Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Duh Bates

Duh Bates (Page 3)
Thread Tools
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2012, 10:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
What religious nut claims they are a religious nut?
You also claim to be a Democrat. hahaha...
I am a Democrat. I'm sure there are millions of Democrats who would find you to be repulsive and obtuse. Oh, that's right, you think just because someone associates themselves with a particular party, they automatically like and endorse everyone else affiliated with that party. Damn, that's so sheep-like it's scary. Well, FYI, I'm not the only Democrat in the USA not voting Barry. Just like I'm not the only Dem on this forum who finds you loathsome. So, carry on.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 03:10 AM
 
That debate was very satisfying to watch.

While Obama still needs to do something about his long-windedness, he was focused, aggressive, and called out Romney on his bullish!t. Liberals wanted Obama to do certain things like bring up the 47% thing, and so he closed with it, making a memorable and lasting impression.

And, Obama made the audience laugh at Romney several times. Not at the jokes, at Romney himself. When Obama suggested Romney would bring down the price of gas by tanking the entire economy, I almost choked to death on my Diet Coke.

Romney behaved like he just walked out of heavily-sedated surgery. Someone asked about banning AK-47s, and he blathered on about married couples and Fast and Furious. It was kinda embarrassing to watch. When Romney repeated over and over again "Have you looked at your pension? Have you looked at your pension? Have you looked at your pension," I thought I was watching the debate performance of an 8th grader in Special Ed.

And did anyone else notice the debate ended without a handshake? Or did I just miss it?
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 03:12 AM
 
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 03:15 AM
 
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 03:18 AM
 
Mitt's "not having a good day at all" face.

     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 03:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I call it like I see it. Which is why in this very thread I said Romney won the first debate. Obama was simply listless and un-energetic and it showed. Maybe he was just tired. Maybe he was unprepared. Regardless ... he got his ass kicked because of it. But the reality here tonight is that Obama just wiped the floor with Romney's ass tonight. Period.
OAW
I completely disagree. First, you'd have to be completely blind to have not called the first debate as you saw it. Not only was it painful to watch, his own campaign couldn't deny how shoddy the performance was. I'm also not sure exactly what it is a sitting President must prepare for unless the MO is to detract from what it is he's actually done over the last four years; which is apparently what happened here.

The second debate? Essentially a draw with a slight edge for Romney and I believe a small 1-2 point bump in his polling will establish this over the next several days. He certainly could've done better.
  • Romney left an awful lot on the table. He missed the boat on the outsourcing "problem" among numerous businesses on Obama's economic advisory panel, Solyndra, and the numerous other failed ventures of this Administration that have cost tax payers hundreds of millions of dollars with virtually zero to show for it except outsourced money and jobs. Romney also missed the boat on repatriation of funds through tax reform which, when you're bringing up Apple must include Steve Jobs' own pleas to the Obama administration that fell on deaf ears.
  • Romney tried stuffing the Fast and Furious bit into the debate on gun control which came off a bit awkward. Don't get me wrong, no one was hoping F&F would come up more than me, but I thought it could've fit more neatly into a tirade on the general slop and lack of transparency of this Administration's dealings on the consulate attack. The mod desperately tried to help Obama here, but the point was still landed albeit awkward and feeble.
  • I understand why Romney was trying to attack Obama with targeted questions, but this only allowed Obama to filibuster with stump a little more while landing a couple of blows of slander on Romney. Stupid move on Romney's part and one he'd better remember heading into the third debate.
  • Obama scored some points on substance, but this required a little more help from the moderator and Fact-Checks will be having a hay day.
  • The reason this will be a net-bump for Romney; Obama was forced to defend himself to such a degree that he actually never got around to anything remotely resembling a plan for the next four years. For all the talk of details and specifics and plans, Obama's seemed to be to tax the wealthy "just a little more". That was it. That's all you get. Higher taxes on the rich. And... good luck everyone.
  • No one believes Obama on drilling contracts and licenses. The facts are not on his side. People want energy independence and Obama has nothing for them.
  • The consulate attack - The President tried to imply he was forthright with the American public in his speech in the rose garden. Unfortunately, he wasn't and to make matters worse, his UN ambassador Rice went about the place on multiple networks several days later doing everything she could to cite the Video and spontaneous protests growing out of control. You don't engage a media blitz on the death of a US ambassador without messaging from the White House. I'm sorry. Obama was cut off at the knees on this one and each debate makes this Administration look even less honest than the day before. As an aside, I knew the whole "video-shenanigans" smelled like a rat from jump and while many lambasted me here for defending Romney's initial statements -- he was right to question this administration early and often.


There were many more angles on this including the interesting "town-hall" style debate which turned out to be more "town-brawl", but the above were some of the biggies IMO.
ebuddy
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 03:33 AM
 
I think Obama had a clear (if small) victory here. Romney trying to equate Obama's pension with his direct investment in companies sending jobs overseas was a clear mistake on his part. But it didn't hurt Obama that he seemed to be playing to a home crowd (NYC/LI Republicans can seem pretty liberal to the rest of the state, much less the country), and that the moderator was not good at moderating.

Why can't they give the moderators a button to turn off the candidates' mikes if they go over?

At least Romney's binders were entertaining.

     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 03:46 AM
 
Candy shouldn't have interjected herself into the debate. She let Owe-bama blather on more than she allowed Romney to blather. She lacked the discipline to do the job as required.

Factcheckers say Romney was more accurate than Owe-bama. Owe-bama claiming that they stated it WAS terrorists to blame in Lybia was a BS claim, as the transcript of his entire speech was examined, it was clear he was speaking in gross generalities but Candy decided to butt in with her opinion.....

R/R - 2.5 O/B - .5
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 05:01 AM
 
I suppose a link to these supposed fact checkers' analysis is just too much ask.

OAW
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 06:28 AM
 
Yeah, so Obama gets this one, though it was a close game. I have a feeling the way the pendulum is swinging number three will either be too close to slight edge Romney.

Couple of things

• Is it me or is Romney a moderator bully? Crowley tried to lay down the law after the first or second question and then got involved in this awkward pissing match where Romney tried to talk over her as she explained that he did not get to close on the topic. After that was settled he then did his response anyway, only he addressed it to Candy instead of the audience, and she didn't step in. Uncomfortable.

• Romney's strategy seems to be that whoever lies last wins. And you know what, he's probably right. Except it felt more apparent last night that he wanted the last word in almost every segment, just to say "Nuh-uh!"

• The first half or two thirds of questions during the debate were very kind to Obama.

• "How are you different from Bush?" I did not see that one coming. Also, no way that chick was an independent.

• Glad to see Rosie Perez is doing well.

• A few times Romney came off as a little abusive (aka badgering the witness) in his zeal to try to gotcha Obama with a question. Actually, I'm in favor of the candidates questioning each other, but when you petulantly just repeat the question over and over like a five year old because you don't like how your opponent starts to reply, it doesn't look good for anyone involved.

• MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President, let me get — let me get the governor in on this.

And Governor, let’s — before we get into a vast array of who said what — what study says what, if it shouldn’t add up, if somehow when you get in there, there isn’t enough tax revenue coming in, if somehow the numbers don’t add up, would you be willing to look again at a 20 percent —

MR. ROMNEY: Well, of course they add up. I was — I was someone who ran businesses for 25 years and balanced the budget. I ran the Olympics and balanced the budget. I ran the — the state of Massachusetts as a governor, to the extent any governor does, and balanced the budget all four years.

Of course they add up! How could I be wrong! I ran the Olympics and balanced the budget using the most government funds in Olympic history! Sheesh.

• I was surfing on my computer, and Romney's taking about single parent families and I go "Wait, what was the question? Oh yeah, assault weapons." WTF?

• The dude with a girls name was also a little suspect.

• Obama responding to the consulate deaths was about as angry as I've seen him. He gave Romney a nice death stare. About as well as he's going to do on the subject.

• Crowley contradicting Romney on the terror attack thing elicited what seemed like cheers of approval from the crowd. Not sure what to make of that.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 06:33 AM
 
Also, I suspect Obama will get very little bump from this in the polls. The first debate energized Romney's supporters and made Obama look weak to undecideds. I don't feel this debate will deflate much Romney support, nor cause swing voters to go back the other way.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 06:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I suppose a link to these supposed fact checkers' analysis is just too much ask.
OAW
Crowleys own word not good enough for you?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/16/cnns_candy_crowley_romney_was_actually_right_on_li bya.html
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 06:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Crowleys own word not good enough for you?
Considering you didn't even link to that...

...but unless she fact checked the entire debate like you were talking about, other links still needed.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 07:41 AM
 
And the libs are rabid!

http://www.infowars.com/threats-to-assassinate-romney-explode-after-debate/
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 08:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I am a Democrat. I'm sure there are millions of Democrats who would find you to be repulsive and obtuse. Oh, that's right, you think just because someone associates themselves with a particular party, they automatically like and endorse everyone else affiliated with that party. Damn, that's so sheep-like it's scary. Well, FYI, I'm not the only Democrat in the USA not voting Barry. Just like I'm not the only Dem on this forum who finds you loathsome. So, carry on.
A Democrat who never voted for a Democrat for President and hates every liberal idea and most Democratic ideals.

And I'm a Christian who doesn't believe in God.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 08:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
And did anyone else notice the debate ended without a handshake? Or did I just miss it?
I think there was. Right before Mitt Romney was greeted by his wife.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 09:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Crowleys own word not good enough for you?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/16/cnns_candy_crowley_romney_was_actually_right_on_li bya.html
The problem here is that our good friends on the right insist upon conflating two separate, but related issues ....

#1. Benghazi incident = Terror Attack?

#2. Benghazi incident precipitated by inflammatory video?

The answer to #1 is "undoubtedly yes" as President Obama's statement in the Rose Garden unequivocally indicated. An attack on that scale with mortars and RPGs speaks for itself. The answer to #2 is the part that has resulted in evolving answers. Was their a spontaneous protest about the video outside the Benghazi consulate at all? If so, did the attackers use it as "cover"? Or did a pre-planned attack on the anniversary of 9/11 just coincidentally take place at the same time? Etc.? Various members of the Obama Administration have provided different answers to #2 as the investigation has unfolded. Regardless, the initial statements were clearly called PRELIMINARY. In any event, however #2 pans out it does NOT negate #1. There simply is no answer to #2 that is MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE with #1. And Romney got his ass handed to him on that question b/c he apparently got so caught up in the right-wing media echo-chamber that's trying to politicize the tragedy that he failed to differentiate between conservative spin and fact.

OAW
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 09:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
The problem here is that our good friends on the right insist upon conflating two separate, but related issues ....
#1. Benghazi incident = Terror Attack?
#2. Benghazi incident precipitated by inflammatory video?
The answer to #1 is "undoubtedly yes" as President Obama's statement in the Rose Garden unequivocally indicated. An attack on that scale with mortars and RPGs speaks for itself. The answer to #2 is the part that has resulted in evolving answers. Was their a spontaneous protest about the video outside the Benghazi consulate at all? If so, did the attackers use it as "cover"? Or did a pre-planned attack on the anniversary of 9/11 just coincidentally take place at the same time? Etc.? Various members of the Obama Administration have provided different answers to #2 as the investigation has unfolded. Regardless, the initial statements were clearly called PRELIMINARY. In any event, however #2 pans out it does NOT negate #1. There simply is no answer to #2 that is MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE with #1. And Romney got his ass handed to him on that question b/c he apparently got so caught up in the right-wing media echo-chamber that's trying to politicize the tragedy that he failed to differentiate between conservative spin and fact.
OAW
Owe-bama's 9/12 talk was generic about 9/11 et al, not specific to the Libya disaster if you look at all his remarks. He was speaking in generalities. At that time they were still sticking to the lie that it was a protest about a Youtube vid. Thsi continued with Hillary the unelectable and Rice the UN mouthpiece.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 09:44 AM
 
@OAW,

Obama was asked point blank if it was a terrorist attack one week after that speech, and he said "we're still doing an investigation".
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 09:55 AM
 
I really can't make head or tails of the entire benghazi thing. To say Obama handled it smoothly would be a lie. To think Romney would have had clearer messaging is to ignore how his campaign has functioned.

I don't know who knew what when, who requested what for where and when, and what occurred why.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 10:11 AM
 
I'm still trying to puzzle it out myself.

However, it's getting harder to shake the feeling Obama's reaction was to put his campaign first.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 10:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Owe-bama's 9/12 talk was generic about 9/11 et al, not specific to the Libya disaster if you look at all his remarks. He was speaking in generalities. At that time they were still sticking to the lie that it was a protest about a Youtube vid. Thsi continued with Hillary the unelectable and Rice the UN mouthpiece.
One would think you would know better by now than to hang your hat on regurgitated, right-wing talking points from Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, et al that have little to no basis in fact. Especially when dealing with me.

Originally Posted by President Obama - Rose Garden Statement
Good morning. Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation. Often, they are away from their families. Sometimes, they brave great danger.

Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi. Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith. We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed. And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.

The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya. Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans. Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.

It's especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save. At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi. With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya. When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there. He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.

Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on. I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

NO ACTS OF TERROR will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.

We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.

Thank you. May God bless the memory of those we lost and may God bless the United States of America.
Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya - Whitehouse.gov

The first two paragraphs in bold CLEARLY establish the context of President Obama's remarks as the "Libyan disaster" as you call it. The part in blue follows and is the ONLY reference ... an one oblique at that ... to the inflammatory video at all. The 9/11 attacks weren't even mentioned until the SECOND HALF of the statement. Throughout the entire statement President Obama used some variation of the word "attack" EIGHT TIMES. And he did IN FACT refer to this "attack" ... this "terrible act" as an ACT OF TERROR for which we will get justice.

So there you have it folks. Here we have these little things we call FACTS juxtaposed against your BS right-wing talking point about "speaking in generalities". So I'm quite confident that your credibility on the topic now speaks for itself.

OAW
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 10:15 AM
 
The moderator of the debate stopped Romney from talking 3 times more than she did Obama.

Was it because Romney was dominating the time speaking? Of course not, like the other two debates, the moderator gave the Democrats more time to talk. Obama essentially had an entire free question/answer period worth of time over Romney.

Then the moderator comes in to save Obama when Romney caught him in a lie, and joined in with the dishonest portrayal of his words after the Libya attack.

With Romney debating two people on the same page, how would you expect Obama NOT TO WIN, though most talking heads (irrationally) have it as a toss up.

This despite the fact that Obama's only apparent come-back's to Romney's pointing out his terrible record was that Romney was rich and his blind trust invests in Chinese businesses.

Twice Romney challenged Obama on stuff he said which was factually false, and twice Obama tried to lie his way out of it. Once (on federal production of energy) he simply was knocked to his knees, trying to change the subject. The other time, the moderator dishonestly threw him a life jacket he didn't deserve (and was against the rules) in order to try to make Romney look bad.

If this is a "great" debate performance for some of you, then I'm really not sure you know what debates are supposed to be about. On points Romney won, on style Obama pulled even this debate, and on what was MOST important, influencing undecideds, most focus groups I saw (Fox and MSNBC) said that Romney was more persuasive - AGAIN. Gallup currently has Romney up 6 points and that's without undecideds (I'm not convinced of Gallup's weighting methods though).

But hey, Obama mentioned the 47% stuff that 90% of everyone could care less about. CONGRATS!
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 10:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
One would think you would know better by now than to hang your hat on regurgitated, right-wing talking points from Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, et al that have little to no basis in fact. Especially when dealing with me.
Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya - Whitehouse.gov
The first two paragraphs in bold CLEARLY establish the context of President Obama's remarks as the "Libyan disaster" as you call it. The part in blue follows and is the ONLY reference ... an one oblique at that ... to the inflammatory video at all. The 9/11 attacks weren't even mentioned until the SECOND HALF of the statement. Throughout the entire statement President Obama used some variation of the word "attack" EIGHT TIMES. And he did IN FACT refer to this "attack" ... this "terrible act" as an ACT OF TERROR for which we will get justice.
So there you have it folks. Here we have these little things we call FACTS juxtaposed against your BS right-wing talking point about "speaking in generalities". So I'm quite confident that your credibility on the topic now speaks for itself.
OAW
So we don't like terror attacks. Given that the White House, time after time for 2 weeks after this attack said it wasn't a terrorist attack, but rather a unplanned event inspired by a Youtube video, you can not make the claim that Obama referred to THIS event as a terror attack. That is what he claimed, and even Candy admitted he was right. Does not compute.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 10:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
@OAW,
Obama was asked point blank if it was a terrorist attack one week after that speech, and he said "we're still doing an investigation".
Which is true. The investigation was ongoing. But again that was in reference to #2. After he called it an "act of terror" in the Rose Garden do you really think he was going to say "Oh no my bad ... I was just kidding!"?

The problem here is that terms like "terror", "terrorism", "terrorist attack" are long on varying connotations and short on precise definitions. Especially in the legal, diplomatic, and political arenas. So President Obama simply punted on the question ... leaving his initial statement intact ... rather than provide any further fuel to the political fire the GOP was stoking in the midst of an ongoing investigation.

OAW
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 10:24 AM
 
It's a semantic argument that Romney bumbled. Obama referred to it as an attack of terror but not a terror attack (is there a difference?) in the rose garden. The inference that's missing is whether he considered it premeditated or not. The view interview would imply that they did not have a clear conclusion two weeks out.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 10:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
So we don't like terror attacks. Given that the White House, time after time for 2 weeks after this attack said it wasn't a terrorist attack, but rather a unplanned event inspired by a Youtube video, you can not make the claim that Obama referred to THIS event as a terror attack. That is what he claimed, and even Candy admitted he was right. Does not compute.
Again. "Terrorist attack" and "unplanned event inspired by a YouTube video" are NOT mutually exclusive.

Furthermore, what was "THIS EVENT" that President Obama was referring to in his Rose Garden statement if not the Benghazi incident? What's your alternative interpretation? What did the PRESIDENT say? Not some random WH official. The President himself? Or do the ACTUAL WORDS that came out of his mouth not mean anything to you because they don't fit this false narrative you have bought into?

OAW
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 10:35 AM
 
The point of the rebuttal to Romney's point was Obama saying that he made it clear that it was a terrorist attack the next day.

Sorry, but a unplanned uprising due to outrage over a Youtube video IS NOT what most people think of as a terrorist attack, and that's how the White House described the event even 2 weeks after it happened. When Obama tried to claim that he designated it as a terrorist attack the next day, he was simply wrong. He simply referred to the fact that don't tolerate terrorist attacks. He never claimed to have knowledge of WHAT was the cause of THIS attack until later. So, if it WHERE a terrorist attack, they wouldn't tolerate them. That's not AT ALL the same as saying that THIS was a terrorist attack.

NOT a question of semantics. Simply an illustration of what was actually said. It wasn't until 2 weeks later that Obama acknowledged that THIS WAS a terrorist attack. Nice try though.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 10:39 AM
 
It would be like the police coming across a dead body, not yet knowing if it where murder, and saying that they work hard to keep everyone safe from senseless, violent crime.

Did the police then just say that THAT was a senseless, violent crime? Of course not. They didn't claim to yet know WHAT was the cause. If they then go the next two weeks saying that they believe it was an accident, then what would be the point later of the police chief claiming he had claimed from the get go that this was a violent crime?

You guys are REALLY trying too hard.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 10:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
You guys are REALLY trying too hard.
We're not the ones desperately trying to paint him as Jimmy Carter 2.0
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 11:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
The point of the rebuttal to Romney's point was Obama saying that he made it clear that it was a terrorist attack the next day.
Sorry, but a unplanned uprising due to outrage over a Youtube video IS NOT what most people think of as a terrorist attack, and that's how the White House described the event even 2 weeks after it happened. When Obama tried to claim that he designated it as a terrorist attack the next day, he was simply wrong. He simply referred to the fact that don't tolerate terrorist attacks. He never claimed to have knowledge of WHAT was the cause of THIS attack until later. So, if it WHERE a terrorist attack, they wouldn't tolerate them. That's not AT ALL the same as saying that THIS was a terrorist attack.
NOT a question of semantics. Simply an illustration of what was actually said. It wasn't until 2 weeks later that Obama acknowledged that THIS WAS a terrorist attack. Nice try though.
And this is PRECISELY WHY I stated earlier that the right is deliberately conflating two separate, but related issues. So I'll let the PRESIDENT'S WORDS ... not some random WH official's ... speak for themselves.

Originally Posted by President Obama
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
Basically what our good friends on the right are trying to contend is that the President's comment in bold has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the rest of that paragraph. Let alone the remaining portions of his statement where he undoubtedly was referencing the Benghazi "attacks" 7 out of the 8 times he used some variation of that term. In that instance and that instance alone ... he was speaking in "generalities". Ummm .... ok.

OAW
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 11:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
We're not the ones desperately trying to paint him as Jimmy Carter 2.0
Exactly! As I said earlier ... an attack on that scale with mortars and RPGs speaks for itself. Unless you are dealing with the conservative mind that as David Frum so eloquently stated "has the unique capacity to ignore unwelcome fact." it would appear. Because Stu's basic premise here is that the nature of the attack itself doesn't determine whether or not it is "terrorist" ... it's the amount of advanced planning that determines this. So let's take this to its logical conclusion. Suppose some random guy with borderline jihadist sentiments was just going about his day. And then he saw that video and was so insulted and angered that he decided to take a grenade and go blow himself up in a cafe filled with Westerners. Stu is essentially saying that such a spur of the moment attack wouldn't be "terrorist" in nature ... but if he had pre-planned it would be. Yeah. Ok.

OAW
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 11:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Which is true. The investigation was ongoing. But again that was in reference to #2. After he called it an "act of terror" in the Rose Garden do you really think he was going to say "Oh no my bad ... I was just kidding!"?
The problem here is that terms like "terror", "terrorism", "terrorist attack" are long on varying connotations and short on precise definitions. Especially in the legal, diplomatic, and political arenas. So President Obama simply punted on the question ... leaving his initial statement intact ... rather than provide any further fuel to the political fire the GOP was stoking in the midst of an ongoing investigation.
OAW
The amount of slack one is willing to give a President for acting like a candidate is going to be in direct proportion to how much they support them in the first place. That the GOP is gunning for him is apparently an acceptable motivator for you. That's fine, but you're going to vote for him anyway.

If he's playing politics, someone less inclined than you to vote for him is where there's value.

How far do you think the argument "I said this as cover from the meanie GOP" will fly with that demographic?
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 11:18 AM
 
So after he admitted it was a terrorist attack he then started lying about it and characterizing it as something else.
Rice chimed in with a continuation of the lies, along with Hillary the unelectable.
It was the Owe-bama campaign who wanted to hide the facts of their incompetence and short sightedness that drove the lies.
Poor judgment seem to be SOP at the Owe-bama White House.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 11:28 AM
 
I think you'd get more traction without the name calling. It really makes your posts difficult to read from a rhythm perspective.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 11:29 AM
 
He's not worried about traction.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 11:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
He's not worried about traction.
That's possible, but having to read it is like getting a fingernail jammed in my eye.

To be clear, it isn't a political issue. It wouldn't matter who he did it with.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 11:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The amount of slack one is willing to give a President for acting like a candidate is going to be in direct proportion to how much they support them in the first place. That the GOP is gunning for him is apparently an acceptable motivator for you. That's fine, but you're going to vote for him anyway.
If he's playing politics, someone less inclined than you to vote for him is where there's value.
How far do you think the argument "I said this as cover from the meanie GOP" will fly with that demographic?
I don't look at is as "cover". I look at as being very measured in his response considering the circumstances ... as opposed to flying off the handle as Romney is wont to do. Now let's put this in context so we are all on the same page ok? On Sept. 25 President Obama was interviewed on The View. And this was the exchange ....

Joy Behar: I heard Hillary Clinton say it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?

President Obama: We're still doing an investigation. There's no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn't just a mob action. Now we don't have all the information yet, so we're still gathering it. But what's clear is that around the world there's still a lot of threats out there. And that's why we have to maintain the strongest military in the world.
Again ... the nature of the attack itself makes it SELF-EVIDENT that this wasn't the result of an unruly crowd of protestors. And the President made that abundantly clear in that portion of the statement in bold. The "issue" being investigated was not the WHAT or even the HOW ... instead it was the WHO, the WHY, and the WHEN? As I've stated earlier, the GOP is deliberately conflating an ongoing investigation into the WHEN (i.e. premeditated attack or not?) with some sort of vacillation on the WHAT. And to that my response simple is .... what alternative explanation do they have for "it wasn't just a mob action" if they believe President Obama did NOT mean "terrorist attack"?

OAW
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 11:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I don't look at is as "cover". I look at as being very measured in his response considering the circumstances ... as opposed to flying off the handle as Romney is wont to do.
The only thing measured about his statement is his decision not to confirm what his Secretary of State and he himself said in the Rose Garden, and instead refuse to answer a direct question.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 12:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
We're not the ones desperately trying to paint him as Jimmy Carter 2.0
Where did I do that in my post?
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 12:23 PM
 
Badkosh: You got it.

To believe the spin about Obama's comments, you have to believe that he classifed the attack as a "terrorist attack" from the get go, and then spent the next several weeks explaining that it was individuals who got spontaneously upset over a Youtube video. The two ARE mutually exclusive as I demonstrated with my murder example.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 12:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
A Democrat who never voted for a Democrat for President and hates every liberal idea and most Democratic ideals.
And I'm a Christian who doesn't believe in God.
I hate every "liberal idea" [sic]? That is, without doubt, the largest pile of horses**t you've dropped on this forum. I'm so far left in social issues that I make you look like Oral Roberts. When I like the Democrat who's running, I'll vote for him/her.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 12:30 PM
 
One thing's for sure, Obama threw Hillary under the bus today. Or, rather, forced her to jump under it.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 12:47 PM
 
Fell on the sword.

More medieval.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 01:00 PM
 
Rumor is Oblamea promised Billary a SCOTUS slot.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 01:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Oblamea
...and we've reached a new low.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 01:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I hate every "liberal idea" [sic]? That is, without doubt, the largest pile of horses**t you've dropped on this forum. I'm so far left in social issues that I make you look like Oral Roberts. When I like the Democrat who's running, I'll vote for him/her.
If you couldn't find a single Democratic presidential candidate you like in the last 30 years, anyone with half a brain can figure out their views don't align with the Democrats on the national level.

You do you know there is more than just the Republican and Democratic party right?


So now you claim to be part of "The Left" you hate so much?
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 03:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
And the libs are rabid!
http://www.infowars.com/threats-to-assassinate-romney-explode-after-debate/
Infowars? INFOWARS?

     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 04:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
The problem here is that our good friends on the right insist upon conflating two separate, but related issues ....
#1. Benghazi incident = Terror Attack?
#2. Benghazi incident precipitated by inflammatory video?

I think the real problem here is that the Obama administration is conflating the two in their messaging. There is no evidence of #2 at all other than the fact that a film exists. Which film exactly seems sketchy, but we'll leave that alone. WIthout question, there was vastly more evidence for #1, on day one. But, the Obama administration tried to conflate the two. Their messaging went out over multiple airwaves, after multiple days, and multiple times including at the podium in front of the entire UN body -- essentially decrying the video for causing spontaneous violence. In fact, there have been several attacks in the region in the months prior, and several requests for bolstered US presence declined. No video. No film to blame. The question to many, whether we like it or not, is whether or not our President has really been as successful in his foreign policy as he'd have you believe and if he's dishonest enough to be this sloppy. There are questions of Al Qaeda's resurgence in the Middle East that do not play nice in Obama's stump.
ebuddy
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2012, 05:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
If you couldn't find a single Democratic presidential candidate you like in the last 30 years, anyone with half a brain can figure out their views don't align with the Democrats on the national level.
You do you know there is more than just the Republican and Democratic party right?
So now you claim to be part of "The Left" you hate so much?
One, I'm not old enough to have been voting for 30 years. I align with Democrats who live around here, so I vote for them (usually), just because Dems in other areas of the country act like socialists doesn't mean we all do.
Two, I'm quite aware there are other parties, I just stated I'm voting 3rd party in the Pres election this year.
Three, If you haven't seen how many times I've declared that I'm far Left on social matters, you're either blind or you've had a head injury. I'm thinking the latter, caused by all the bowing and scraping to the DNC.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:59 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,