Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Republican National Security Debate Thread - 11/22/2011


@DCGoldPants

Recommended Posts

I agree with parts of what he said with two exceptions

1) He says we have to build up our SF type troops (Not really, we just need to adapt the infantry mission a little) to handle Asymmetric conflicts, then criticizes the president for deploying troops to do just that in Africa. Typical double talk.

2) Its an interesting debate to say that we have seen the last heavy armor battle, however, do you really want to be on the side that doesn't have any? Not a gamble I would want to make as MBT's are not made overnight, nor are troops trained in Armored warfare in a couple months. Fact of the matter is we need to maintain enough of a Heavy forces to take on anyone else in the world, because we do not know what the future holds. As future foreign militaries scale down on their heavy forces, so can we, but we need to maintain enough of a force to handle any potential conflict.

We. Cannot. Police. The. World. We will go bankrupt, just like the Soviet Union. Do we not learn from others?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't help it. I've admitted it before. I'm hot for the crazy chick. I can't believe myself, but it happens. She's got me under her spell.

Step away from the crazy chick, Jumbo, just step away. You'll thank all of us who so advise later. I've been with crazy chicks, it's really not worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Step away from the crazy chick, Jumbo, just step away. You'll thank all of us who so advise later. I've been with crazy chicks, it's really not worth it.

I know I know...but I'm thinking just maybe one more...one who has money and knows the tax laws..maybe this time...:pfft:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember when that first came and the author's premise is still relevant. And not to be confused with the follow-up "Being a Real Dick In Business."

I worked at a company where the top guy (eventually) was somebody named Peter....which I found amusing because the more he was awful....the more he was moved up....eventually replacing the retiring CEO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gingrich keeps talking about opening up oil fields...someone may want to check to see if he's getting some kickbacks there....

Probably one of his "foundations" owns some stock in one of the Marcellus Shale drilling companies.

Lots of natural gas ads lately. Bogus of course in the environmentally friendly claims. Just ask those people who can light their water on fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just ask those people who can light their water on fire.

I suppose you're one of those greeners who are against people being able to see what they drink in the dark. C'mon. It's like your water is an exotic dessert or colorful bar beverage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The twitters is telling me that a lot of Foxnews viewers are confused because there aren't any ads telling them how to get cash for their gold.

Oh, and Perry was sweating like Richard Nixon for awhile there.

---------- Post added November-22nd-2011 at 09:25 PM ----------

11-22-2011+9-22-32+PM.jpg

The key to a good debate is a diverse audience.

Yeah, they made sure to sprinkle a few women here and there. A sea of gray is boring, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought Newt did pretty good overall. I was impressed with his stance on immigration.

LMAO @ the Cain replay.

Romney did good, but I still have a hard time liking him.

Paul was himself, some good points taken too far.

I thought Hunstman had maybe his best debate, but I don't know that it will help him or make much difference overall.

I didn't really like him transitioning from talking about the Persian Spring which was a good point, to suddenly talking about Israel.

I still wonder if he is really running as Obama's vp. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the drinks that glow in black light. Just sayin'

I think I still have a black light somewhere...stashed with the Tiger, Two Lovers, Hendrix, Yellow Submarine, and that one blonde's Celestial Unicorn, posters. :D

Well, I pick Sanitorium as the last place finisher and the win was a tie between Paul & Newt (scary enough? :evilg: :ols:)

Others? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Romney was Romney...talking enough to seem like he was taking a stance without actually taking a clearly defined stance and then immediately shifting the answer to say it is all Obama's fault.

As far as Jumbo's question: I would put Cain and Santorum as neck and neck for last place, though the nod might go to Cain for the sheer vapidity of his "answers". Agree with Paul and Newt being the winners, even though I disagree with a lot of their specific views. Paul talks straight and says what he means, even if he beats a certain point to the ground and goes a bit far and Newt at least has the intellect to discuss his ideas cogently and with context. Perry, Huntsman, Bachmann were all "meh" (though Bachmann did bring the crazy a couple times which gives her a bump). And as I said above, Romney is just Romney. Not much there but a suit and hair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...