Three takeaways from last nights debate

[executioner]

What will happen if your guy wins and things in America don't improve? Blame the mess he inherited from the last guy?

Actually no, I won't stoop that low. Bush did leave somewhat of a mess, but Obama has done nothing but made it worse. Obama's policies and not willing to work with Congress are huge mistakes. Obama had an all Democratic government his first 2 years in office and got nothing done except for Obamacare which he had to force his congress to pass in the middle of the night. Unlike the Republican led House of Representatives, the Democratic led Senate and the Obama White House has failed for 3 straight years to pass a budget. Obama's exact words on not passing a budget was "It's my way or no way" This really sounds like a grown up doesn't it?
Romney has proven that he can work with all types of political people and also private sector people. I think it will take Romney 18 months to get us back to where we were when Obama came in office and probably another year after that til we see some type of daylight. The main huge difference between Romney & Obama is his willingness to work all sides of the government to get it done. That is where Obama has failed miserably.
BTW General Motors has been rumored to be looking for more cash from the Obama Adminstration which will happen sometime before Jan 20th if Romney pulls this out. Just what we need is another bailout!!!

[knotodiswrld]

I am truly stunned and shocked ... I never ever heard anything negative said about Bush by any of you republicans ...yikes! There's something new!

That is because most liberals are incapable of comprehending the negative things we said about Bush. Don't get me wrong. On balance, I think Bush was an "okay" president, though certainly not without his flaws.

But here's what you won't understand: Bush simply wasn't a true conservative. He increase spending on social programs, such as Medicare, entirely too much. He wasn't a RINO (Republican in Name Only) like McCain, but he was certainly not nearly as conservative as he needed to be.

I used to laugh when foolish pundits would call Bush the "most conservative president ever". Then I realized they were serious, and I just became angry that anyone would put forth such a blatant lie. Oh, that Bush had been the most conservative President ever! Then we would have known true prosperity. But JFK was at least as conservative a George W.

Like I said, Bush was, on balance, alright. Certainly no Regan. But far better than Clinton or Obama ... and frankly better than his own father had been.

Bush's most reasonable and substantive critics were always on the right. Rush Limbaugh frequently criticized Bush's policies. We all did. I mean, we knew he was better than anyone on the Dem side, but oh how we wished he'd slide to the right a bit.


Obama, on the other hand, has increased spending by an order of magnitude over what Bush ever did. He is striving toward a socialist/marxist society. He has doubled our debt in only four years. Bush spend a tiny fraction of what Obama has spent. And he didn't trample all over free enterprise to do it.

When Clinton won his second term, I thought, "Well, it's not the end of the world." If Obama wins a second term ... it might honestly be.

[Petrafan327]

Obama hasn't helped our country in ANY way. He raised the debt by $6 trillion in only 4 years, he doubled the deficit, unemployment is now 10.7% thanks to him (the 7.8% is a lie started by democrats--you gotta count those who gave up looking for work as well), and gas is $4 + all over the country. And when asked why the gas was so much cheaper when he took office, Obama said it was because the economy was about to collapse!! Are you kidding me?!?!? If that was so, it should be cheaper now, because we are in an even bigger hole than 4 years ago. The president doesn't have a plan for the future, and he has lied numerous times, for instance the Benghazi cover-up: he blamed a stupid video rather than acknowledge it was terrorists, even though he knew within hours that it was terrorists. So therefore, I see Obama as unfit to lead our country.

[gman]

We're going to have a hard enough time recovering financially under Romney, but at least he's vowing to get things in order and not backing off it.
Under Obama, we're headed toward Greece or worse. I think he wants to take us there, others disagree. Either way it's not good.
I'm done with the constant lying. Four Americans were killed in Libya. Obama may have labeled it an act of terror initially, which is different from a terrorist attack, but he and the administration spent two weeks blaming the attack on an angry mob stirred up by an anti muslim video. We now know it was a coordinated attack planned to happen on 9/11, and that it had nothing to do with a video, and there was no angry mob. We also know that the administration had advance intel on it, and real time drone video as it unfolded, and they didn't do anything. It was reported yesterday that Secretary Clinton, who ultimately fell on the sword and took responsibility, called for more security, but was ultimately ignored.
The president told several lies in the debate. He was caught lying about Romney's GM editorial piece, and he also lied about sequestration, which is automatic, decimating spending cuts set to kick in. He said in 2011 that it would happen. In the debate he said it's not going to happen. 24 hours later, in an interview with a paper in Des Moine that he thought was off record, he told them it would happen and that it was essentially part of his plan to reduce the deficit. He's saying whatever he thinks he has to to get reelected. I guess he expects the media to cover for him, but they're starting to poke holes in the water pail.
I think it's pretty remarkable that David Letterman came out the other night and expressed his disappointment over Obama lying in the debate.

[executioner]

I am truly stunned and shocked ... I never ever heard anything negative said about Bush by any of you republicans ...yikes! There's something new!

I don't see why you are coming with these comments; you act like we think Bush was some type of God or a perfect man. Bush IMO was a great President but also as we all are just human and imperfect in alot of ways. Go back in the history of ThePetraZone and you will see where there were some comments not only by me, but also by others here that are/were Bush supporters that show his mistakes and faults. Bush came into office with an agenda that had to be put on the back burner because of 9/11. 9/11 changed everything and I think Bush handled it greater than probably anybody else could(besides Reagan). I would have hated to see how Clinton or Gore would have handled 9/11, plus just look at Obama right now with his Libya/Benghazi mess he has going on; Bush and his adminstration had to think fast and on the fly with 9/11 and all what Obama can do is tell lies about Libya and about just about everything else.
The final year of Bush's Presidency I would have liked for Bush to do a few things different with the economy and also the GM/Chrysler bailout should have never been put in place which Romney is right about and Bush & Obama are wrong about.

[p-freak]

I would have hated to see how Clinton or Gore would have handled 9/11, plus just look at Obama right now with his Libya/Benghazi mess he has going on; Bush and his adminstration had to think fast and on the fly with 9/11 and all what Obama can do is tell lies about Libya and about just about everything else.

So what lies is he telling about Libya and how do you know they are lies? Just curious.

Compared to what Bush caused in Iraq and Afghanistan Libya looks like a kindergarten. Libya is a mess of course, but Obama was at least part of an international coalition and he even came on board late. To me this shows more and better judgement than Bush ever displayed in his reaction to 9/11.

[executioner]

I would have hated to see how Clinton or Gore would have handled 9/11, plus just look at Obama right now with his Libya/Benghazi mess he has going on; Bush and his adminstration had to think fast and on the fly with 9/11 and all what Obama can do is tell lies about Libya and about just about everything else.

So what lies is he telling about Libya and how do you know they are lies? Just curious.

Compared to what Bush caused in Iraq and Afghanistan Libya looks like a kindergarten. Libya is a mess of course, but Obama was at least part of an international coalition and he even came on board late. To me this shows more and better judgement than Bush ever displayed in his reaction to 9/11.

First thing Libya/Benghazi is a total cover up; you must be watching liberal media help Obama cover up his mess. This is a detailed account of the Benghazi Terrorist attack.

1. The U.S. Embassay was attacked twice before 09/11/12 and also there were repeated attempts asking for some type of security or military protection at the Embassay(Ambassador Stevens made 3 formal requests). If we still had in place the Security Alerts that Bush brought in after 09/11 which Obama dissolved in his first week in office, than President Obama would have known about these requests and also if Obama would have been going through his daily security briefings(which he has acknowledge he does not do) he would have also known about all these requests.
2. Obama knew on the night of the 09/11/2012 attack that it was a terrorist attack because he was watching the event live in the Situation Room and Obama failed to do anything to help the Ambassador and his staff out; in fact he actually told 2 CIA agents to stand down 2 times and not try and help the Ambassador & staff. This order to stand down can only come directly from the President & staff has been verified by numerous former Generals, One Joint Chief, & Former Ambassador Bolton. Up until 2 weeks ago Obama was swearing this whole thing had to do with a video made in California which was proven false by the CIA & State Department 48 hrs after 09/11/12. Obama til this day still says he doesn't about the situation even though he was present in the situation room watching it live via a drone flying over head.
This whole thing is a cover up by the White House because of two reasons 1. He wants the American people to think his do not engage terrorist policy is working and Al quada is all but destroyed 2. His policy to lead from behind to bring peace to the Middle East has worked.
Both above examples are not working and will never work, comprising with the terrorists will never work(which he is trying to do) and completely backfired on him in Benghazi.

Bush DID NOT cause anything in Iraq & Afgan; those countries caused it on themselves by allowing a dictator who had killed over 1 million of his own law abiding citizens(in some cases his own family) and also allowing 2 terrorist organizations to basically rule their country(Afgan). Iraq still has some issues, but one will know you can't create a democracy overnight in some cases it will take generations. The Iraqi people want to be free and are more free now than they have been since the 1970's, and in most cases are very happy The United States came along and defeated Hussien.
Afgan is somewhat of different story and the verdict is really out on it; I'm not sure if we ought to be there, but I understand we started there because we went looking for Bin Laden and I will say if Bush had not done all the leg work looking for Bin Laden, Obama would have never had the chance he did in killing Bin Laden.

[Petrafan327]

I would have hated to see how Clinton or Gore would have handled 9/11, plus just look at Obama right now with his Libya/Benghazi mess he has going on; Bush and his adminstration had to think fast and on the fly with 9/11 and all what Obama can do is tell lies about Libya and about just about everything else.

So what lies is he telling about Libya and how do you know they are lies? Just curious.

Compared to what Bush caused in Iraq and Afghanistan Libya looks like a kindergarten. Libya is a mess of course, but Obama was at least part of an international coalition and he even came on board late. To me this shows more and better judgement than Bush ever displayed in his reaction to 9/11.

First thing Libya/Benghazi is a total cover up; you must be watching liberal media help Obama cover up his mess. This is a detailed account of the Benghazi Terrorist attack.

1. The U.S. Embassay was attacked twice before 09/11/12 and also there were repeated attempts asking for some type of security or military protection at the Embassay(Ambassador Stevens made 3 formal requests). If we still had in place the Security Alerts that Bush brought in after 09/11 which Obama dissolved in his first week in office, than President Obama would have known about these requests and also if Obama would have been going through his daily security briefings(which he has acknowledge he does not do) he would have also known about all these requests.
2. Obama knew on the night of the 09/11/2012 attack that it was a terrorist attack because he was watching the event live in the Situation Room and Obama failed to do anything to help the Ambassador and his staff out; in fact he actually told 2 CIA agents to stand down 2 times and not try and help the Ambassador & staff. This order to stand down can only come directly from the President & staff was has been said by numerous former Generals, One Joint Chief, & Former Ambassador Bolton. Up until 2 weeks ago Obama was swearing this whole thing had to do with a video made in California which was proven false by the CIA & State Department 48 hrs after 09/11/12. Obama til this day still says he doesn't about the situation even though he was present in the situation room watching it live via a drone flying over head.
This whole thing is a cover up by the White House because of two reasons 1. He wants the American people to think his do not engage terrorist policy is working and Al quada is all but destroyed 2. His policy to lead from behind to bring peace to the Middle East has worked.
Both above examples are not working and will never work, comprising with the terrorists will never work(which he is trying to do) will never work and completely backfired on him in Benghazi.

Bush DID NOT cause anything in Iraq & Afgan; those countries caused it on themselves by allowing a dictator who had killed over 1 million of his own law abiding citizens(in some cases his own family) and also allowing 2 terrorist organizations to basically rule their country(Afgan). Iraq still has some issues, but one will know you can't create a democracy overnight in some cases it will take generations. The Iraqi people want to be free and are more free now than they have been since the 1970's, and in most cases are very happy The United States came along and defeated Hussien.
Afgan is somewhat of different story and the verdict is really out on it; I'm not sure if we ought to be there, but I understand we started there because we went looking for Bin Laden and I will say if Bush had not done all the leg work looking for Bin Laden, Obama would have never had the chance he did in killing Bin Laden.

nice job explaining Benghazi coverup... that's what I've been thinking in my head but it probably wouldn't have come out as expertly as you presented it

[gman]

Bush had an international coalition, just not the one Liberals would have approved of.

[knotodiswrld]

Sure, bush was revered as much as obama is despised. I'll never understand your political system that doesn't give you a choice (if you're Christian there's really only one party to vote for). How can you be happy with that?

At least in Canada we've got 4 parties to choose from, and the Church isn't in the back pocket of any of them.

Honestly, I don't even know what you're talking about. Bush revered as much as Obama is despised?!?!? On what, exactly, are you basing this? For most Conservatives, Bush wasn't conservative enough. For most Liberals, he was the devil incarnate. Revered? What the skunk-bait are you talking about?

And Christians have plenty of choice. There's the Libertarian party. There's the Constitution Party. And of course, there's the much larger Republican Party.

On the left side, you have the Green Party, the Communist Party, and two or three different socialist parties ... I mean other than the Democrat party.

Then there's Ross Perot's so-called "Independent Party", which I've never really found interesting enough to bother understanding.

Sometimes, I think when Canadians talk about the U.S., they may as well be talking about Narnia for all the resemblance what they say has to reality.

[knotodiswrld]

Bush had an international coalition, just not the one Liberals would have approved of.

Really, who was part of that international coalition? It lacked any credible backing from the UN.

UN is not synonymous with "international coalition". In fact, the UN is now one of the biggest obstacles to Freedom and Liberty in the world today. The best thing the U.S. could do to promote Freedom and Liberty the world over would be to pull out of the U.N. and cut off all funding to it ... allowing it to collapse.

Said coalition started with Great Britain. Canada and Australia were involved for a time. Many NATO allies were involved.

[rexreed]

Do you remember reading in history about the League of Nations?

[p-freak]

UN is not synonymous with "international coalition". In fact, the UN is now one of the biggest obstacles to Freedom and Liberty in the world today. The best thing the U.S. could do to promote Freedom and Liberty the world over would be to pull out of the U.N. and cut off all funding to it ... allowing it to collapse.

You're actually right, except for the last four words. The problem with international cooperation is that the US never wants to cooperate, just like China and Russia, and just wants to decide its own course. So if the US would go back to a nice isolationist position, like Bush originally chose as his international policy, then we (the rest of the world) would have the freedom and liberty to make good decision without some superpower blocking everything because its citizens keep whining that gas is too expensive and don't want to pay what it's actually worth. Hopefully we can find some reason to make China and Russia go away and then everything will be fine.

Oh, and one of the major problems with the US in the UN is that they never pay what they're supposed to pay. So no US, doesn't affect the financial position that bad, because you always refuse to pay anyway.

And I suggest you follow up on Rex' suggestion and start reading some history.

[executioner]

UN is not synonymous with "international coalition". In fact, the UN is now one of the biggest obstacles to Freedom and Liberty in the world today. The best thing the U.S. could do to promote Freedom and Liberty the world over would be to pull out of the U.N. and cut off all funding to it ... allowing it to collapse.

You're actually right, except for the last four words. The problem with international cooperation is that the US never wants to cooperate, just like China and Russia, and just wants to decide its own course. So if the US would go back to a nice isolationist position, like Bush originally chose as his international policy, then we (the rest of the world) would have the freedom and liberty to make good decision without some superpower blocking everything because its citizens keep whining that gas is too expensive and don't want to pay what it's actually worth. Hopefully we can find some reason to make China and Russia go away and then everything will be fine.

Oh, and one of the major problems with the US in the UN is that they never pay what they're supposed to pay. So no US, doesn't affect the financial position that bad, because you always refuse to pay anyway.

And I suggest you follow up on Rex' suggestion and start reading some history.

REFUSE TOO PAY???? About 75% of the revenue and budget for the UN comes directly from the United States. No support from the United States would mean no UN. I feel along the lines as most of Americans that its time the UN pick up their junk and their dictatorship policies and high tail it out of New York; their headquarters are most likely best suited for some where in Africa because that is where the majority of the funds go which is right back into the dictators, gangs, or warlords back pockets.

WITHOUT THE UNITED STATES FUNDING THE UNITED NATIONS WOULD NOT EXSIST!!

[p-freak]

REFUSE TOO PAY???? About 75% of the revenue and budget for the UN comes directly from the United States. No support from the United States would mean no UN. I feel along the lines as most of Americans that its time the UN pick up their junk and their dictatorship policies and high tail it out of New York; their headquarters are most likely best suited for some where in Africa because that is where the majority of the funds go which is right back into the dictators, gangs, or warlords back pockets.

WITHOUT THE UNITED STATES FUNDING THE UNITED NATIONS WOULD NOT EXSIST!!

Let's turn that 75% into 22%. In the past they used to have a limit that rich countries wouldn't have to pay more than 25% of the UN budget. Because the US plainly refused to pay up, they started to negotiate and brought this limit down from 25% to 22%. The US should be a major contribution but they just don't pay their full fees. They're showing improvement, but it's still horrible.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/ ... DW20110125

The UN has proven that they can exist without US funding, because they just haven't paid up for years. This financial conflict has been going on for ages and ages and it's there because the US want to wriggle away from their international obligations, so if there's any country that is messing with the UN, it's the US. And don't give me that humbug about UN funds going straight to dictators and warlords. The weapons that your great government sold to the mujahedin in Afghanistan during the Soviet war in the 1980s, they went directly to dictators and warlords. Please, get your facts straight.

And the right spelling of exsist is exist..,