3rd Presidential debate: focuses on foreign policy, Monday Oct 22th 9:00 pm EST

[QUOTE=brandonislegend]Romney: "I will create 12 million jobs"

Romney: "Government does not create jobs"

anyone else think this is ****ing retarded?[/QUOTE]

He's talking about creating jobs in the private sector by growing the economy, not by hiring 12 million government employees. It's scary that people are voting in this election do not understand this.

[QUOTE=bmulls]He's talking about creating jobs in the private sector by growing the economy, not by hiring 12 million government employees. It's scary that people are voting in this election do not understand this.[/QUOTE]
And every job Obama talks about creating is government? He'll certainly create more government work but both are (allegedly) trying to spark business to create more jobs in the private sector. The real difference is that Romney thinks the key is just cutting taxes while Obama takes a more active role. It's not an important point which is why Obama doesn't go after him hard on it but it does sound off when Romeny says "government doesn't create jobs" in one breath to argue against Obama and then will say he's going to pull 12 million new jobs out of his ass in the next.

Whoever you guys vote for is gonna make my life more miserable than it is and will get credit and praised for it :lol

[QUOTE=bmulls]He's talking about creating jobs in the private sector by growing the economy, not by hiring 12 million government employees. It's scary that people are voting in this election do not understand this.[/QUOTE]

He is also getting those numbers from economist predicting 12 million jobs will be created regardless of who is President.

[URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/08/30/factchecker-romneys-12-million-job-promise/"]link[/URL]

[QUOTE=KevinNYC]Also the reason the one-liner was so potent was that Romney chose a stupid argument that our most pressing military need is more ships when what our military has actually been engaged in asymmetric warfare, counter insurgency and covert warfare.[/QUOTE]

I look at it this way -- here is Obama well into his first term of dealing with real-world foreign policy issues and he has to sit there while Mitt Romney mis-characterizes and over-simplifies every one of his arguments (presumably as red meat for the knuckle draggers watching at home).

That shit must be infuriating.

[IMG]https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/307975_10152214125325176_95691591_n.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/581006_10151120428086943_39873399_n.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=rezznor][IMG]https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/307975_10152214125325176_95691591_n.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]



Just to play devil's advocate, here's a quote from another forum:

[Quote]
You don't tell another adult, a former governor who controlled a National Guard force, that aircraft carriers are these things that planes land on, and other things that go underwater are called nuclear submarines. The truth is, it was condescending and child-like. Speaking of carriers, a Carrier Group is a potent force, but it has limitations based on the range the aircraft can sorte. We cannot be everywhere at once, and less carrier groups means less coverage. One carrier takes a lot of support ships. How about President Obama address that issue with the potential reduction numbers - even sequestration - that were the real points needing to addressed? Answer - He won't because he knows the future of the Navy's ships isn't going to improve under his administration so he resorts to quips and zingers. [/Quote]

[QUOTE=rufuspaul]Just to play devil's advocate, here's a quote from another forum:[/QUOTE]
I understand you are just playing devil's advocate, but the gist of it for me was do we really need to spend an extra 2 trillion dollars on our defense?

[QUOTE=Jello]Deficit spending on anything, according to keynesians, would stimulate the economy but we see the left saying "we didn't spend enough on the fiscal stimulus." They point towards the Reagan recovery or WWII for reference of massive deficit spending and then criticize the upping of defense spending.[/QUOTE]

Being for govt stimulus and being against increases in defense spending are not mutually exclusive.

[QUOTE=rezznor]I understand you are just playing devil's advocate, but the gist of it for me was do we really need to spend an extra 2 trillion dollars on our defense?[/QUOTE]


Exactly. That's something that should be debated. But for Obama to reduce the discussion to zingers was a little beneath him imo.


[IMG]http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f80/rufuspaul/bayonet.jpg[/IMG]

And what is that sharp, pointy thing sticking out of that marine's gun?

[QUOTE=bmulls]He's talking about creating jobs in the private sector by growing the economy, not by hiring 12 million government employees. It's scary that people are voting in this election do not understand this.[/QUOTE]

No one is hiring 12M new gov't jobs when there will be austerity for the majority of the next term no matter who wins.

With much of what Willard talks about there is a disconnect in logic here. If cutting taxes was a sound plan to 12M more jobs anyone would do it, but this ASSumption based on flawed or murky statistics which are lacking detail is just a ruse to get people riled up.

[QUOTE=rufuspaul]Exactly. That's something that should be debated. But for Obama to reduce the discussion to zingers was a little beneath him imo.


[IMG]http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f80/rufuspaul/bayonet.jpg[/IMG]

And what is that sharp, pointy thing sticking out of that marine's gun?[/QUOTE]
he said "less bayonets and horses" not no bayonets and horses

[QUOTE=Jailblazers7]Being for govt stimulus and being against increases in defense spending are not mutually exclusive.[/QUOTE]
huh? The left reference those two historical time periods when the source of major deficit spending [B]WAS[/B] defense spending.

My point completely flew over your guys' heads. Saying something is better than or more effective than does not mean I support it. A much effective stimulus would have been to redirect all stimulus funds to the SBA to help refinance small businesses who are the real sufferers. Also investment in infrastructure does have a long term multiplier of effects but that is besides the point of what I was saying.