And no man can say who shall emerge victorious...

WARNING: Drinking heavily during presidential debates may cause liver damage and lead to political arguments that are even more incoherent than those heard on cable news. (Vent, anyone?)

(Drinking rules stolen from policymic)

Whenever the candidates say the following words or phrases during the debate, take a drink the for duration of time indicated.

THE GIMMEES (1 second)

"Benghazi" or "Libya"

"Netanyahu"

"Iran"

"Al Qaeda"

"Pakistan"

THE PROBABLES (2 seconds)

"American century"

"Our friends and allies"

"Apologize/Apology"

"Exceptional(ism)"

"Strength"

THE QUESTIONABLES (3 seconds)

"Morsi"

"Reagan"

"Ultimate sacrifice/price"

"Lead(ing) from behind"

THE DOUBTFULS (5 seconds)

"Constitution"

"Roosevelt"

"Isolationism"

"Act(s) of terror"

THE BLACKOUT-INDUCERS (10 seconds)

"Neville Chamberlain"

"Kenya"

i dont see russia or putnin

resolve
troops

Give me values and i'll change, or if it's to late for me to change kindly add them into mah poop.

Will be participating

You waited too long Joe.

I would rather hit myself in the head with a hammer.

going to watch sober proal

once again i would rather clearly watch, but proal will as well

promoting american exceptionalism and the god-given rights of the israelies all night

ill have a beer or 2, but gotta wake up in the morning so bed right after

libya
drink

That drinking game is more lethal than drone strikes.

vent status before logging in update?

ah fuck it, I;'ll check

oh shit more libby bo bibby, need beer

Everyone afk ofc. You guys hurt my penis.

Send forth the best ye breed!

He wants to spend money on education...


In other countries.

the fuck romney

romney: every foreign problem is obamas fault

Cold war talk?

Fuck you, that was my specialization, and why I'm useless in my field.

I think they should have to switch tie colors every debate. It's no fair, everyone knows Obama's tie kicks the shit out of Romney's.

bobs tie has larger red stripes than blue stripes
i call foul

We need to be in Syria. Pretty simple there.

Entire Romney strategy: Never stop talking!

Should have him in a green tie imho

foreign policy debate is trash, so much we, the average citizen, does clearly know. this is all "who can beat their chest the loudest and still seem logical"

Romney has no clue about Syria.

id rather hear herman cain talk about syria

only for green party

lol omg

About the specific situtation ? Yes I agree Joe.

About this in theory? What in principal is involved here? Again I suppose I would agree.

However you have to define the "average citizen". IR aka IS is what a lot of poli sci people get into, which essentially boils down to where the guns are, who should have them, and why.

Neither one seems to want to commit to Lybia, and Obama was just puffing his chest about how we went into Libya but we're being very... hesitant in Syria.

I don't quite get it, but at least we're doing something.

Who invited Evan to this toilet?

Was using it for a symbol of neutrality ofc

if i understand libya correctly we helped the eurozone and with syria its str8 iran/russia v us and its clearly as simple as "send troops". we have no choice but to let things play out and pay lipservice to the eventual change.

also, china hasnt figured out they are stronger than russia and can tell them to go i shit my pan­ts

This post has been edited by blind_chief on Mon - Oct 22 2012 - 20:28:41

FINE, GREY

Romney wants people (read: clearly poor) to have good lives.

CAN WE PLEASE TALK ABOUT SOMETHING IMPORTANT

LIKE HOW ARE WE GOING TO FEED EVERYONE IN THE NEXT 40 YEARS

lol mitts foreign policy is america economy
TAX BREAKS!

i'm an undecided voter

convince me and i'll vote for lolbama

this is clearly an election of who to vote for, this is (sadly) a clear election of who clearly to vote for

Well we don't have to play lip service, but yes, sending troops isn't a cut and dry issue.

Though we've been speaking hostile against Iran since what, even before the 1970's?

As for Russia, I can understand the idea that we don't want to cause tensions between us and them. That didn't stop us arming the Afghani rebels in the 1980's. And that was during the cold war.

I'm clearly saying go in there guns ablazin' and use the Bush II attitude, but I think we're being overly cautious, overly reserved.

Yes. It's a dicey situation. But we know all the powers at play here, and we also know Russia really only cares two shits for Iran out of a long lasting oil relationship and former sympathetic ties of anti US sentiment. Throw them some gifts and they won't care. Everybody has a price.

i ask you this:

when in history did any nation ever fight 2 foreign wars and lower taxes to pay for it?

Every single thing about jobs and the economy is moot. There will never be another golden age. The world population is growing exponentially. All other issues are governed by that one simple point.

When was that last clearly the case?

Oh yeah Clinton Gore 1996. It's been 4 election cycles since then.

Point taken, I can't tell you that's ever happened.

However these are more police actions (albiet expensive ones) than foreign wars.

Closest I think would be LBJ, with Vietnam and the Great Society.

He was fighting a cold war and a hot war, and had to continue on the space race.

Actually I think that counts for more when accounting for inflation over the years.

Uh..... what happened to the foreign policy talk?

LOL

russia poop-putnim is going to be much different, though large oil contracts are essentially what drives the world at this point (still sigh).
i just dont subscribe to the warhawk mentality

also, romney just brought up a great point about south america
stop the foolish war on drugs and investing in those countries make sense and energy is cheap as hell and we can tell the middle east to take a hike

kerry bush was like that

Latin America's GDP (Central+South America + Caribbean) = $6.8t
China GDP = $11.3
*PPP

"almost"

bush should have never won an election