There are plenty of things that can be done short of actual war.

Nobody wants war with Iran - not Romney nor any of his supporters.

Yeah, that was amusing. Also talking about how personal success is what matters not filthy government, then praising a government accomplishment.

They all do this stuff, but he made it really easy, which is why I think it was objectively bad.

Never trust a person who is a fan of Ayn Rand. :)

Well we're already doing sanctions and working with the UN to do whatever we can. I don't know what steps you are referring to, why not enlighten us?

And even if he has no real plan to go to war that speech's message was clear. Obama is a big pussy who only cares about the ocean levels while I am a strong ass-kicker who will fuck those Iranians up! That's the message, whether it actually means anything or not.
This is an excellent article.

- Quote or paraphrase what he said that was "down with the lezbians and gays."

- There wasn't that much faith in it, at least not to the point that he was criticizing those who do not follow the Judeo-Christian ethos, nor was he cheerleading any particular faith over the rest. Contrary to that point, he specifically mentioned, more than once, freedom of religion. As an atheist, I didn't find anything to object to in this regard.

- Free market crap, as in: jobs are good and those jobs come from people who take on risk. Simplify regulation (not remove, nor stop enforcement).

- No, he didn't say he'd go to war with Iran. Maybe if one reads into it very heavily. His point was that President Obama said he'd deal with it in a manner that would resolve the matter of Iranian nukes, and that those measures haven't done bupkis ("the centrifuges are still spinning"). However, it did smack a little bit of sabre-rattling when combined with the mention of Putin, though this can just as easily be interpreted to mean utilizing that backbone in various treaties, negotiations, UN talks, etc. Let's face it: Obama has been a doormat in much of this stuff, so it leaves a whole lot of room for one to talk tough without implying any physical threat.

What I found disappointing:

- there was basically no mention of shrinking the scope of the federal government and the powers it has (often) wrongfully assumed. Deficit reduction talk, yes. Actually rolling back federal powers, no.

- no mention of tax reform, not even in passing.

- become energy independent using the available resources, but no mention of increasing efficiencies in an effort to reduce consumption. The businessman side of him knows the truth of this, and the politician side is afraid to be the adult in the room and bring it up.

- criticism of reducing the nation's military, while also calling it a place for jobs. Look, that's talking out of both sides of one's mouth. Besides, there is virtually no reason why the military budget couldn't get by on about half what we spend today.

- not even a passing mention of rolling back the scope of entitlement programs. However, this is more of a campaign-stop and interview thing and less of a feel-good convention speech item. But I think an opportunity was missed by not making it a larger point to tie job creation to a reduction in entitlement demand, and thus spending. One or two sentences would have done the trick.

What I liked:

- yes, the points about the marketplace, jobs, and starting and growing a business.

- if we're going to have international trade, it should be fair. One would hope that he also insist our own trade policies be equally fair.

- he made some good points concerning respect and admiration for women, though it did get a little sappy when talking about the family part of it and motherhood.

- the decent contrast of the experience of Romney in the private business world and Obama's lack thereof, and how that causes a different approach to the issues of our economy in general, and jobs and private business in particular.

Overall, it was so-so at best. It did seem to skip around a bit, and I didn't feel it building to any particularly memorable crescendo.

A general problem with these convention speeches is that you're not going to hear specifics, so it's basically "Rah rah, USA is great, the people are great, the other guy stinks, I'll do better, baseball, Mom, and apple pie" from both conventions.

Heckling Obama's "accomplishments", not heckling Romney.
Romney certainly has not cut NASAs budget (he's never held a position to allow that to happen), but I'm having difficulty finding specifics on whether he would raise, lower, or maintain the spending level for the agency. Any decent source I can have a peek at?

From the speech transcript:

"I will honor the institution of marriage."

From the speech transcript:

"If every child could drift to sleep feeling wrapped in the love of their family – and God’s love - this world would be a far more gentle and better place."

That one particularly irked me, because it says the world would be a better place if everyone believed in God. I think rather the opposite, since God causes war, basically. For me to really quote how often God came up in the speech I would have to literally quot half the damn thing though, so whatever. It didn't irk you fine, as a conservative Atheist you are probably used to toning it out.

From the speech transcript:

"It’s the genius of the American free enterprise system – to harness the extraordinary creativity and talent and industry of the American people with a system that is dedicated to creating tomorrow’s prosperity rather than trying to redistribute today's."

As in, you have the right to try and succeed and if you don't fuck you we're cutting government programs.

So... we agree?

His party certainly does and seeing how the party is united when voting on issues...

Seven words about marriage translates into being against gay and lesbian folks? Really. I don't know the specifics of his stand and this is one that I will actively pursue because of the potential for US Constitutional misuse, but support of traditional marriage is a far cry from being against, say, equal civil rights for gay and lesbian couples and families.

No, a conservative bent (I'm more libertarian) doesn't make me tone deaf. Instead, over the years I've come to understand that faith should be considered separate from religion. God doesn't cause war: some of the religious institutions behind those worshiped gods cause war. So I read it as speaking of faith, both in the family and in whatever higher power one chooses (or does not choose) to put one's trust into, as being things that will help make for a better world.

As in, say what? His speech had a distinct LACK of talk about cutting government programs. If anything he spoke of maintaining the level of programs, through reform.

No, we don't agree. You say it's all-but a call to war. I say he was making the point that Obama said he could take care of it by talking with Iranian leaders... and he clearly hasn't. Whether or not Romney can actually make any more headway with further sanctions or other non-military means is a whole 'nother matter, especially since Ahmedinijiad and Co will do whatever they want anyway (which is their right, as a sovereign nation).

You summed it up quite nicely. If he gets elected in November it's because the GOP is voting for Ryan.

Generally I think this is the worst the GOP has been since its founding. The current state of mind in the GOP is racist, anti-progrssive, anti-social, jingoistic and anti-scientific. I would rather vote for the 2000 (or even 2004) GOP than for this one. Romney is actually one of the more likeable people in the bag. Heck, he is basically John Kerry with a different wig. (Not that I liked John Kerry that much).

I've seen the US falling to pieces after the '00 election. I really don't want to see that again.

We likely can't find common ground then because I am almost your polar opposite, as I am slowly turning into a very European style socialist over the last 2 years or so.

In any event most of your retorts seem to focus on "well he didn't say that specifically" which is never what I said anyway. No, he never said "I will hinder gay rights" and he never said "I will go to war with Iran," but they NEVER say it like that, ever. I am talking about the messages of his speech, the carefully designed emotions, meanings and statements he was sending out. They were: I am more American, I am strong and will fuck Iran up, har har liberal causes, I can bring the cash, and fuck these weirdos who aren't as American as us.

If you disagree those are the messages sent then fine, agree to disagree. I urge you to read the article linked above about Paul Ryan though, and see who you are voting for.

As a politician who wants to be elected one has to make tons of promises and not give any details away like how exactly millions of jobs will be created or how the deficit will be decreased while decreasing taxes too. That is the nature of politics.

So I hereby promise free cookies to everybody. :)

I want to see the first speech where someone tries to please both pro-life and pro-choice people.

Maybe "post-natal" abortions ....

After reading that Guardian article, I found another one:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/30/election-2012-media-vast-rightwing-conspiracy-stupid
This is more of a general rant about the stupidity of the election process, and I fully agree with it. Democracy is such a great idea - if only it wouldn't lead to the grotesque farce that inevitably follows.