News & Politics

Cafe Steph
2012 Vice Presidential Debate Oct. 11: Watch It and Discuss the Issues with Us! (VIDEO)
October 9, 2012 at 1:04 PM

                                Joe Biden vs Paul Ryan

The Vice Presidential Debate focused on Foreign and Domestic Policy.

                                                         patriotic                

Watch it and share your thoughts!



The debate aired live on C-SPAN, ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC, all cable news channels including CNN, Fox News and MSNBC and via live stream at: 2012PresidentialElectionNews.com

votingReply here to tell us what you like about the candidates, what you don’t like, what you think about their stances on the issues, and whatever comes to mind!


And don't miss out on your chance to WIN a $25 gift card:
GIVEAWAY and POLL: Obama or Romney? Win a $25 gift card!!


Please join us again next week, October 16th at 9pm ET, for another great discussion as we watch the 2nd Presidential debate, a town hall format, on foreign and domestic policy, aired on the same networks and online.

Replies

  • Carpy
    by Carpy
    October 12, 2012 at 2:30 PM
    I agree but simpletons like to base their assessment on how many sips of water Ryan took. Joe came off as an arrogant, no-nothing.

    Quoting pvtjokerus:

    France is not a hotbed.  Libya was.  Libya asked for security support and they were denied. 


    Ryan came across as strong and knowing details.  Biden failed in this area.  He was weak in the Afghanistan area.  Biden had no substance.


    Quoting JonJon:




    Quoting pvtjokerus:


    Well, Biden beat Obama.  But the smirking has got to go.  Ryan kicked butt on his knowledge of foreign policy.


    No, he proved he knows a bit about the hot spots in the Middle East and he knows there's an embassy in France.  He never did explain why he cut the budget for embassy security.  What foreign policy knowledge led to those cuts?  That there were no threats? 


    Foreign policy is a lot more than that. 



  • Carpy
    by Carpy
    October 12, 2012 at 2:34 PM
    If I wanted to equal your ignorance, I would us WND.

    Quoting mom_to_travis:

    Oh, so sorry.  I forgot to check Fox news.  If you want their version you can go get it yourself.


    Quoting Carpy:

    Why did you keep using this progressive rag site for proofs? It only shows your lack of credibility.



    Quoting mom_to_travis:

    LATEST UPDATE

    10:04 pm

    Ryan attacks and agrees with Obama's Afghanistan withdrawal timeline

    The Romney/Ryan campaign has criticized the Obama administration’s Afghanistan policy but hasn’t offered and specifics or any substance.

    Tonight, Ryan endorsed Obama’s timeline to withdraw by 2014 and did not

    offer any alternative. “We don’t want to stay,” he said. Oddly, Ryan

    then criticized Obama for setting a timeline, but said he and Romney

    agree with it.

    http://thinkprogress.org/


  • imamomzilla
    October 12, 2012 at 2:50 PM

     *giggles*

    Quoting Carpy:

    I agree but simpletons like to base their assessment on how many sips of water Ryan took. Joe came off as an arrogant, no-nothing.

    Quoting pvtjokerus:

    France is not a hotbed.  Libya was.  Libya asked for security support and they were denied. 


    Ryan came across as strong and knowing details.  Biden failed in this area.  He was weak in the Afghanistan area.  Biden had no substance.


    Quoting JonJon:




    Quoting pvtjokerus:


    Well, Biden beat Obama.  But the smirking has got to go.  Ryan kicked butt on his knowledge of foreign policy.


    No, he proved he knows a bit about the hot spots in the Middle East and he knows there's an embassy in France.  He never did explain why he cut the budget for embassy security.  What foreign policy knowledge led to those cuts?  That there were no threats? 


    Foreign policy is a lot more than that. 


     

     

  • kirbymom
    October 12, 2012 at 3:09 PM

    Not now, but we were when Obama was elected. It was one of the many campaign promises he made at that time.  He did take them out of Pakistan, but turned right around and put them in Afghanistan.  I know this because I had a brother that was there for the re-assignment from Pakistan to Afghanistan. This administration has talked about bringing home our troops on a permanent basis, but has of yet fulfilled that promise. When the troops were re-assigned to Afghanistan, they were only supposed to be there approximately 18 months to 2 years. Obama has been in office 4 years and those same troops that were re-assigned have yet to come home. Oh sure, some have come home by way body bags or on leave and even the very few that have been sent back for good. But, that is not the promise he made. All the troops were to be brought home. Where are they right now?  Are they on our turf? 

    EDITED : 

    Are U.S. Troops Operating in Pakistan?

    From , former About.com Guide

    Are U.S. Troops Operating in Pakistan?

    Pakistan's northwest, where American forces and the CIA roam in search of Taliban and al-Qaeda targets.

    Question: Are U.S. Troops Operating in Pakistan?
    Answer: The simple answer, backed by ample evidence, is yes: American troops are not only operating in Pakistan in 2010; they have been operating in Pakistan since the beginning of the war in neighboring Afghanistan. But it is American and Pakistani policy to deny it.

    When it comes to American troops operating in Pakistan, both Pakistan and the United States have played a double game since 2001. The United States is unpopular in Pakistan. The Pakistani government cannot afford to be seen permitting American troops to operate on Pakistani soil. That would send the wrong message to Pakistanis at large--that the Pakistani military, the single-most respected institution in Pakistan, is incapable of defending Pakistani sovereignty on its own.

    The fact is, however, that American troops have been based on Pakistani soil since 2001, and that the Pakistani military is incapable of facing up to the twin threats of the Pakistani Talibanand al-Qaeda on its own. Since 2001, Pakistan has relied on colossal infusions of military aid in the form of cash (more than $10 billion between 2001 and 2009), weaponry, logistics and U.S. troops--officially, Special Forces operating as advisers.

    And since 2002 or 2003, the CIA and the US military have been attacking targets in Pakistan by unmanned Predator drones. The attacks have been stepped up by a significant order of magnitude during the Obama administration, especially in 2010. The CIA drones are based in secret locations in Pakistan and armed by Blackwater mercenaries, according to The New York Times.

    American Casualties in Pakistan

    The very first American casualties of Operation Enduring Freedom--the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001--fell on Pakistani soil, when Army Rangers Pfc. Kristofor T. Stonesifer and Specialist Jonn Joseph Edmunds were killed when their Black Hawk helicopter crashed. An official military history of the Afghan invasion, written by the United States Special Operations Command, describes the crash as a result of "brown-out conditions" during an operation involving four helicopters that were inserting 26 Rangers at a desert air strip to provide "a support site for contingency operations" during an assault on the Taliban's Mullah Omar Muhammad's compound in Afghanistan.

    On Jan. 9, 2002, a KC-130 Hercules that had left an air base in Jacobabad, Pakistan, clipped a mountaintop and crashed, killing seven U.S. Marines. It was heading for a U.S. re-supply hub and staging base at an airfield at Shamsi, 140 miles south of the Afghan border, for Marines operating in southern Afghanistan.

    On May 14, 2007, Maj. Larry J. Bauguess Jr., a member opf the 82nd Airborne Division, was killed by small arms fire in Teri Mengel, Pakistan, making him the first American casualty by direct hostile fire.

    On Sept. 20, 2008, a 1,300-pound bomb exploded at the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad, the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, killing 54, including two U.S. soldiers.

    On February 3, 2010, three American Special Forces soldiers were killed by a suicide bomber (or an improvised explosive device) in Lower Dir, close to Pakistan's Tribal Areas.

    American Incursions Into Pakistan

    On Sept. 4, 2008, the Washington Post reported that "helicopters carried U.S. and Afghan commandos many miles into Pakistan on Wednesday to stage the first U.S. ground attack against a Taliban target inside the country," according to Pakistani officials. Pakistan lodged a formal protest.

    Obama's Official Position

    In an interview with Bob Schieffer on CBS' Face the Nation on March 1, 2009, Obama managed categorically to deny that he was putting "boots on the ground" in Pakistan and suggest that American troops would operate in Pakistan in certain circumstances. "If we have a high-value target within our sights," Obama said, "after consulting with Pakistan, we're going after them." That means U.S. troops would operate in Pakistan. Moments later, when asked, twice, if he would put books on the ground to pursue targets, or to chase them into their safe havens in Pakistan, Obama categorically answered "No."

    Quoting Carpy:

    Umm we were not in Pakistan.

    Quoting kirbymom:

    They keep talking about the troops being brought home from Pakistan but Obama said he would bring all troops home. Period. Well, he didn't. He pulled them from Pakistan and 1 month or less later, he moved them to Afghanistan. And a few years later he is now talking about a new war with Syria. Still not bringing troops home for good. Which he promised when he became president. hmmm 


  • NancSBRN
    October 12, 2012 at 5:26 PM

    Seems like the Embassy's did not get more People because of the Millions of Dollars in Budget Cuts Paul Ryan backed.  That what everyone wants right MORE Cuts, to the Budget, the Government spending your hard earned tax dollars.

    It is a damn shame all Embassys should have had more people at the aniversary of 9/11  those place are easy to get to then here in the US now.

  • pvtjokerus
    October 12, 2012 at 8:43 PM

    "If, If, Iffffff, that was the case, then certain other Embassies would not have been able to purchase new cars.....some certain Embassies would not been able to get new paint jobs and some certain Embassies would have re-built their weight rooms during the same time frame that the consultate office requested security.  This has nothing to do with budget cuts and everything to do with ignoring a security issue."

    Quoting NancSBRN:

    Seems like the Embassy's did not get more People because of the Millions of Dollars in Budget Cuts Paul Ryan backed.  That what everyone wants right MORE Cuts, to the Budget, the Government spending your hard earned tax dollars.

    It is a damn shame all Embassys should have had more people at the aniversary of 9/11  those place are easy to get to then here in the US now.


  • SlightlyPerfect
    October 15, 2012 at 6:54 PM

    I've seen you post against her quite frequently. What about her philosophy do you disagree with?

    Quoting _Kissy_:

    Ayn Rand is the most dangerous threat to the American people today.


News & Politics