• 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.

Mitt Romney has huge lead with vets, poll says

Jetboogieman said:
Wow Navy...

That's a pretty lame come back considering you used the exact same thing a couple of hours ago...
Click to expand...

Yes and I will keep doing it as long as you lefties keep attacking me............
 
Wiggen said:
Navy Pride saying the same thing over and over and over again? Next you'll be telling me the sun rises in the East and sets in the west.
Click to expand...

But its OK for you lefties saying over and over again that I think Hussein is handsome...........I am just replying to what you said...........what goes around comes around my left wing friend............
 
Navy Pride said:
Yes and I will keep doing it as long as you lefties keep attacking me............
Click to expand...

It boggles my mind how many conservatives I see roll over and play the victim!

"help me, da mean liberals are hurting my feelings"

Or even better

"you mean I can't force my religious beliefs on others? Help I'm being oppressed!"
 
iguanaman said:
Sorry but that Rove trick is old hat, it is Romney who has no spine. He can't even stand up to Trump, I shudder at the thought of him in the oval office.
Obama's principles remain the same, bring back the middle class and grow our ecnomy so we all get back to work. Romney's better at firing people.
Click to expand...


After 3.5 yrs under Obama, how are the middle class and the poor doing?
 
Navy Pride said:
You know he was not my first choice but I am 100% behind him now, in fact I would take a broomstick before I would take your guy that stumblebum, incompetent Hussein Obama...........
Click to expand...

It's doesn't sound like he was your second or third choice either.

The Fox is strong in this one...
 
Moderator's Warning:
there's a lot of trolling going on in here. It stops now or you can be laughing at how witty you are while you're removed from the thread
 
Navy Pride said:
With one exception Romney is narrowing the margin with women and the margin with vets for Romney is huge........Its true that vets usually vote for the Republican candidate but that is probably because the Republican is usually a vet themself...........Not true this year..............
Click to expand...

I disagree with you, it is not veteran or no veteran, it is republican or not republican. In 2004, compared to George W. Bush, John Kerry was almost Rambo and the Universal soldier wrapped into one, but still Bush won the veterans quite handsomely.
 
Remember a few years back when the libs invalidated some of the soldiers vote because they were out of the country? Or whatever happened.
 
Darroll said:
Remember a few years back when the libs invalidated some of the soldiers vote because they were out of the country? Or whatever happened.
Click to expand...

That was in 2000 Bush V Gore when the dems tried to throw out all the military absentes ballots..............I don't think they ever counted them
 
American said:
And this negates the poll he posted?

:failpail:

It's a damn shame they don't make a pail large enough for your fail.
Click to expand...

Fail? Seems a lot of posters agreed with me and you just came in to complain about it. Par for the course I´d say.
 
IndepCentristMA said:
LMFAO... really? What principal is that?

It's hard making that claim when your guy just changed his position on gay marriage... and has consistently failed to deliver on empty promises, or just plain changed his political stances to suit the audience in front of him...

So far he's changed positions on

- the surge in Iraq
Click to expand...
Few believed the surge would work at the time, especially not the counter-terrorism approach that was originally proposed. In fact, if you go back and read literature covering the run-up to implementing the surge, what you'll find is it wasn't until Gen. Peatraus insisted on using "counter-insurgency" techniques not "counter-terrorism" techniques did things begin to turn around.
- the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq
Click to expand...
It's not that President Obama was against removing combat troops from Iraq. It was the conditions underwhich combat troops would be removed and how quickly troop withdrawals would happen. Regardless, I don't think anyone could argue that the President changed his mind about pulling combat troops from Iraq. After all, he opposed the War in Iraq from the start. Therefore, yours is a false argument at best, misleading at worse.
- permanent troops stationed in Iraq
Click to expand...
This remains the case. Currently, those military personnal who are still there are "trainers" and are not suppose to be in a combat role.
- closing Gunatanamo Bay
Click to expand...
If GW Bush couldn't close it, what makes you think Obama can especially considering that the war that ushered in the creation of this terrorist detension facilty is still on-going? Yes, he promised to close it, but let's be honest. His hands are virtually tied behind his back on this issue. One the one hand, those who opposed waterboarding and insisted on upholding the Geneva Convention (I include myself here) haven kept the pressure on the President to close this facility. But on the other hand, those who scream national security are the ones making it difficult to try these terrorist whether at military tribunals or in civilian court. This will continue to be a contension position for the President as long as the War in Afghanistant continues.
- the use of military tribunals for terrorists
Click to expand...
See my comments above
- permanent detention (calling it prolonged detention)
Click to expand...
See my comments above
- the legitimacy of intel gathered from torture
Click to expand...
Even those in the U.S. Intelligency community agree that not all information gained through torture is reliable. The Obama Administration got lucky when they did use the the intel on Bin Ladin's couriers to track him down. Still, you really didn't need the intel from torture to figure out you needed to follow the couriers. Folks outside the intelligency community had been saying for years all both the GW Bush and Obama Administrations had to do was place a spy at Al Jaazera and follow the video tapes. It really wasn't that much of a stretch. The intel just took the survellience in another direction. But it was "follow the courier" just the same.
- the Patriot Act surveillance
Click to expand...
No one was saying it wasn't important to have the power/authority to trace cell phone conversations. After all, it's long been known that the 911 hijackers used pre-paid cell phones to communicate w/o detection. The problem came in how the gov't violated the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens by using warrantless wiretapes all in the name of "national security" and fighting the "war on terror" that was the problem. Glad that's been corrected somewhat. But let's not get it twisted.
- the threat from Iran
Click to expand...
This "threat" has been going on since 1979. Do you really think a trumped up rallying cry to "go to war with Iran" now will make things any different where this country is concerned? You'd best think again.
- srikes in Pakistan, and the unmanned drones
Click to expand...
Read both books, "The War Within" and "Obama's Wars" by Bob Woodward and you may rethink your position here. Obama's never said he wouldn't use predetor drones against Al Qauda terrorist let alone not use them within Pakistan's boarders.
- unilateral military action and pre-emptive strike
Click to expand...
What country has this occured against during the Obama Administration? Libya? I suggest you re-think that one. (Not defending the President's actions there necessarily; but I am saying it wasn't a pre-emptive strike.)
- late-term abortions
Click to expand...
Is this the same as "partial-birth abortions"? You may be getting the two confused.
- the DC Gun Ban law
Click to expand...
Can't speak to this one; don't know anything about it.
- opposing NAFTA
Click to expand...
Insisting that NAFTA is re-examined isn't the same as opposing it. Try again...
- the Bush Tax Cuts
Click to expand...
Agreeing to allow them to continue at a time when the economy could least afford to change the tax structure isn't the same as wanting to keep them permanent. Try again...
- not intending on raising taxes
Click to expand...
Granted, (I believe) a tax on tobacco has been implemented, but not personal income taxes. Still, nice try attempting to spin the tax issue.
- opposing raising the debt ceiling
Click to expand...
This is 1 of 2 issues I'll give you full credit for. Obama was against raising the debt ceiling until he had to support it last year.
- a religious exception with the prescription drug plan, or a compromise solution
Click to expand...
Maybe if you conducted an indepth study on women's health (not to mention read the health care reform law) maybe you'd rethink your opposition here.
- requiring an individual mandate for healthcare
Click to expand...
Like Republican's weren't for it before they were against it. Try again...
- support of whistleblowers, and desire to protect them
Click to expand...
Don't know if his position here has changed; quote some examples....
- accepting public money for his campaign
Click to expand...
You mean asking the voting public for campaign contributions is now wrong? You'll have to explain yourself here.
- accepting donations from lobbyists
Click to expand...
I don't recall him saying he wouldn't. Link please where he's said otherwise...
- having a SuperPAC
Click to expand...
I don't think the presidential candidates can have SuperPACs, only their supporters. But I hear you; President Obama did initially oppose accepting campaign financing from SuperPACs. But if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

So, Obama has been around since 2004 (not even 8 years), and there's already a much long line of inconsistencies, broken promises, changes of position, double talk, shape shifting, etc.

He's even openly admitted it...

He told the Canadians don't listen to his position it's just empty rhetoric during the campaign
He told Putin, give him some space to win the election, then it wont matter what I do...
He told a reporter who asked him about his political expediency...

"This is not politics of the moment, this is about what we can do right now"

He even classified his position on gay marriage as "evolving" DURING THIS VERY ELECTION CYCLE...

So if you want to avoid voting for a candidate whose word means nothing, vote for Obama...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom