Posted on 11/12/2011 2:25:13 PM PST by katiedidit1
Next GOP Debate Will Be Tonight
Published: 1:17 AM, 11/12/2011
Last updated: 1:22 AM, 11/12/2011
Source: The Greeneville Sun
The latest in the series of televised debates among the candidates for the Republican nomination for President is scheduled for tonight.
The debate is taking place at Wofford College in Spartanburg, S.C., and will focus on national security and foreign policy.
The debate is being hosted by CBS News and the National Jo urnal, and will begin at 8 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on the CBS Television Network.
(Excerpt) Read more at greenevillesun.com ...
I have seen a lot of changes to the defense industry since the 80’s
Now we have our engineers more concerned with jumping through process hoops than working on design.
I have seen the life sucked out of bright engineers.
Guys who used to work for the shear joy of it, and patriotism, are reduced to miserable automatons.
Leave the military alone
Almost every profession includes clueless practitioners.
The tools in Six Sigma are not easy to understand and not easy to learn to apply correctly and well. I would say that a significant percentage of black belts are people chosen by their companies for political reasons, and simply not qualified intellectually to be black belts.
But just as I don't condemn guns for the actions of criminals, I also don't throw out Six Sigma because it's applied poorly by some people.
I agree with much of that.
My concern is with mucking with the military.
Do you know how we ended up with these Chinese parts in our military systems?
Smart people forced us to buy from the lowest bidder.
Smart people forced us to contract with minority run company’s.
Smart people forced is to use Female owned company’s.
I am not dinging minorities or women, what I am pointing out is that the smart people force us to jump through ridiculous PC hoops and care nothing about the end product.
I'd love to. In an ideal world, that would be my first choice. But the reality is that thanks to progressives and RINO's giving us unhindered entitlement spending baked into our system and nearly impossible to eliminate, we have a country that CAN NO LONGER AFFORD our current military.
We HAVE to do something. And, Newt's ideas of applying tools such as Six Sigma, which I know from personal experience to be very effective at improving processes and saving millions of dollars, are FAR AHEAD of the draconian measures that would be taken by Democrats or Paul-like isolationist Republicans.
In today’s world with threats on the rise all around us, we cant afford to muck with the military.
Obama is doing his best to demoralize the people we have there now.
I suggest applying Six Sigma to entitlement programs.
And both you and I would agree was that those "smart" people were making decisions with their PC ideology, not their brains.
Being concerned about mucking up the military is a good concern. I'm concerned about that also. But we have no choice about needing to make changes, and Gingrich is a person who understands that intelligent solutions applied incorrectly are not solutions at all.
If I heard Obama talking about implementing Six Sigma in the military, I'd be screaming against that louder than you. I would NEVER trust leftist ideologues with a tool that could inflict so much damage.
On the other hand, I'm delighted to hear Gingrich talking about using it. Again, Six Sigma is just the tool set, the question is who will wield the tools. Are we giving the paintbrush to a develomentally-handicapped five-year-old or to Leonardo Da Vinci?
I’d RATHER see a wrecking-ball applied to entitlement programs, but since that’s probably not possible, I’m in agreement that I’d like to see Six Sigma applied there first.
I don’t wish to get into a pissing contest but Mr Gingrich, despite being the best person on the debate stage, has some issues like cap and trade, and global warming.
I am reluctant to give him those tools
It’s always interesting to note that people of like minds can really get far apart from one another during the campaign season.
I’ve actually been called a traitor on FR this season.
LoL!
LOL...actually I did notice that. I'm trying not to dis any candidates (except Myth), but Perry really does seem to struggle with, well, with thinking on his feet shall we way. I'm sure he's a good man and he has been a good governor of Texas, but really...but when he has to explain himself on the fly? Wow.
Hank
His handlers want all socialism all the time and basically the end of capitalism. They want to gut every asset we have in the country and then hand it out as rewards to their minions.Then will introduce European socialism even faster than they are now. Meanwhile destroying us worldwide using the muzzie terror types to do their bidding.
To me none of our candidates parallel this.
I don't completely disagree with that, except to say what many others have, which is, a RINO president will only get us to the same place a little slower than the Marxist will. Review Romney's record and tell me that he's more than 10% different than Obama. I don't think you can.
The only difference I can see, is that Romney has the gall to stand in my face mouthing conservative platitudes, while governing pretty much the same as the Marxist would.
I don't think there's any doubt at this point that Obama will be defeated in 2012 (provided we don't nominate the worst of our field). He missed his chance to begin steering the ship of state toward the middle, right after the 2010 midterms. He doubled down on his big government Socialism, and it will cost him re-election, because none of it has worked. In fact, it's made conditions in the country even more dire. The people will punish him and his fellow Democrats for not listening to them, and for making them suffer.
If we miss the opportunity to put a fire breathing reformer into the White House next year, the momentum of the Obama years will continue to carry us over the cliff. The patient is on life support, and needs a radical intervention to survive. It cannot come later than 2012. The patient simply will not last that long.
Putting Dr. Romney on the case will almost ensure the death of the patient, in my opinion. We simply MUST do better.
He opposes building a fence where it makes no sense. He wants to build a fence where it makes sense, and use other means to secure the border where a fence is not necessary and would be a waste of money.
There are thousands of miles of border. Hundreds of those miles are in places nobody would ever venture, much less try to cross the border. If you built a fence everywhere it made sense, people would hop in boats and use the gulf to get here long before they tried to cross tje desert — boats would be a lot easier.
I would note that nobody proposes building a fence on the entire border (which extends 12 miles out into the ocean). They also won’t build a fence along the coastline to keep boats. They figure coast guard assets will do that job. Perry believes you can use border agents and technical assets to protect parts of the border where a fence is impractical or useless.
Also, if you use Google maps to look at the actual border, you’ll see that not only is the border often in the middle of the river, it also is sometimes on our side, sometimes on the other side. How are you going to build a fence ACROSS the river? You certainly don’t want to fence people off from river access.
Perry has called for fully securing the border. However, unlike politicians who just want to say what they think people want to hear, and have no idea what the border IS or how you would really secure it, Perry won’t just say “build the fence”. It’s sad that so many people who really want to secure our borders have adopted a catch phrase and think it is a real plan.
Yes, surprisingly, the AP misrepresented what he said. He’s made it clear many times he wants to fully secure the border, and that will include fence where fences make sense. Nobody thinks we should fence in our entire country, and different people have different ideas of exactly how much of our border needs to be fenced. Perry doesn’t want to waste money on fences where it makes no sense.
This is an argument about technical details. It’s absurd to pretend Perry wants open borders. BordersUsa rates him good on border security. He supports building fences where people actually cross — so clearly he doesn’t want people coming into our country illegally. He also has spent hundreds of million of Texas money trying to secure the border, again proving he doesn’t want open borders.
It’s a lot easier to just say “build a fence” — and apparently for some, they’d rather have the slogan than actually figure out how to defend our borders. Others clearly think the only way to secure the border is an Israeli-style fence; but oddly they don’t want to extend the fence past the gulf or ocean boundary, nor to they want to build a fence along the gulf coast or the southern pacific coast.
Because, as it is clear, we all understand “strategic fencing”, even if we don’t all understand what the Texas border looks like.
Several large sections of the Texas border are natural preserves, which would be silly to fence off, but which you couldn’t fence away access to the river’s water.
Some places people own land on both sides of the river, in two countries. Do we build a fence across their property? Apparently people think all land must have boundaries that match state and country boundaries.
There’s a theme park called “Carowinds” in North Carolina. Well, also in South Carolina. The border goes right through the middle of the park, they even have a line there so you can jump back and forth.
God knows how they handle the ride inspection; I don’t know if each state inspects the rides in their state, or if they made some agreement.
But the park would be in trouble if North Carolina decided they needed to build a fence on there border with South Carolina.
Just checking in. Trying to figure out how your post relates to bad CBS video for the last 30 min of the debate. Maybe you got your posts mixed up.
You make me feel lazy. That’s quite a system!
OUTSTANDING!
I couldn’t agree more.
“I’ve yet to see one legitimate argument as to how that represents the conservative view.”
And you won’t, since it’s nowhere near a Conservative view.
LOL. You give me WAAAY too much credit. It's not industriousness on my part. If I was industrious, I'd do some productive work instead of watching barely meaningful debates. For me, it's mostly just the fun of being an analysis geek. And, I guess, there's a tiny bit of "Since there's so many candidates, most of whom I mostly like, how can I most fairly decide among them?" thrown in.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.