What's new
By:

The Debates

Hahahahah Franklin*. My comp knows your post was not worth reading so it blocked it. IN YOUR FACE!
 
I notice that Romney is ducking questions regarding his lil gem with John King a year ago... Why doesn't he campaign on getting rid of FEMA now? Typical Romney... Do and say (and don't do and refuse to say) anything to become elected.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/oct/30/context-romneys-comments-fema/

King: What else, Gov. Romney? You've been a chief executive of a state. I was just in Joplin, Mo. (where a massive tornado hit). I've been in Mississippi and Louisiana and Tennessee and other communities dealing with whether it's the tornadoes, the flooding, and worse. FEMA is about to run out of money, and there are some people who say do it on a case-by-case basis and some people who say, you know, maybe we're learning a lesson here that the states should take on more of this role. How do you deal with something like that?

Romney: Absolutely. 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? We should take all of what we're doing at the federal level and say, what are the things we're doing that we don't have to do? And those things we've got to stop doing, because we're borrowing $1.6 trillion more this year than we're taking in. We cannot...

King: Including disaster relief, though?

Romney: We cannot -- we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids. It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids, knowing full well that we'll all be dead and gone before it's paid off. It makes no sense at all.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thoughts?

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-conservative-vote-a-symposium/

Why? Here it is: Mitt Romney’s national ambitions represent little more than a nihilistic pursuit of power for power’s sake. No one knows for sure how he would govern because he very likely doesn’t, either. He has been on both sides of nearly every issue of substance not merely throughout his career, but sometimes during this campaign. Yes, all politicians trim, hedge, occasionally even change their minds. With Romney it is a characterological defect. His utter lack of intellectual honesty — indeed of any recognizable intellectual core whatsoever — is not something that should be rewarded even in a political system as shallow and dysfunctional as ours.
Click to expand...
 
The Thriller said:
I notice that Romney is ducking questions regarding his lil gem with John King a year ago... Why doesn't he campaign on getting rid of FEMA now? Typical Romney... Do and say (and don't do and refuse to say) anything to become elected.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/oct/30/context-romneys-comments-fema/
Click to expand...

And why doesn't the President stop dodging questions on Libya and tell the American People the truth? See how this gotcha kind of thing works? But seriously, he should have held a press conference long ago instead of telling us this line of BS about them still investigating.
 
SaltyDawg said:
I see. So it's only a real democracy if the people vote the way you want them to. Got it.

Maybe they should start disenfranchising millions of voters with unnecessary laws so they can elect people that you approve of.

I don't agree with sharia law either. But if the people vote for it, who am I to tell them how to live?
Click to expand...

If Sharia law, something I'm not extremely familiar with, denies civil liberties to people then it is a problem, regardless if the people there want it or not. The whole idea of civil liberties is to protect the rights of the minority from the oppression of the majority.

I have a suspicion that it does violate civil liberties, but only because the Middle East and South/Southeast Asia has a piss poor track record of protecting civil liberties in general.
 
LOL @ Romney supporters. Sorry guys, but he's the absolute epitome of failure. I don't know how this guy has so many supporters.. wait, yes I do! America is ignorant as hell!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzRV2na0VdU&feature=share
 
ClLUTClH said:
LOL @ Romney supporters. Sorry guys, but he's the absolute epitome of failure. I don't know how this guy has so many supporters.. wait, yes I do! America is ignorant as hell!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzRV2na0VdU&feature=share
Click to expand...


You lost any credibility you had on the matter when you posted a video of a proud socialist who is left of Lenin on the issues. Seriously, if you want to score some points with anyone on the opposition, then please post a video of someone who is fair.
 
Nate505 said:
If Sharia law, something I'm not extremely familiar with, denies civil liberties to people then it is a problem, regardless if the people there want it or not. The whole idea of civil liberties is to protect the rights of the minority from the oppression of the majority.

I have a suspicion that it does violate civil liberties, but only because the Middle East and South/Southeast Asia has a piss poor track record of protecting civil liberties in general.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately it's not that simple. Conceptions of human rights are subject to cultural norms. Western countries may privilege individual rights where other cultures privilege group rights for example. There's some real definitional problems before you can even tackle how to protect them.

That's not to say I'm pro Sharia law, but merely to say that intervention on human rights grounds is a thorny subject.
 
Sirkickyass said:
Unfortunately it's not that simple. Conceptions of human rights are subject to cultural norms. Western countries may privilege individual rights where other cultures privilege group rights for example. There's some real definitional problems before you can even tackle how to protect them.

That's not to say I'm pro Sharia law, but merely to say that intervention on human rights grounds is a thorny subject.
Click to expand...

That would involve us in Cuba, North Korea, China, Most os the middle east, Africa and large parts of Asia. Are we really going to go into all those places? I hope not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top