggesting that few differences existed between the health care plans of Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama.

The conservative National Review now describes Mr. Pawlenty as “Romney’s traveling salesman.” While other potential vice-presidential candidates like Senator Rob Portman of Ohio and Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana have day jobs that limit their availability, Mr. Pawlenty, who has no other full-time position, is the political equivalent of an empty nester, available to do whatever Mr. Romney asks.

albionmoonlight 07-16-2012 09:36 AM
On paper, Pawlenty is very qualified. He's a logical pick in a lot of ways. But he looks like this:



I think that you might get a Dan Quayle/John Kerry effect here. The fact that you are not a goober does not matter much to the American Public if you look like a goober. And Pawlenty looks like a goober. And he has a goober name. Not his fault. I have nothing against the guy. But what does he bring to the table?

Personally, I think that Romney should pick Governor Susana Martinez. Give us someone to be excited about.

Also, if Team Romney is going to drop the VP pick now, that means that they are running scared from the Bain information that's come out. I'm still doubtful that the Bain thing has legs, but I'm not on the inside, so maybe I am missing something.

bronconick 07-16-2012 10:06 AM
If Pawlenty hadn't finished behind Bachmann in a straw poll and dropped out, he probably should have been the Republican nominee in the first place.

Romney's running from Bain, he can't talk about being governor because of RomneyCare, which leaves him the 2002 Olympics? He's just a poor choice when you want to repeal health care and dealing with an economy still struggling back from being tanked by financiers.

JPhillips 07-16-2012 10:13 AM
VPs generally don't make any difference, so Pawlenty is as good as anybody.

Swaggs 07-16-2012 10:33 AM
He's probably as good of a safe pick as Romney can make. He won't upstage him, he is pretty well-vetted (essentially ran for president for 2-years and was a governor for 8-years), he is Midwestern(ish), no ties to the Bush administration and is pretty qualified to be one heartbeat away.

I understand if they don't pick Portman (tied to Bush), but I think he has been a much better surrogate as far as attacking Obama with teeth. Pawlenty is a little too flimsy (or, as albion put it: a goober) to be the attack dog. I think Pawlenty was pretty unpopular in Minnesota in the last poll that I saw, as well.

Watching the Republican ticket come together, you have to think that Jeb Bush would really love to give his brother a good, swift kick in the ass.

bronconick 07-16-2012 11:03 AM
Jeb Bush should probably fake his death and get a new name like he doesn't have DirectTV if he wants to run for president.

larrymcg421 07-16-2012 11:13 AM
Jeb Bush's future was pretty much determined when he lost in 1994 to Lawton Chiles, while his brother beat Ann Richards at the same time. If Jeb had won in 94, then I think he would've been the one to run in 2000.

digamma 07-16-2012 12:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2688274)

You're nothing more than a miserable ungrateful cocksucking bastard and I wish to hell you'd vanish into the depths from whence you came.

Ben has been AFK. Two weeks to cool off, pending his review.

Autumn 07-16-2012 01:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by digamma (Post 2689017)
Ben has been AFK. Two weeks to cool off, pending his review.

Good to see. That was way, way over the top.

JediKooter 07-16-2012 06:34 PM
Found Romney's VP: Cat has been mayor of Alaska town for 15 years | The Sideshow - Yahoo! News

Julio Riddols 07-16-2012 07:12 PM
If it can happen with Palin...

Autumn 07-16-2012 08:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan (Post 2688268)
Bought into the paranoia of the cold war a little much there haven't you?

To get back to the meat of this discussion, I think it's very widely acknowledged nowadays that the USSR didn't have anywhere near the military capability they tried to suggest, and indeed that a major cause of their downfall was ridiculously high military spending in trying to keep their antiquated military anywhere near up to U.S. standards. How much the U.S. and UK realized that is more than I can speak to, but I think it's certainly hyperbole to suggest that the USSR could have easily taken over Europe if U.S. forces were removed. Certainly it would have been much easier, but I think the idea of U.S. stationing in Europe had more to do with a deterrent to keep the USSR from slowly advancing out of E. Europe, not preventing some inevitable and easy conquest.

Dutch 07-16-2012 09:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Autumn (Post 2689192)
To get back to the meat of this discussion, I think it's very widely acknowledged nowadays that the USSR didn't have anywhere near the military capability they tried to suggest, and indeed that a major cause of their downfall was ridiculously high military spending in trying to keep their antiquated military anywhere near up to U.S. standards.

There military was quite formidable from 1945-1970 (at least), especially when compared to what was left of the armies of Europe immediately following the aftermath of WWII (the Germans were defeated and shattered, the French had been occupied for 4 or 5 years and dismantled and never returned to their former power, the Italians were, of course, laughable as usual when it came to defense. While those countries healed, they never formed a military even remotely close to what the Soviets had. Not to mention the nuclear stockpiles that still exist today. While their conventional abilities did dwindle over time, the threat of nukes still more than made up for it. You are absolutely right though that their communist economy had no chance to compete long-term with our capitalist economy. They were forced to spend way too much of the GDP on defense and it sunk them. I have no idea what the %'s were but the communists got the boot when they couldn't provide basic services to the populace anymore.

Quote:
How much the U.S. and UK realized that is more than I can speak to, but I think it's certainly hyperbole to suggest that the USSR could have easily taken over Europe if U.S. forces were removed.

I don't see that as hyperbole. I think the reality is that, at best, it wasn't something we wanted to prove. I mean, how do we walk away chest-bumping because "...the Russian offensive stalled 650km past Paris...but hey they didn't get to Madrid!!!"

Quote:
Certainly it would have been much easier, but I think the idea of U.S. stationing in Europe had more to do with a deterrent to keep the USSR from slowly advancing out of E. Europe, not preventing some inevitable and easy conquest.

The big concern was that the Soviets might take over Europe and then hold it hostage with nukes. Remember, the Soviets were still just a little bit pissed at Europe for initiating the death of some 30-50 million Russians. Think about that for a minute. They had a lot of motivation to say, "Fuck it." The reason that they held off after WWII was because the US/UK/France and the USSR were allies and "the west" controled West Germany...the Russians didn't want to stop at Berlin, remember they past Berlin, they only stopped when they ran into western troops and had to. Once we became adversaries, it was the threat of nukes that kept the Soviets at bay.

Edward64 07-16-2012 11:14 PM
I don't really think Romney is as bad as Obama portrays him but I am glad to see Obama on the offensive. Bain and lack of tax returns are going to plague Romney. Romney will need to redirect back to economy somehow.

President Obama attacks Mitt Romney’s jobs plan - The Washington Post
Quote:
President Obama used an hour-long town hall event here Monday to mock Republican Mitt Romney’s economic plan as one that would create jobs only overseas, as the two candidates continued to trade insults in a presidential campaign that has turned increasingly bitter in recent days.

Speaking at the Cincinnati Music Hall, Obama cited a new study that found that Romney’s support of a territorial tax system — in which U.S. companies are not taxed on their overseas profits — would create 800,000 jobs outside the country.

“There’s only one problem: The jobs wouldn’t be in America,” Obama told 1,200 supporters, referring to the report in Tax Notes, a nonprofit, nonpartisan publication.

Obama, who has proposed tax breaks for companies that bring jobs back to the United States, added that “we don’t need a president who plans to ship more jobs overseas.”

The president’s latest broadside aimed to keep Romney on the defensive over accusations that he supported the practice of offshoring jobs while he oversaw Bain Capital, a private equity firm. Those charges, which Romney disputes, have allowed Obama to shift the focus of the debate from the sluggish economy to his rival’s record in the private sector and have ramped up GOP pressure on the former Massachusetts governor to mount an effective rebuttal.

Edward64 07-16-2012 11:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch (Post 2689230)
I don't see that as hyperbole. I think the reality is that, at best, it wasn't something we wanted to prove. I mean, how do we walk away chest-bumping because "...the Russian offensive stalled 650km past Paris...but hey they didn't get to Madrid!!!"
.
I agree with you. Had friends in the active military at that time. Hindsight is 20/20 but in the 80's the Soviet Union was a real threat, West Berlin a trip wire at best and the outcome of quantity vs quality was not a foregone conclusion.

I do believe without US troops, equipment and/or deterrent, the USSR would have walked over the other NATO forces in mainland Europe.

gstelmack 07-17-2012 07:13 AM
Will one candidate or the other please stand up and tell me what's good about you rather than what's wrong with the other guy?

Edward64 07-17-2012 07:35 AM
Interesting. I thought the rebels were on the ropes ... and now they are in Damascus?

BBC News - Syria conflict: 'Fresh clashes rock Damascus'
Quote:
Fighting is intensifying around the Syrian capital Damascus, activists say.

Shooting was reported in one of the main central streets and a square housing the Central Bank.

There were also reports of tanks in the south-western suburb of Midan, and clashes involving helicopters in the north and north-east of the city.
:
:
Violence is continuing to spread across Syria and in the capital Damascus as rebels - now better-equipped and more organised - confront the army and government-backed militia.

The rebel Free Syrian Army has said it has launched "Operation Damascus Volcano", and has called for an escalation of attacks on regime targets and the blocking of main highways all around the country.

One of the biggest and most organised opposition groups, the Muslim Brotherhood, has called on all Syrians to join what it called a decisive battle.

Witnesses say the government's military deployment in Damascus is the biggest since the 16-month uprising against the government of President Bashar al-Assad began.

Edward64 07-17-2012 07:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstelmack (Post 2689323)
Will one candidate or the other please stand up and tell me what's good about you rather than what's wrong with the other guy?

Unfortunately, I think its been proven negative adds work better.

RendeR 07-17-2012 08:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstelmack (Post 2689323)
Will one candidate or the other please stand up and tell me what's good about you rather than what's wrong with the other guy?


Thats not how you win elections. You gotta tell people whats wrong and point at eh other guy and say he's to blame for it and make them afraid of it.


Haven't you ever seen "The American President"?

Edward64 07-17-2012 09:18 AM
More pundits. If Bill Kristol says he should do it, he should do it.

Eugene Robinson: Romney’s problem of his own making - The Washington Post
Quote:
The only reason anyone cares when Romney left Bain Capital, the private equity firm he founded and ran, is because Romney made a totally unreasonable claim: When Democrats pointed to outsourcing and job cuts at companies Bain owned or controlled, Romney denied any responsibility since these unfortunate developments took place after he left to run the Winter Olympics in 1999.

This was an absurd position to take. Romney has boasted of his prowess at creating jobs by pointing to successful companies in which Bain invested, such as Staples, the office-supply chain that went on to expand and hire tens of thousands of employees. But much of this growth took place after 1999. Romney was trying to take credit for post-departure successes but not for failures.

On such shaky ground, Romney planted his flag. He then tried to insist on another ridiculous proposition, which is that he left Bain suddenly and completely in 1999. This cannot possibly be true. Romney was Bain Capital — chairman, chief executive and sole stockholder. There is no way he could have disentangled himself from the firm so abruptly.
:
:
Some conservatives are becoming restive; Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, for example, said Sunday that it was “crazy” for Romney not to release more than the one tax return he has grudgingly surrendered. If Romney is trying to hide something, what might it be? Could there have been more offshore accounts? Some additional undisclosed mansions? Might Romney have made some kind of profitable — but impolitic — bet against the U.S. economy?

gstelmack 07-17-2012 09:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RendeR (Post 2689373)
Haven't you ever seen "The American President"?

My favorite movie about a President is My Fellow Americans (1996) - IMDb.

BrianD 07-17-2012 10:16 AM
Can anyone explain to me why so many conservatives are coming out publicly and suggesting that Romney release more tax returns, and be more forthcoming about Bain? Doing this publicly can only hurt their candidate's credibility. Keeping these suggestions within the party would seem to make more sense. Is there a play here that I am not seeing? Are they somehow trying to discredit Romney so someone else can be put on the ballot? Are moderate Republicans finally taking a stand against the conservative members of their party? This just seems like such a bad strategy move that there must be a different strategy involved.

albionmoonlight 07-17-2012 10:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianD (Post 2689437)
Can anyone explain to me why so many conservatives are coming out publicly and suggesting that Romney release more tax returns, and be more forthcoming about Bain? Doing this publicly can only hurt their candidate's credibility. Keeping these suggestions within the party would seem to make more sense. Is there a play here that I am not seeing? Are they somehow trying to discredit Romney so someone else can be put on the ballot? Are moderate Republicans finally taking a stand against the conservative members of their party? This just seems like such a bad strategy move that there must be a different strategy involved.

My guess is that the returns don't show anything bad. So they are trying to collapse the whole Bain argument into "He should release the returns." Then he does, and there's nothing there.

ISiddiqui 07-17-2012 10:41 AM
If Romney were politically brilliant, he'd release the tax returns a week from Friday (the 27th), which, in addition to being a Friday, is also the day of the Opening Ceremoney of the Olympics.

bronconick 07-17-2012 10:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 2689444)
If Romney were politically brilliant, he'd release the tax returns a week from Friday (the 27th), which, in addition to being a Friday, is also the day of the Opening Ceremoney of the Olympics.

So, based on his campaign, he'll probably choose his Vice President that day?

larrymcg421 07-17-2012 10:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by albionmoonlight (Post 2689439)
My guess is that the returns don't show anything bad. So they are trying to collapse the whole Bain argument into "He should release the returns." Then he does, and there's nothing there.

I think you're giving him too much credit. If there was nothing in there, he would've released them during the GOP primary. I don't think there's anything illegal in there, but probably enough to counter his own argument that the rich are taxed too much.

Edward64 07-17-2012 11:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by larrymcg421 (Post 2689452)
I think you're giving him too much credit. If there was nothing in there, he would've released them during the GOP primary. I don't think there's anything illegal in there, but probably enough to counter his own argument that the rich are taxed too much.

Agreed. Likely nothing illegal but probably some embarrassing grey area with tax avoidance etc. which will be difficult for him to explain/justify to the common person.

sabotai 07-17-2012 01:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstelmack (Post 2689400)
My favorite movie about a President is My Fellow Americans (1996) - IMDb.

Decaf, you pussy.

Butter 07-17-2012 02:12 PM
"Hail to the Chief
he's the chief and he needs hailing."

Grover 07-17-2012 07:29 PM
The Bain Ad That Romney Should Fear the Most - ABC News

JPhillips 07-17-2012 07:37 PM
Bain killed Romney in his 1994 Senate run. How can he not have an answer to these attacks after almost twenty years?

sterlingice 07-17-2012 09:05 PM
After breaking Batman's back, Romney is small potatoes... wait, wrong Bain?

SI

mckerney 07-17-2012 09:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sterlingice (Post 2689731)
After breaking Batman's back, Romney is small potatoes... wait, wrong Bain?

SI

I see you've fallen for the devious liberal conspiracy.

Rush Limbaugh: Batman's 'Bane' Similar To 'Bain Capital' - Business Insider


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:12 PM.
Page 350 of 527 « First < 250300340341342343344345346347348349 350 351352353354355356357358359360400450 > Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.