• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Businessmen make lousy presidents

sangha said:
No, he didn't organize the Olympics. They were already organized and planned when he took over. He just raised money because the committee was in the red

Choreography and directing traffic are not "organizing the Olympics"
Click to expand...
They were not organized, you fool, they were awarded... they're continually reorganized up until they occur. You're sadly mistaken if you don't get that he did.
 
sangha said:
It was s straw man. A question that's based on the assertion that other people are making a claim they never actually made (ie the incumbent should always be re-elected) is a straw man and is never leglitimate
Click to expand...
Yes... the building of the straw man is the key aspect you're missing. He was responding to the actual things that were said, and inquiring about them. He didnt go railing on against the straw man you claim he built up. Thanks for proving my point.
 
Redress said:
He was dealing with other people on his level in other countries, which does not give him any significant foreign policy experience. Or else the fact that I have dealt with a large number of people in foreign countries gives me foreign policy experience.
Click to expand...

Dealing with other people on his level? As in world leaders... oh, okay... so dealing with world leaders on official business doesn't give someone foreign policy experience (or any experience in negotiating with other world leaders)... yes, you're right... :roll:
 
Romney is loath to mention Bush on the campaign trail, for obvious reasons, but today they sound like ideological soul mates on foreign policy. Listening to Romney, you’d never know that Bush left office bogged down by two unpopular wars that cost America dearly in blood and treasure. Of Romney’s forty identified foreign policy advisers, more than 70 percent worked for Bush. Many hail from the neoconservative wing of the party, were enthusiastic backers of the Iraq War and are proponents of a US or Israeli attack on Iran. Christopher Preble, a foreign policy expert at the Cato Institute, says, “Romney’s likely to be in the mold of George W. Bush when it comes to foreign policy if he were elected.” On some key issues, like Iran, Romney and his team are to the right of Bush. Romney’s embrace of the neoconservative cause—even if done cynically to woo the right—could turn into a policy nightmare if he becomes president.


* * *

Romney knew little about foreign policy when he ran for president in 2008. An internal dossier of John McCain’s presidential campaign said at the time that “Romney’s foreign affairs resume is extremely thin, leading to credibility problems.” After being branded as too liberal by conservative GOP activists four years ago, Romney aligned himself with Bolton and other neocons in 2012 to protect his right flank. Today there’s little daylight between the candidate and his most militant advisers. “When you read the op-eds and listen to the speeches, it sounds like Romney’s listening to the John Bolton types more than anyone else,” says Brian Katulis, a senior fellow for national security at the Center for American Progress. (The Romney campaign’s openly gay foreign policy spokesman, Richard Grenell, who had been an indefatigable defender of Bolton as the latter’s PR flack in the Bush years, was forced to resign after harsh attacks by anti-gay conservatives.)

Mitt Romney's Neocon War Cabinet | The Nation
 
sangha said:
Straw man noted

It is awfully dishonest of you to misrepresent what I was responding to, and since it was your own words I was responding to (and you're now backing away from), I'll add that it's a cowardly argument

Here's what you really said

You said that "You are arguing that no one but the President is experienced at being President" and therefore, the incumbent should always be re-elected. My post was clealy a response to that.
Click to expand...

Hmm multiquote since someone is twisting things some here:
Originally Posted by OpportunityCost
Again your argument falls in on itself. You are arguing that no one but the President is experienced at being President. Arguing that the incumbant should always be re-elected essentially. As a challenger Romney is well experienced in an executive role. Im not exactly a fan but even I can admit that. You disagree?
I disagree

It is widely acknowledged that the Presidency is a unique responsibility. This doesn't mean that the incumbent should be re-elected, if you think they're doing a poor job and one of their challengers can do better
Click to expand...

The question posed was precisely----As a challenger Romney is well experienced at being President. You disagree?
Your reply was that you disagree then you started word twisting to get around the basics of the question.

You disagree that Romney is well experienced in an executive role. Noted. Continue equivocating, its amusing.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Romney is loath to mention Bush on the campaign trail, for obvious reasons, but today they sound like ideological soul mates on foreign policy. Listening to Romney, you’d never know that Bush left office bogged down by two unpopular wars that cost America dearly in blood and treasure. Of Romney’s forty identified foreign policy advisers, more than 70 percent worked for Bush. Many hail from the neoconservative wing of the party, were enthusiastic backers of the Iraq War and are proponents of a US or Israeli attack on Iran. Christopher Preble, a foreign policy expert at the Cato Institute, says, “Romney’s likely to be in the mold of George W. Bush when it comes to foreign policy if he were elected.” On some key issues, like Iran, Romney and his team are to the right of Bush. Romney’s embrace of the neoconservative cause—even if done cynically to woo the right—could turn into a policy nightmare if he becomes president.


* * *

Romney knew little about foreign policy when he ran for president in 2008. An internal dossier of John McCain’s presidential campaign said at the time that “Romney’s foreign affairs resume is extremely thin, leading to credibility problems.” After being branded as too liberal by conservative GOP activists four years ago, Romney aligned himself with Bolton and other neocons in 2012 to protect his right flank. Today there’s little daylight between the candidate and his most militant advisers. “When you read the op-eds and listen to the speeches, it sounds like Romney’s listening to the John Bolton types more than anyone else,” says Brian Katulis, a senior fellow for national security at the Center for American Progress. (The Romney campaign’s openly gay foreign policy spokesman, Richard Grenell, who had been an indefatigable defender of Bolton as the latter’s PR flack in the Bush years, was forced to resign after harsh attacks by anti-gay conservatives.)

Mitt Romney's Neocon War Cabinet | The Nation
Click to expand...

That's hilarious attempting to make the claim that Romney sounding like Bush on foreign policy is a bad thing... Considering Obama has been exactly like Bush on foreign policy in many regards... continuing his policies... changing his positions and adapting to ones Bush had... The only thing Obama did in foreign policy that Bush didnt was to go around apologizing for American greatness...
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Romney is loath to mention Bush on the campaign trail, for obvious reasons, but today they sound like ideological soul mates on foreign policy. Listening to Romney, you’d never know that Bush left office bogged down by two unpopular wars that cost America dearly in blood and treasure. Of Romney’s forty identified foreign policy advisers, more than 70 percent worked for Bush. Many hail from the neoconservative wing of the party, were enthusiastic backers of the Iraq War and are proponents of a US or Israeli attack on Iran. Christopher Preble, a foreign policy expert at the Cato Institute, says, “Romney’s likely to be in the mold of George W. Bush when it comes to foreign policy if he were elected.” On some key issues, like Iran, Romney and his team are to the right of Bush. Romney’s embrace of the neoconservative cause—even if done cynically to woo the right—could turn into a policy nightmare if he becomes president.


* * *

Romney knew little about foreign policy when he ran for president in 2008. An internal dossier of John McCain’s presidential campaign said at the time that “Romney’s foreign affairs resume is extremely thin, leading to credibility problems.” After being branded as too liberal by conservative GOP activists four years ago, Romney aligned himself with Bolton and other neocons in 2012 to protect his right flank. Today there’s little daylight between the candidate and his most militant advisers. “When you read the op-eds and listen to the speeches, it sounds like Romney’s listening to the John Bolton types more than anyone else,” says Brian Katulis, a senior fellow for national security at the Center for American Progress. (The Romney campaign’s openly gay foreign policy spokesman, Richard Grenell, who had been an indefatigable defender of Bolton as the latter’s PR flack in the Bush years, was forced to resign after harsh attacks by anti-gay conservatives.)

Mitt Romney's Neocon War Cabinet | The Nation
Click to expand...

You ought to do some better homework. That guy is a left wing flack.

http://www.thenation.com/authors/ari-berman

Mitt Romney's Neocon War Cabinet(Election 2012, Foreign Policy, Conservatives and the American Right, US Wars and Military Action)


Judging by his advisers, Romney would embrace Bush’s unilateral interventionism and massive military budgets.

Ari Berman
.


Why the Supreme Court Matters(The Constitution, The Courts)


A GOP win in November would move the most conservative bench in history even further to the right.

Ari Berman
.


The .000063 Percent Election(Campaign Finance, Citizens United v. FEC, Campaigns and Elections)


How the politics of the super-rich became American politics.

Ari Berman
.


How the GOP Is Resegregating the South(Conservatives and the American Right, Electoral Politics, Race and Religion)


Republicans are using the redistricting process to undermine minority voting power and ensure their party's dominance.

Ari Berman
Click to expand...

Those are just his last few articles. Before you scream attack the source, the source is using the label of neocon rather freely. The context of the rest of his work either lends or takes away credibility on that claim.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Hmm multiquote since someone is twisting things some here:


The question posed was precisely----As a challenger Romney is well experienced at being President. You disagree?
Your reply was that you disagree then you started word twisting to get around the basics of the question.

You disagree that Romney is well experienced in an executive role. Noted. Continue equivocating, its amusing.
Click to expand...
Cue bogus straw man claim #5 in the past 2 days...
 
OpportunityCost said:
You ought to do some better homework. That guy is a left wing flack.

Ari Berman | The Nation



Those are just his last few articles. Before you scream attack the source, the source is using the label of neocon rather freely. The context of the rest of his work either lends or takes away credibility on that claim.
Click to expand...
So your argument is that John Bolton is not a neocon?
 
And a lawyer would make a better president? :lol:
 
IndepCentristMA said:
That's hilarious attempting to make the claim that Romney sounding like Bush on foreign policy is a bad thing... Considering Obama has been exactly like Bush on foreign policy in many regards... continuing his policies... changing his positions and adapting to ones Bush had... The only thing Obama did in foreign policy that Bush didnt was to go around apologizing for American greatness...
Click to expand...
"apologizing for American greatness", meaning apologizing for the Bush doctrine of bypassing the UN.

If the policy is the same, there would be no reason to apologize.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
"apologizing for American greatness", meaning apologizing for the Bush doctrine of bypassing the UN.

If the policy is the same, there would be no reason to apologize.
Click to expand...

your posts are pure bull...

and do you think the UN is good? LOL.. thank God GWB didnt squander our freedoms to despots.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I know....it is not like being the President has any involvement in law....pfft.
Click to expand...


yea.. that the ticket.. get some marxist socialist hack community organizer, with a see through resume.. thats the ticket..
 
Travis007 said:
your posts are pure bull...

and do you think the UN is good? LOL.. thank God GWB didnt squander our freedoms to despots.
Click to expand...
I know you have no regrets about the number of Iraqis deaths during our illegal invasion/occupation, you feel no need to apologize.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I know you have no regrets about the number of Iraqis deaths during our illegal invasion/occupation, you feel no need to apologize.
Click to expand...

tell me about Oil for Food and Clintons carpet bombing of Iraq daily? did you cry?. how many died in Iraq during Clintons years? why were we bombing? becasue your fraud hero Clinton used it to take our eyes off the Blue dress...

now tell me about oil for food and why GWB had to do what he did

You cant..because liberal hacks have nothing....you spout it it being "illegal" and thats not even true..really who your BSing?... you may want to show off to other Libs but for us with understanding of the issues we laugh at posts like yours..

I want to be very clear.. your posts are BS to me... I see right through them, I know the drill.. Libs all look the same to me sadly..


Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

--60 Minutes (5/12/96)


Then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's quote, calmly asserting that U.S. policy objectives were worth the sacrifice of half a million Arab children, has been much quoted in the Arabic press. It's also been cited in the United States in alternative commentary on the September 11 attacks (e.g., Alexander Cockburn, New York Press, 9/26/01).

But a Dow Jones search of mainstream news sources since September 11 turns up only one reference to the quote--in an op-ed in the Orange Country Register (9/16/01). This omission is striking, given the major role that Iraq sanctions play in the ideology of archenemy Osama bin Laden; his recruitment video features pictures of Iraqi babies wasting away from malnutrition and lack of medicine (New York Daily News, 9/28/01). The inference that Albright and the terrorists may have shared a common rationale--a belief that the deaths of thousands of innocents are a price worth paying to achieve one's political ends--does not seem to be one that can be made in U.S. mass media.
 
Last edited:
Travis007 said:
tell me about Oil for Food and Clintons carpet bombing of Iraq daily? did you cry?. how many died in Iraq during Clintons years? why were we bombing? becasue your fraud hero Clinton used it to take our eyes off the Blue dress...

now tell me about oil for food and why GWB had to do what he did

You cant..because liberal hacks have nothing....

I want to be very clear.. your posts are BS to me... I see right through them, I know the drill.. Libs all look the same to me sadly..
Click to expand...
You don't want to talk about Obama's "apology" for Bush foreign policy/operations, you don't want to talk about the hundreds of thousands of deaths resulting from those actions, you want to go back to Operation Desert Fox (which was NOT a "carpet bombing" operation, for f***'s sake), a targeting of WMD research and military facilities. You get to play both sides, if Clinton did go after Saddam's facilities, you say it was a distraction....if he doesn't, you get to say he was weak.

EDIT: Saddam had enough food to not have the massive numbers of child deaths, he stopped the distribution of food, those deaths are on his hands.

Your arguments are specious and without merit.

PS...for someone who is so whiny about topics in his threads, you sure don't respect others.
 
Last edited:
Gimmesometruth said:
You don't want to talk about Obama's "apology" for Bush foreign policy/operations, you don't want to talk about the hundreds of thousands of deaths resulting from those actions, you want to go back to Operation Desert Fox (which was NOT a "carpet bombing" operation, for f***'s sake), a targeting of WMD research and military facilities. You get to play both sides, if Clinton did go after Saddam's facilities, you say it was a distraction....if he doesn't, you get to say he was weak.

EDIT: Saddam had enough food to not have the massive numbers of child deaths, he stopped the distribution of food, those deaths are on his hands.

Your arguments are specious and without merit.

PS...for someone who is so whiny about topics in his threads, you sure don't respect others.
Click to expand...


oh cry me a river.. you deal in such thick hyocrisy ... You got your hat handed to you.. whine away

and you have no idea what you are talking about for a change..

Thanks for exposing your ignorance..you are babbling away about nothing pertaining to my prior post..and thank you.. your post was priceless liberal flailing
 
Last edited:
IndepCentristMA said:
Yes... the building of the straw man is the key aspect you're missing. He was responding to the actual things that were said, and inquiring about them. He didnt go railing on against the straw man you claim he built up. Thanks for proving my point.
Click to expand...

Nope. No one claimed that the incumbent should alwys be re-elected. That is a straw man
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom