Jets Insider.com Forums - View Single Post - Today's politics, OUR contribution, and a Challenge.

GreenGeek · 06-26-2012, 05:59 PM

Here's my entry:

Positive to the candidate I won't vote for (but I did last time):

President Obama did the right thing in pulling out from Iraq. Modern
warfare is often not among nations, but against nebulous entities
(al qaeda) that go into hiding rather than surrender. As a result,
one can't expect a clean withdrawal like WWI or WWII. Instead, you
must call a halt when you enter the period of diminishing returns.
It was time to go and he left. Also, he did make the (easy) decision to act
on the intelligence specifying the location of Bin Laden. He formulated
a bi-partisan commission (Simpson-Bowles) to face the impending budget
disaster (but unfortunately did not back the report). He seems like a good
father, loyal husband, and nice guy.

Negative to the candidate I will vote for:

Mitt Romney can't be defined because he is listening to handlers instead
of speaking to the people. Although he was among the leaders of a
successful company no evidence has ever been shown about his personal
contribution to that success. As a one term governor, he did balance the
budget (in a state that requires this) and implemented a health care
proposal whose basic premise he now runs from. In the face of momentous
political events surrounding the incumbent, he wimpers no louder than
a wounded puppy. Just like the prior president, we still sniff at his every
clue (WHO DID HE SELECT FOR THE TRANSITION TEAM?), just to
find out any one fact about the candidate who cannot deliver a specific
message using boat-loads of funding.

06-26-2012, 05:59 PM	#7
GreenGeek Cautiously optimistic thanks to Idzik. Veteran Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Stony Brook Posts: 1,662	Here's my entry: Positive to the candidate I won't vote for (but I did last time): President Obama did the right thing in pulling out from Iraq. Modern warfare is often not among nations, but against nebulous entities (al qaeda) that go into hiding rather than surrender. As a result, one can't expect a clean withdrawal like WWI or WWII. Instead, you must call a halt when you enter the period of diminishing returns. It was time to go and he left. Also, he did make the (easy) decision to act on the intelligence specifying the location of Bin Laden. He formulated a bi-partisan commission (Simpson-Bowles) to face the impending budget disaster (but unfortunately did not back the report). He seems like a good father, loyal husband, and nice guy. Negative to the candidate I will vote for: Mitt Romney can't be defined because he is listening to handlers instead of speaking to the people. Although he was among the leaders of a successful company no evidence has ever been shown about his personal contribution to that success. As a one term governor, he did balance the budget (in a state that requires this) and implemented a health care proposal whose basic premise he now runs from. In the face of momentous political events surrounding the incumbent, he wimpers no louder than a wounded puppy. Just like the prior president, we still sniff at his every clue (WHO DID HE SELECT FOR THE TRANSITION TEAM?), just to find out any one fact about the candidate who cannot deliver a specific message using boat-loads of funding.