GCM Home | Bible Search | Rules | Donate | Bookstore | RSS | Facebook | Twitter

Author Topic: How is Mitt or Newt Different than Obama?  (Read 30687 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mere Nick

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12385
  • Manna: 298
  • Gender: Male
  • Reckon you could make me some biscuits?
    • View Profile
Re: How is Mitt or Newt Different than Obama?
« Reply #30 on: February 21, 2012, 03:33:10 PM »
When Newt was speaker of the house we had some budget surpluses.  Obama dreams of one day having a deficit as small as what Beelzebush the Younger averaged.  Mitt understands the economy, has signed the front of paychecks and has built some businesses.  He has been a productive person.  Obama is nothing more than a looter. 


Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: How is Mitt or Newt Different than Obama?
« Reply #30 on: February 21, 2012, 03:33:10 PM »

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • King James Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24854
  • Manna: 522
  • Gender: Male
  • The Oil Patch is Crude
    • View Profile
Re: How is Mitt or Newt Different than Obama?
« Reply #31 on: February 21, 2012, 03:45:47 PM »
I agree Nick.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: How is Mitt or Newt Different than Obama?
« Reply #31 on: February 21, 2012, 03:45:47 PM »

Offline Mere Nick

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12385
  • Manna: 298
  • Gender: Male
  • Reckon you could make me some biscuits?
    • View Profile
Re: How is Mitt or Newt Different than Obama?
« Reply #32 on: February 22, 2012, 06:31:51 AM »
I agree Nick.

That's because you're a genius.

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • King James Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24854
  • Manna: 522
  • Gender: Male
  • The Oil Patch is Crude
    • View Profile
Re: How is Mitt or Newt Different than Obama?
« Reply #33 on: February 22, 2012, 07:41:45 PM »
There's always that!   ::whistle::

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: How is Mitt or Newt Different than Obama?
« Reply #33 on: February 22, 2012, 07:41:45 PM »

p.rehbein

  • Guest
Re: How is Mitt or Newt Different than Obama?
« Reply #34 on: February 23, 2012, 05:04:03 AM »
Newt and Mitt have an "R" next to their name.  That is the only real difference.

From the DesMoines Register:

Health care law: Both houses of Congress approved health care reform in 2009, achieving one of the cornerstones of Obama’s presidential campaign. The law is expected to expand health care coverage to 32 million Americans not previously insured. It would require companies with more than 50 employees to provide health insurance. The uninsured and self-employed would be able to purchase health insurance through state-based exchanges. The law will be phased in over five years; most provisions do not take effect until Jan. 1, 2014. Republicans have vehemently opposed the legislation, dubbing it “Obamacare

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: How is Mitt or Newt Different than Obama?
« Reply #34 on: February 23, 2012, 05:04:03 AM »



Offline Captain Shays

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
  • Manna: 7
    • View Profile
Re: How is Mitt or Newt Different than Obama?
« Reply #35 on: February 26, 2012, 12:49:26 PM »
Tonka you haven't refuted anything. Iran getting a bomb from China or Russia doesn't mitigate the situation. It is the same situation only an express version. Facing real threats is not fear mongering, it is reality mongering. Or the opposite is stupid mongering.
Really? Then how do you propose preventing Iran from acquiring a nuke? By supporting a candidate Obama, Santorum, Gingrich or Romney who ALL have the SAME method? Is that the answer?

I thought this was a Christian based forum. What is wrong with following the Christian Just War Principles and the Prince of Peace?

I also want to ask you two questions and I hope I get an answer. By what authority does the United States or one of it's presidents have to tell ANY other country what weapons it may make, buy, sell or possess?

Does that authority sit in another country's hands to tell the United States which weapons it may buy, sell, make or possess?

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • King James Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24854
  • Manna: 522
  • Gender: Male
  • The Oil Patch is Crude
    • View Profile
Re: How is Mitt or Newt Different than Obama?
« Reply #36 on: February 26, 2012, 01:36:53 PM »
An exporter of terrorism cannot get the bomb. We have every reason to try and keep a regime that has promised to wipe a nation off the map from obtaining a tool to do just that. Only responding after we lose a city or one of our allies is gone is not an option. We could deter the Soviets with MAD mutually assurred destruction because they could see the folly of a nuclear exchange. That doesn't exist for a suicidal martyrdom oriented radical religious regime. Waiting to count the bodies after a nuclear terrorist attack might  fit the just war scenario, but it also fits the stupidity scenario. If our intelligence detects an immenent launch against Israel our ally, or we get intelligence of 10 American cities being targeted with dirty bombs or worse, there likely won't be time to convene a session of congress and get a declaration of war vote done. In my mind a serious credible threat is enough to act on. I don't want us to have to lose an entire city in order to respond. People hellbent on carrying out death on a mass scale would have no natural deterrence with setting dirty bombs in our cities. Deterrence has always been a big tool in our belt. It won't work with this nutty regime who believe that a major catastrophe will inspire thei Messiah (the Mahdi) to appear. If it was Obama staring down Putin in a showdown, a whole different story. It's only the Iranian regime, not the Iranian people. We have no reason to go in and target their citizens pre-emptively. The Israelis can handle the Iranians, but the ensuing chaos will be regional if not worldwide. And the Israeli's won't wait until they see a mushroom cloud rising over Tel Aviv to take action, nor should we or the world expect them to wait until a mushroom cloud is rising over Tel Aviv. They've already taken care of Iraq's nuclear facility at Osirik in the 80's, and Syria in 2007. They can do the same with Iran's but it will be much harder because the facilities are wider spread and hardened in underground bunkers, but THEY will get the job done with or without our help in the way of intelligence, equipment, or whatever, and the world should thank them, but we all know that won't be the case. We will probably help covertly and then apologize to the world for our brutish allies.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2012, 10:53:36 AM by Jaime »

Offline OurGodIsOne

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 69
  • Manna: 5
    • View Profile
Re: How is Mitt or Newt Different than Obama?
« Reply #37 on: March 02, 2012, 09:07:02 AM »
An exporter of terrorism cannot get the bomb. We have every reason to try and keep a regime that has promised to wipe a nation off the map from obtaining a tool to do just that. Only responding after we lose a city or one of our allies is gone is not an option. We could deter the Soviets with MAD mutually assurred destruction because they could see the folly of a nuclear exchange. That doesn't exist for a suicidal martyrdom oriented radical religious regime. Waiting to count the bodies after a nuclear terrorist attack might  fit the just war scenario, but it also fits the stupidity scenario. If our intelligence detects an immenent launch against Israel our ally, or we get intelligence of 10 American cities being targeted with dirty bombs or worse, there likely won't be time to convene a session of congress and get a declaration of war vote done. In my mind a serious credible threat is enough to act on. I don't want us to have to lose an entire city in order to respond. People hellbent on carrying out death on a mass scale would have no natural deterrence with setting dirty bombs in our cities. Deterrence has always been a big tool in our belt. It won't work with this nutty regime who believe that a major catastrophe will inspire thei Messiah (the Mahdi) to appear. If it was Obama staring down Putin in a showdown, a whole different story. It's only the Iranian regime, not the Iranian people. We have no reason to go in and target their citizens pre-emptively. The Israelis can handle the Iranians, but the ensuing chaos will be regional if not worldwide. And the Israeli's won't wait until they see a mushroom cloud rising over Tel Aviv to take action, nor should we or the world expect them to wait until a mushroom cloud is rising over Tel Aviv. They've already taken care of Iraq's nuclear facility at Osirik in the 80's, and Syria in 2007. They can do the same with Iran's but it will be much harder because the facilities are wider spread and hardened in underground bunkers, but THEY will get the job done with or without our help in the way of intelligence, equipment, or whatever, and the world should thank them, but we all know that won't be the case. We will probably help covertly and then apologize to the world for our brutish allies.
This.

Offline Captain Shays

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
  • Manna: 7
    • View Profile
Re: How is Mitt or Newt Different than Obama?
« Reply #38 on: March 02, 2012, 09:44:47 AM »
Our national debt also increased by $1.8 TRILLION during NewtWorld Order's reign

Offline Captain Shays

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
  • Manna: 7
    • View Profile
Re: How is Mitt or Newt Different than Obama?
« Reply #39 on: March 02, 2012, 10:23:47 AM »
An exporter of terrorism cannot get the bomb. We have every reason to try and keep a regime that has promised to wipe a nation off the map from obtaining a tool to do just that. Only responding after we lose a city or one of our allies is gone is not an option. We could deter the Soviets with MAD mutually assurred destruction because they could see the folly of a nuclear exchange. That doesn't exist for a suicidal martyrdom oriented radical religious regime. Waiting to count the bodies after a nuclear terrorist attack might  fit the just war scenario, but it also fits the stupidity scenario. If our intelligence detects an immenent launch against Israel our ally, or we get intelligence of 10 American cities being targeted with dirty bombs or worse, there likely won't be time to convene a session of congress and get a declaration of war vote done. In my mind a serious credible threat is enough to act on. I don't want us to have to lose an entire city in order to respond. People hellbent on carrying out death on a mass scale would have no natural deterrence with setting dirty bombs in our cities. Deterrence has always been a big tool in our belt. It won't work with this nutty regime who believe that a major catastrophe will inspire thei Messiah (the Mahdi) to appear. If it was Obama staring down Putin in a showdown, a whole different story. It's only the Iranian regime, not the Iranian people. We have no reason to go in and target their citizens pre-emptively. The Israelis can handle the Iranians, but the ensuing chaos will be regional if not worldwide. And the Israeli's won't wait until they see a mushroom cloud rising over Tel Aviv to take action, nor should we or the world expect them to wait until a mushroom cloud is rising over Tel Aviv. They've already taken care of Iraq's nuclear facility at Osirik in the 80's, and Syria in 2007. They can do the same with Iran's but it will be much harder because the facilities are wider spread and hardened in underground bunkers, but THEY will get the job done with or without our help in the way of intelligence, equipment, or whatever, and the world should thank them, but we all know that won't be the case. We will probably help covertly and then apologize to the world for our brutish allies.


Jaime, here is the map of the 45 US military bases that surround Iran right now. http://www.phibetaiota.net/2012/02/graphic-us-bases-44-surrounding-iran/  In addition to that there are THREE aircraft carrier battle groups AND nuclear submarines off their coast. THAT is NOT in accordence with the Christian Just War Principles onr is it in accordence with the advise of our founding fathers, nor is it in accordence with the Constitution.

If Iran had three aircraft carrier battle groups and nuclear submarines and 45 military baees surrounding us would you hope to God that our government would do ANYTHING in order to protect us from that threat? I would.
They also have their enemy Israel with over 300 nuclear weapons in their backyard. Of course they feel threatened and our govenrment along with ANY of the presidential candidates except for Ron Paul won't even consider talking to them? What? I know what they say. They are irrational and can't be talked to. They want to wipe Israel and the USA off the map. So what do we have to lose in talking to them? That we will be right where we are now?

When so many Iranians can't stand the Mullahs and Amedbeenawhackjob the actions of our government are actually having the effect of uniting them with the Mullahs instead of rising up against them.

p.rehbein

  • Guest
Re: How is Mitt or Newt Different than Obama?
« Reply #40 on: March 02, 2012, 12:31:34 PM »
.......shoot..........maybe we should just apologize to Iran..........and every other Arab Nation...........oh, no, wait, we already did...........so, how's that working out for us?

 ::headscratch:: ::shrug::

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • King James Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24854
  • Manna: 522
  • Gender: Male
  • The Oil Patch is Crude
    • View Profile
Re: How is Mitt or Newt Different than Obama?
« Reply #41 on: March 02, 2012, 12:55:30 PM »
An exporter of terrorism cannot get the bomb. We have every reason to try and keep a regime that has promised to wipe a nation off the map from obtaining a tool to do just that. Only responding after we lose a city or one of our allies is gone is not an option. We could deter the Soviets with MAD mutually assurred destruction because they could see the folly of a nuclear exchange. That doesn't exist for a suicidal martyrdom oriented radical religious regime. Waiting to count the bodies after a nuclear terrorist attack might  fit the just war scenario, but it also fits the stupidity scenario. If our intelligence detects an immenent launch against Israel our ally, or we get intelligence of 10 American cities being targeted with dirty bombs or worse, there likely won't be time to convene a session of congress and get a declaration of war vote done. In my mind a serious credible threat is enough to act on. I don't want us to have to lose an entire city in order to respond. People hellbent on carrying out death on a mass scale would have no natural deterrence with setting dirty bombs in our cities. Deterrence has always been a big tool in our belt. It won't work with this nutty regime who believe that a major catastrophe will inspire thei Messiah (the Mahdi) to appear. If it was Obama staring down Putin in a showdown, a whole different story. It's only the Iranian regime, not the Iranian people. We have no reason to go in and target their citizens pre-emptively. The Israelis can handle the Iranians, but the ensuing chaos will be regional if not worldwide. And the Israeli's won't wait until they see a mushroom cloud rising over Tel Aviv to take action, nor should we or the world expect them to wait until a mushroom cloud is rising over Tel Aviv. They've already taken care of Iraq's nuclear facility at Osirik in the 80's, and Syria in 2007. They can do the same with Iran's but it will be much harder because the facilities are wider spread and hardened in underground bunkers, but THEY will get the job done with or without our help in the way of intelligence, equipment, or whatever, and the world should thank them, but we all know that won't be the case. We will probably help covertly and then apologize to the world for our brutish allies.


Jaime, here is the map of the 45 US military bases that surround Iran right now. http://www.phibetaiota.net/2012/02/graphic-us-bases-44-surrounding-iran/  In addition to that there are THREE aircraft carrier battle groups AND nuclear submarines off their coast. THAT is NOT in accordence with the Christian Just War Principles onr is it in accordence with the advise of our founding fathers, nor is it in accordence with the Constitution.

If Iran had three aircraft carrier battle groups and nuclear submarines and 45 military baees surrounding us would you hope to God that our government would do ANYTHING in order to protect us from that threat? I would.
They also have their enemy Israel with over 300 nuclear weapons in their backyard. Of course they feel threatened and our govenrment along with ANY of the presidential candidates except for Ron Paul won't even consider talking to them? What? I know what they say. They are irrational and can't be talked to. They want to wipe Israel and the USA off the map. So what do we have to lose in talking to them? That we will be right where we are now?

When so many Iranians can't stand the Mullahs and Amedbeenawhackjob the actions of our government are actually having the effect of uniting them with the Mullahs instead of rising up against them.


Israel is no threat to anyone unless they are threatened. Israel having nuclear weapons vs Iran having nuclear weapons is apples and oranges. Iran could have the entire world on their side if they only ratcheted down the rhetoric. Sometimes it is reasonable to believe mad men when they threaten things.

It ain't gonna be us that handles Iran anyway, it is going to be Israel. We will probably have to come clean up the crap storm, though. If it weren't for oil, of course no one would give a hoot.  

All I can say is I hope Iran has enough sense to weigh the cost of being a nuisance. Most of the Arab nations in the region are as scared of Iran as Israel is, and I believe are secretly rooting for Israel to do something about their nuclear ambitions. The last thing in the world that the Saudis and others  Sunnis want is Iranian (Shiite) hegemony in the region.