Obama: Romney Didn’t Mention Veterans In Final Debate

piss off a Veteran

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021613762

Bluff and bluser -- and then whimp out when it comes to standing up for the real America.

and even with the ball on a tee like that, Romney still didn't. I hear he has a five-point plan, though.

NOTHING makes him more furious than disregard for veterans, especially from one who never (or whose 5 sons have never) served in the military and think they're in a position to be Commander in Chief, yet constantly pop off in a bellicose fashion.

Mittens supported the war and bicycled around France while other "lesser beings" went off to fight.

I know, I know - Obama didn't serve either. He was still a kid when we withdrew from Nam. But he treats vets with the utmost respect and honor. And it seems to come from the heart.

That's what's important to vets. They want respect. Not neglect or contempt, which is what they get from the Rmoney camp.

Ugh.

Totally predictable.

... Along the lines of military being our most precious resource.

Did I just make that up? Maybe it was Obama?

Perhaps the biggest issue of the year/decade/century didn't get so much of a mention. Are these debates even relevant anymore? Are these candidates?

can see that.

I'm sorry the climate change wasn't brought up in the debates but Pres Obama has done more for our Environment than anyone at the helm so far. We need More Dems in the Senate and in Congress to Help bringing about More Progress in that Direction.

this election, and if he focuses on climate change as a topic, rMoney will simply beat the "drill baby drill" drum and claim that Obama is anti-America and anti-American energy.

The fact is, he doesn't NEED to talk about it. Alternative energy is the only thing he needs to talk about.

on DU could see this! President Obama wants a Future for his children and theirs and so on..ad infinitum. And, Koch bros & Karl Rove Big Super PACs are Fighting him all the way.

Telling the wanting cornucopiasts that they can go on mindlessly living their pampered lives in a "clean" way does nothing to shift the paradigm and transition to where humanity ultimately needs to go (somewhat immediately). After tapping billions of years of sun-energy reserves, humanity has built a vast infrastructure and populated the world with billions of people fed by petro-fertilized foods. To think that we could, within a reasonable amount of time, derive enough renewable energy to maintain this 'billion-sun-year' infrastructure/population and keep current growth rates is absolutely absurd. Further, to simply afford--according to our neoclassical approach to economics--this investment in renewables, we have to subsidies it with the only wealth we have disposable at our finger-tips (dirty wealth from a coal & oil world). IOW, to pay for these pretty turbines we put up here, a heap load of coal will be burned elsewhere in the magic shell game.

I differ vastly in opinion on this. I do not think we can play the same game, just cleanly. Breed the same amount of people. Grow the same amount of food. Build buildings at the same rate. Claim land from nature endlessly, exponentially. Anyone who keeps telling you this is delaying the inevitable and threatening the survival of the planet.

We need the world saved. This isn't a project. This is an imminent disaster threatening the survival of a multitude of species. Some people still do not get that.

Our ice caps are melting at an alarming rate, oceans continue to warm and become more acid, and climate change is moving forward (threatening habitat and agriculture). This isn't doomer or alarmist talk...its science.

The only beneficial event has been the global financial disaster, which has capped recent growth.

We don't need fine tuning, adjustments and tinkering. We don't need to make sure more cars on the road in 40 years are more efficient. We need to abandon our lifestyle and develop a sustainable future immediately.

I try to be as apolitical as I can about this topic, especially around this time of the year, but people need to realize the very simple truth.

If Obama has, in any way, promoted net job growth and net production growth via the last 4 years with his policies (as many people believe he has), he has not steered us away from this imminent crisis. Its basically and either or.

We currently use about 1.7 billion gigajoules a single day from hydrocarbon sources (gas/oil/coal), deposited by billions of years of solar collection by organic sources.

If the earth had solar panels operating at 100% efficiency all over its surface, it would collect about 10 million GJ a day. Therefore, we burn at least 170 days of optimal solar collection per each day on our clock (probably more if Obama grew the economy). But the earth doesn't have optimal solar collection on its surface, and the efficiency level of a tree may be quite low. We could be burning through 3-10+ years of organic solar collection a day (if you figure in entropy & inefficiency). There is really no way to know.

But what we do know, using simple math, is that we are way, way overlevereged as a civilization on a technological scale. We burn more energy in 1 second than we could collect in a day from the sun (putting 30% efficient panels on every square inch of land, resulting in 1 million gigajoules). Hence, if Obama is promoting growth, he is promoting filling in that energy deficit with hydrocarbons (yes, wind wont do it either). Otherwise, the math cannot add up on this finite world.

Saving the planet doesn't involve trying to play the energy shell game and keeping growth the same in an insanely overleveredged system. It involves deleveraging and trying to live within the finite & physical confines of the system in a sustainable way. We don't need growth--we need decline (it will come, but the question is how organized will it be).

they are so dead set against obama they will vote for mittens even though he`d send them or their kids into another war.