• 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.

How can Romney defend this?

He can ignore by flying around it and evading. This would probably piss Obama off but because there are time limits but its workable. And its been done before.
 
VanceMack said:
It might...because people are stupid. However if people cant hear what he said...that even though we all love Big Bird it makes no sense putting your great grandkids in debt so people today can watch Sesame Street...then they ARE the 47%.
Click to expand...

There are worse things we spend money on. Either way, when kids start screaming about rumors they heard that Mitt Romney is going to kill Big Bird there will be blowback. You can say that you are cutting PBS but when the phrase "Big Bird" comes out of your mouth in politics you are peeing on an electric fence while standing naked in a puddle of gas.
 
Loki97 said:
So do we have to go into how little PBS contributes to the national debt again? Meanwhile, Mitt wants to continue to throw money into the military budget for things like 2 more carriers, and their attendant air groups, to go along with the 11 we already have. The PBS remark was just blatant pandering to his low brow base that is highly suspicious of anything educational.
Click to expand...
Nope...and you can feel free to anally obsess over Big Bird and ignore the reality he was talking about. There have to be WHOLESALE cuts on programs. We are foolishly going deeper and deeper into debt every year because we as a people are led by feelings and not common sense. If you still want Big Bird, then go smack the **** out of your grandkids, laugh at them, and keep doing what we have foolishly been doing. At least that would be an honest direct assault instead of dumping a mountain of debt on them.
 
Loki97 said:
So do we have to go into how little PBS contributes to the national debt again? Meanwhile, Mitt wants to continue to throw money into the military budget for things like 2 more carriers, and their attendant air groups, to go along with the 11 we already have. The PBS remark was just blatant pandering to his low brow base that is highly suspicious of anything educational.
Click to expand...

PBS isn't going to keep American kids alive on the battlefield.
 
I don't see it as anymore offensive or disturbing that Obama's "cling to their guns and bibles" statement. And he did okay for himself.
 
Loki97 said:
So do we have to go into how little PBS contributes to the national debt again? Meanwhile, Mitt wants to continue to throw money into the military budget for things like 2 more carriers, and their attendant air groups, to go along with the 11 we already have. The PBS remark was just blatant pandering to his low brow base that is highly suspicious of anything educational.
Click to expand...

What need does PBS fill that other networks don't cover?
 
Fisher said:
There are worse things we spend money on. Either way, when kids start screaming about rumors they heard that Mitt Romney is going to kill Big Bird there will be blowback. You can say that you are cutting PBS but when the phrase "Big Bird" comes out of your mouth in politics you are peeing on an electric fence while standing naked in a puddle of gas.
Click to expand...
Thats when you tell the little kids its the evil lying democrats that pretend to care about you but wont pay for Big Bird to be on...even though they really really really really really WISH the government would tax them more.

You get the point...right? If it has value...contribute. Pay for it. Today and out of your own pocket. Or better yet...out of all the profits the Sesame Street commercial products are already making.
 
apdst said:
PBS isn't going to keep American kids alive on the battlefield.
Click to expand...

Want to name the last battlefield the U.S. was involved in that required 11 aircraft carriers? Here's a hint, you will have to go back to the last years of the Pacific Theater in WW II.
 
Loki97 said:
Want to name the last battlefield the U.S. was involved in that required 11 aircraft carriers? Here's a hint, you will have to go back to the last years of the Pacific Theater in WW II.
Click to expand...
That MIGHT be because we actually HAVE them. Every time Iran has gotten uppity and threatened to shut down the worlds oil flow, all Obama has had to do is order a carrier group in for maneuvers...suddenly...crickets. Peace aint cheap.

That being said...there ARE spending cuts that can and should be made in defense and they have NOTHING to do with readiness. Start with the contracting process.
 
VanceMack said:
Thats when you tell the little kids its the evil lying democrats that pretend to care about you but wont pay for Big Bird to be on...even though they really really really really really WISH the government would tax them more.

You get the point...right? If it has value...contribute. Pay for it. Today and out of your own pocket. Or better yet...out of all the profits the Sesame Street commercial products are already making.
Click to expand...


So we cut the program that costs 450M a year but keep the superfluous ships that cost 9B each(without aircraft). I think that is called being penny wise and pound foolish.
 
Loki97 said:
Want to name the last battlefield the U.S. was involved in that required 11 aircraft carriers? Here's a hint, you will have to go back to the last years of the Pacific Theater in WW II.
Click to expand...

Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Desert Storm, Grenada, Vietnam, Korea. Looks like I didn't have to go that far back, afterall.

Where do you think all those Tomohawks that we neutralized Iraq's command and control structure with--twice--came from? A bateau, with a 9.8 Mercury?
 
There are some Cons who say that Obama should not bring it up and in a way I agree with them. The President should look and act Presidental and not attack. Instead lead a cow to water. Go into some topic which will bring the issue in the open but let Romney stick his foot in it first. Then ask him about his comments and make him the one who fumbles. Romney may be smart enough to aviod this trap but after last night I don't think his temper or ego are. It was the one place he fell on his ass.
 
Loki97 said:
So we cut the program that costs 450M a year but keep the superfluous ships that cost 9B each(without aircraft). I think that is called being penny wise and pound foolish.
Click to expand...
Yes. We cut ALL unnecessary spending. Im not on board with the defense spending (it wont matter because a-I still dont think he wins and b-I wont be voting for him). I personally believe there has to be across the board cuts AND tax increases. There also has to be a LOT MORE private folk step up.
 
VanceMack said:
That MIGHT be because we actually HAVE them. Every time Iran has gotten uppity and threatened to shut down the worlds oil flow, all Obama has had to do is order a carrier group in for maneuvers...suddenly...crickets. Peace aint cheap.

That being said...there ARE spending cuts that can and should be made in defense and they have NOTHING to do with readiness. Start with the contracting process.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing against the usefulness of aircraft carriers, at least against anyone without a viable submarine fleet, I'm saying there is no conceivable scenario outside alien invasion that requires 11 of them.
 
wolfman24 said:
There are some Cons who say that Obama should not bring it up and in a way I agree with them. The President should look and act Presidental and not attack. Instead lead a cow to water. Go into some topic which will bring the issue in the open but let Romney stick his foot in it first. Then ask him about his comments and make him the one who fumbles. Romney may be smart enough to aviod this trap but after last night I don't think his temper or ego are. It was the one place he fell on his ass.
Click to expand...
If he doesnt have the Obama snark to fall back on he has to fall back on his own record and recall. Hell...he might as WELL bring it up. He cant look any more foolish.

Im betting he presses hard for teleprompter access for the next round.
 
Loki97 said:
I'm not arguing against the usefulness of aircraft carriers, at least against anyone without a viable submarine fleet, I'm saying there is no conceivable scenario outside alien invasion that requires 11 of them.
Click to expand...
Military strategists left and right may consider otherwise.
 
VanceMack said:
Thats when you tell the little kids its the evil lying democrats that pretend to care about you but wont pay for Big Bird to be on...even though they really really really really really WISH the government would tax them more.

You get the point...right? If it has value...contribute. Pay for it. Today and out of your own pocket. Or better yet...out of all the profits the Sesame Street commercial products are already making.
Click to expand...

I already do but you seem to miss the point that upsetting kids is politically like kicking puppies regardless of how sound your argument might be or which party you belong to. "Mom PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't vote for the guy who wants to kill Big Bird! Promise me, Mom, you'll help save Big Bird. Please, I'll be good." coming from sobbing eyes will carry more sway with mom than budget deficits ever will.
 
apdst said:
Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Desert Storm, Grenada, Vietnam, Korea. Looks like I didn't have to go that far back, afterall.

Where do you think all those Tomohawks that we neutralized Iraq's command and control structure with--twice--came from? A bateau, with a 9.8 Mercury?
Click to expand...

First, the Tomahawks didn't come from carriers or their aircraft. they came from subs and guided missile cruisers. Secondly, there were five carriers involved in the Iraqi Freedom operation. That's less than half of what we currently have.
 
Fisher said:
I already do but you seem to miss the point that upsetting kids is politically like kicking puppies regardless of how sound your argument might be or which party you belong to. "Mom PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't vote for the guy who wants to kill Big Bird! Promise me, Mom, you'll help save Big Bird. Please, I'll be good." coming from sobbing eyes will carry more sway with mom than budget deficits ever will.
Click to expand...
If moms are stupid enough to be swayed by such emotional drivel and cant think of the impact deficit spending is going to have on those kids...and grandkids...then they are pretty foolish and maybe should go back to mom school.
 
MaggieD said:
I'm curious. I know he expects it to come up. What could he possibly say to mitigate this gaff?
Click to expand...

Gaff? He shouldn't defend it, he should own it.
 
Fisher said:
I already do but you seem to miss the point that upsetting kids is politically like kicking puppies regardless of how sound your argument might be or which party you belong to. "Mom PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't vote for the guy who wants to kill Big Bird! Promise me, Mom, you'll help save Big Bird. Please, I'll be good." coming from sobbing eyes will carry more sway with mom than budget deficits ever will.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with forcing PBS to support themselves? If they fold don't you think other networks will pick up their marketable, profitable parts? Why would the end of PBS have to be the end of Big Bird?
 
Loki97 said:
First, the Tomahawks didn't come from carriers or their aircraft. they came from subs and guided missile cruisers.
Click to expand...

Right! And, those boats cost money. Money that you're proposing be cut. Cuts that will cost American lives on foreign battlefields.

Secondly, there were five carriers involved in the Iraqi Freedom operation. That's less than half of what we currently have.
Click to expand...

IOW, we should commit our entire carier force to one single operation? That would be the pinnacle of stupidity.
 
Fisher said:
I already do but you seem to miss the point that upsetting kids is politically like kicking puppies regardless of how sound your argument might be or which party you belong to. "Mom PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't vote for the guy who wants to kill Big Bird! Promise me, Mom, you'll help save Big Bird. Please, I'll be good." coming from sobbing eyes will carry more sway with mom than budget deficits ever will.
Click to expand...

That's what we get for trying to dumb down the population.
 
apdst said:
Right! And, those boats cost money. Money that you're proposing be cut. Cuts that will cost American lives on foreign battlefields.



IOW, we should commit our entire carier force to one single operation? That would be the pinnacle of stupidity.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about cutting carriers not subs or missile cruisers. I guess to a naval genius like you, they are all the same. One clue though Nimitz, you refer to subs as "boats" and everything else as a "ship". Against anything but a relatively low ability opponent carriers have gone the way of the battleship, subs kill them with ease. Considering we had no legitimate justification to be invading Iraq to begin with, there is no rational need for such a large force whose purpose is to essentially go playing world cop against every second and third tier nation who offends us.
 
apdst said:
Obama won't dare bring it up in the debates, because Romney will be in a position to point out that Obama created that 47%.

If that happens, the real question will be, "How can Obama defend this?". Will Obama explain to us that the reason is that there are that many people who want to be dependent on the government? Michelle might as well start packing up the kids and getting ready to move back to Chi Town.
Click to expand...

jerry7 said:
He was referring to the hardcore 47% base of Obama's support. It's not his job to worry about them while running his campaign because they can't be reached. If Obama murdered his wife tronight on live TV, they'd still vote for him. Romney has to win the election before he becomes President of ALL Americans. Right now he is worrying about reaching the 53% not the 47.
Second, if Obama wants to talk about old videos of the candidates he's going to have to talk about his race baiting pandering speech before an audience of black ministers where he lied about the application of the Stafford Act in his attempt to rile up racial animosity.
Ten days before he gave that speech a vote was taken to appropriate funds and waive the Stafford Act. He was one of 14 who voted against it. He tried to deny 7 billion dollars in funds for katrina that waived the Stafford act requirements. Despite his vote the money was still appropriated. HR2206, The US Troop Readiness, Veterans Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007
Click to expand...

American said:
He'll say that many will get jobs and become tax payers.
Click to expand...

Fisher said:
You folks may think I am joking when I say this but I am not. That Big Bird comment will cost him far more votes than that stupid 47% comment.
Click to expand...

KopeAcetic said:
No...he mixed a few different figured together, the 47% on government assistance isn't the exact same 47% that will only vote for obama, isn't the exact same 47% not paying income taxes.
Click to expand...

Fisher said:
There are worse things we spend money on. Either way, when kids start screaming about rumors they heard that Mitt Romney is going to kill Big Bird there will be blowback. You can say that you are cutting PBS but when the phrase "Big Bird" comes out of your mouth in politics you are peeing on an electric fence while standing naked in a puddle of gas.
Click to expand...

ksu_aviator said:
Gaff? He shouldn't defend it, he should own it.
Click to expand...

I think you've all hit on it pretty well. I like that thinking. "Isn't that a crying shame? 47% of American taxpayers don't earn enough to pay Federal income tax. And what have we done to make sure these Americans can have their shot at the American Dream? When will we have employment numbers that don't include millions of people under-employed? When are we going to get them back to work? And that is what I'm going to accomplish." Ouch.

As to Big Bird. Give me a freakin' break. If Obama brought up that crap? Slam-Dunk Romney.

"Look, that is the philosophical difference that stands between you and me. I have every faith that the American people will step up. Your Administration believes you have to be all things to all people -- even to the point of bringing us Big Bird. Last year, our government subsidized PBS to the tune of $445 million dollars. Every dime of it borrowed from China. The government doesn't need to be in that loop. Federal dollars represent only 12% of the PBS budget. The rest is supplied through the generosity of the American people as well as business and corporate grants. And I have every confidence that they will step up to fill the gap. That!! Is the difference between President Obama's vision of America and mine."
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom