Perry attacks Romney, Obama in policy speech
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
U.N. Security Council blames Syrian gov't for Houla killings
( 5 )
-
U.S. drones kill 5 militants in Pakistan
( 9 )
-
NATO has fight on its hands in Afghanistan - Panetta
( 6 )
-
Iran may rethink 20% enrichment: spokesman
( 1 )
-
Egypt's uprising activists weigh Brotherhood vote
( 0 )
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- ALT - Mie Prefecture - Yokkaichi City - June start
- NPO法人グローバル教育推進機構（GLAD), Mie
- Salary: ¥230,000 / Month For a full working month. Some months differ.
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
Order by Time Order by Popularity
29 Comments
Login to comment
0
zurcronium
Gov. Parry is toast now. Embracing immigrants is a death sentence politically for any republican. The tea party types hate mexican people, unless they are cleaning their pools for them. Or raking leaves. Or picking lettuce.
As they say in Texas, Parry is all hat and no cattle.
0
SushiSake3
GOP candidates are always so dissappointing, unimaginative and with ideas that want to grab America by the throat in a deathgrip and drag it yelling and screaming back to the 18th century.
If you’re a voter looking for 18th century thinking on womens abortion rights, the environment and grade 1 views on the economy, the GOP has your man (or woman).
But if you want America to progress, um, anything but the GOP/TP will likely start the nation moving in a better direction
0
Lieberman2012
"The tea party types hate mexican people, unless they are cleaning their pools for them."
Please, zurcronium, it is considered rude (racist even) not to capitalize "Mexican." I wonder sometimes if you really are the progressive you say you are.
0
sailwind
Long way to go but Perry needs to recover from his disappointing Debate performances. Not sure he will be able to after two back to back mediocre ones so far for him. Herman Cain is starting to catch fire and I really like the man and his message and economic plans for the country. He's moving up fast in the the field and so far is the guy I want to see nominated and be our next President.
0
Lieberman2012
Lay off Obama.He is just too easy a target these days.
0
Laguna
Y'know, Sailwind, I love Cain, too, though probably for different reasons than you. In fact, I love Perry much as I love Cain - and Bachmann, and Paul - heck, I've even developed a fondness for Romney and that Utah guy, if only out of pity. I would love Palin if she made the jump, just as I scorn Trump for his cowardly exit - he lacks the conviction of Gingrich, that of the American dream come true through politics. The entire Republican field: I just love it as a whole and each individually. They are an entirely lovable bunch.
That's what makes Obama such an easy target. He's the only adult in the room.
0
Serrano
"Obama...He's the only adult in the room"
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
0
Laguna
Republicans have this way of taking government programs which fulfill crucial human services which, admittedly, need correction, and turning criticism towards the program itself rather than addressing the need that it fulfills.
Social security provides a minimum standard of living to those who have paid into it. It is challenged by a temporary surge in retirees known as the "baby boom." Perry's remedy: eliminate it.
The minimum wage puts a floor on the wages of employees so as to create a "living wage" - that a person who works should be able to earn enough to live. There are many exemptions for the young and those in training, yet Republicans such as Bachmann would like to eliminate it.
The right of a woman to abort an undesired pregnancy has been upheld by the Supreme Court, but the majority of Republican candidates for president oppose this right. At the same time, they oppose government aid to women unable to adequately raise their children.
Healthcare is different from any other product: it is inevitable, not a choice. Republicans back when they were responsible supported an insurance mandate until that became the centerpiece of 'Obamacare.' Now they oppose it. The current idea seems to be an income tax credit, undoubtedly of great use to those too poor to buy insurance, the majority of whom don't pay federal income taxes anyway.
Serrano, the only Republican candidates for president to date who have put forth proposals which address needs rather than attacking current programs are those who have had to repudiate them because they have fallen afoul of the Tea Party mandate. They are like the child crying as they watch their parents fight, saying, "Daddy, if you'd just quit your job, you'd have enough time to look after mommy." Quitting responsibility does not equate eliminating need, as any adult knows.
So tell me, which Republican candidate has shown adult-like qualities thus far?
0
Laguna
I mean, seriously, this crop is like a group of ADD-afflicted kids who zoned out on the Schoolhouse Rock video introducing the preamble to the constitution after it finished "Provide for the Common Defense..." Afterwards, it was all blah, blah, blah.
0
sailwind
Laguna,
There is no such thing as a free lunch, somebody is going to get stuck with the bill. Adults know this and adults know that they have just got stuck with the check and Uncle Mao in China is not going to lend anymore credit to pick up the tab. Where is your plan to get out of debt? Blame Bush?
0
Laguna
Read my post, Sailwind: yes, we understand that the deficit exists. Yes, we understand that it must be brought down. The question is how. The Republican cabal of candidates would do that by eliminating the "provide for the general welfare" part of government. There are other, better ways if one does not venture into panicked, polemical attacks. That is precisely my point.
0
Madverts
" Adults know this and adults know that they have just got stuck with the check and Uncle Mao in China is not going to lend anymore credit to pick up the tab."
This is news to me.
I thought the Republicans politicized the issue because they have absolutely no real plan to tackle America's addiction to debt, then threw in a bit of brinkmanship and caused the rucus over the government debt ceiling which pushed global markets into further turmoil. Blame Bush? How many times under his administration was the debt ceiling raised?
Laguna's wrong this isn't child vs.adult issue. It's moderate vs.radical. Not one candidate has yet shown anything other than blast Obama for not being able to get America out of the hole it's bneen digging for decades in 3 and a half years. Most of you were bemoaning Obama's performance before his bloody inauguration for pete's sake!
0
sailwind
Adverts, Laguna,
My radical viewis this we are spending of money we do not have and borrowed from future generations to ensure they will have it worse than we do. I rather think that kind of legacy from my generation to them......sucks.
0
Madverts
Yes, yes.....back in the Bush years you seemed so concerned about the endless cheque-book given by Unkle Mao, very vocal and very persuasive.
At least the Obamacare is directed at Americans, rather than un-told billions borrowed to finance the elusive freedumb for certain middle eastern countries.
And you wonder why I use the word radical? Look no further, illumination is on this thread.
0
sailwind
Madverts,
I am concerned why you use the word radical to describe my past posts and my positions. Bush is not President right now. I do not pine for the him or wish he was back or his policies. I am more concerned about President Obama and the policies he has pushed and how they have failed all around.
0
Serrano
How can Obama lose?
0
Madverts
Policies takes years to implement, even longer to bear fruit.
Past positions are important, however. Back when those of us that protested so the invasion of Iraq, one of the question's frequently asked was indeed that of who would be paying for for the debacle...and Mr Mao's cheque-book was good enough for you back then wasn't it?
Now if you wish to make the argument of not wanting future generations to foot the bill for borrowing as you have said for a while, I'm left wondering how you can sit there with a straight face after defending Bush for all those years...and all the billions upon billions of borrowed Chinese money, not to mention all those lives spunked in the desert and not to mention them not being of benefit to Americans un-like the dreaded Obamacare.
To be credible your position must at least seem consistent. Yours isn't. It is, to me anyway, the position of someone with a radical agenda that will howl against and obstruct absolutely anything done by the opposition. That to me is radicalism.
I persevere with you because unlike kindred JT spirits (at least two lurking on this thread) you've kept your handle and at least remain polite. Therefore there is hope to return you to the table.
When one of the repub candidates says anything that smells of novelty or intelligence I'll be the first to acknowledge. Only they don't, there is just a list of candidates out there from the mildy amusing to the downright scary.
It's gonna get ugly in 2012. That's all I can predict right know.
0
sailwind
Now if you wish to make the argument of not wanting future generations to foot the bill for borrowing as you have said for a while, I'm left wondering how you can sit there with a straight face after defending Bush for all those years...and all the billions upon billions of borrowed Chinese money, not to mention all those lives spunked in the desert and not to mention them not being of benefit to Americans un-like the dreaded Obamacare.
No offense.........History, the first Gulf war liberated Kuwait and all of her oil flowed to the west afterwards, paid for the liberation as a matter of fact. I believe Bush thought the same thing would happen afterward the invasion of Iraq and it would have paid for the invasion of Iraq proper.
0
Madverts
No, that's what Rumsfelt said. Heh, but he said a lot of things did he not? His place in history is assured, just above the implorable tenure of the two above him.
After the blaze your invasion touched off in Iraq, I doubt many will support you in demanding repairations from Iraq. In fact, if European history is anything to go by I'd strongly advise against that kind of thinking. Content yourself with the no-bid contracts that benefited you-know-who and the odd sale of F16 fighters and associated killing stuff.
Thanks for ignoring my point, as ever. I guess that settles the matter - you have no compunction about future generations paying for the folly in Iraq, but you condemn in the strongest manner future generations paying for Obamacare, that is solely for American consumption.
Republican good. Democrat bad.
Radical partisanship in a nutshell folks. Move along...
0
sailwind
No offense again, repairations? I think the deal or hope would be to sell us the oil at favorable rates not by force and that did not actually work our very well at all. As far as no bid contracts USS Stark got nailed by an Exocet missile courtesy of France selling it to Saddam.
0
Madverts
Heh wow, do I get to list all the dead people because of the weapons the US sold saddam? Or the satellite positions the US gave to better gas Iranians (ignoring Oli North who was arming the other side!)
Heh, despite the French giving invaluable input with its' excorcet technology back in '91 which makes a mockery of your argument, I fail to see what this has to do with the matter at hand.
I'm used to the radical left introducing lot's of other topics to obfuscate the subject, but hey-ho, I'm versatile.
Leaving aside the fact that you feel repairations are due from Iraq, despite the abject carnage you caused over there, 'lil ole Adverts is reverting to the topic at hand, something I know is quite deplorable...
Here it is, no escaping. Answer or forefeit.
How can you support future generations paying for the imense cost of the invasion of Iraq, on false pretences I might add, as you have solidly over the years - yet decry the efforts of Obama pushing an agenda to support the healthcare rights of less fortunate Americans?
Let's hear it, please.
0
sailwind
Madverts,
History
The USS Stark Incident occurred during the Iran-Iraq War on May 17, 1987 when an Iraqi jet aircraft fired missiles at the American frigate USS Stark. Thirty-seven United States Navy personnel were killed and twenty-one others were wounded.
I do not blame France for looking out for her own self interest in supporting Saddam's regime. This was a tragedy and a very difficult time between allies. I bring this back to your attention for one reason only. I am not a radical or an extremist, just someone who actually disagrees with your politics and posts as such and just gets villified for it each an every time.
0
Madverts
Then answer, forfeit or remain a radical.
I'll respect you a whole lot more for being honest with me, if that means anything to you.
One question. Just above, with the prelude of "answer or forfeit".
And here's a cheat, France has nothing to do with this, despite me residing here with my British passport...
0
sailwind
Let's hear it, please.
Answer:
The Bush Administration thought it would be paid after by Iraqi oil revenues after installing a pro western Government. There was precedence for this based on the First Gulf War and the liberation of Kuwait. This proved to be false but was based on precedence. President Obama inherited a huge deficit from Bush based on this false assumption. He did not pay it off. Instead he got busy adding to the debt incurred with his healthcare bill. He made things worse, much worse.
0
Madverts
Making things worse after Mr Bush is a tall order.
You seem to be having difficulty with the question, and after all the other subjects you've introduced, you appear to be less than willing to address it, it's even had you talking about the French??
Focus. Concentrate.
You have a problem with the Chinese cheque book with the Obama administration.
Only when Bush was using the same cheque book, and not particularly in the interest of your average tax-payer I might add, you were right behind him.
I'll address any other concerns or any further sunbjects you wish to inject, after you have had the decency to answer to this contradiction.
You can do it!
0
Madverts
Well sail, I'm headed out with the Saturday night fever being a young'un and all, so I'll have to check in on the morrow.
I doubt you will reply honestly because your position is quite frankly untenable. The comment regarding Obama "paying off" the debt shows that your cognisance on the amount due is pretty weak, as is your hopelessly one-sided argument here today.
When you're ready to return to the moderate table, my arms will still be open, in light of the past at least. Bonsoir x
0
Serrano
It doesn't matter who wins the Republican nomination, Obama has a lock on the White House.
0
sailwind
Madverts,
I was not right behind him as far his economic policies. I was stuck with him and I held my nose as he pushed through the Medicaid prescription drug benefit without paying for it and the TARP bail-out. The Democratic alternatives at the time were even worse options. I was also sorely disappointed that he saw fit to create a whole new bureaucracy and cabinet position after 9/11. The Department of Homeland Security was not needed in my opinion as a restructure of the FBI / CIA and Defense Dept NSA agencies to better facilitate and share intelligence under one single Command structure, that would deal exclusively with the intel and advise the President would have been more prudent. The problem I have is once a bureaucracy gets started it never goes away even if its not needed anymore and Govt just keeps getting bigger and bigger.
We can discuss Bush all day long and solve nothing. He racked up the debt and Obama is racking it up even more. The debt is the problem and both Democrats and Republicans have been kicking that can down the road till we've finally run out of road. President Obama's political DNA will not allow him to make the hard calls to get the spending under control and I can only hope the next Guy we elect does make the hard choices before the U.S ends up with a bankrupt economy and a worthless dollar.
0
Madverts
Sailwind,
The point isn't Mr Bush. It's your argument - you've circuitously avoided the point I'm trying to hammer home throughout this thread.
You cheered on the war in Iraq, paid for lock, stock and barrel with Chinese cheque-book. Yet now it's in Mr Obama's hands, you seem worried about passing the bill to future generations, despite the majority of Obama's policies being to assist under-privelaged Americans, rather than opressed Iraqis.
I have faith that you can see these contradictions secretly, behind the mask of Tea Party denial and hypocrisy.
Back to top