[Chongo]

From NH puplic radio

OBAMA FLASHBACK: The Day I'm Inaugurated Muslim Hostility Will Ease

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but haven't the Usual Reasonable Liberals - OAW, OldManMac, subego, Dakar, lpmckenna to name a couple off the top of my head, and again forgive me if I'm wrong about any of those names - been entirely vocal with their criticism of Obama? Or am I just imagining things? Haven't they been critical of both candidates?

I haven't been very critical of Obama lately, at least not around here. It's not that I think Obama is so great, but rather that the Republicans candidates have just been so terrible.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

2. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but haven't the Usual Reasonable Liberals - OAW, OldManMac, subego, Dakar, lpmckenna to name a couple off the top of my head, and again forgive me if I'm wrong about any of those names - been entirely vocal with their criticism of Obama? Or am I just imagining things? Haven't they been critical of both candidates?
3. This is a thread specifically about Romney's latest gaffe. Why do you seem to feel that because this thread is about Romney's gaffe, you should list various other gaffes by Obama as a "reminder list"? Your position in this last post seems to be that because someone has pointed out Romney's mistake, it means they are not aware of any of Obama's mistakes. I trust you realize how false that logic is?

Don't bring facts into this; they only seem to confuse him.

Romney is actually working to re-elect Obama.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/15/1131332/-Mitt-Romney-s-brave-and-lonely-campaign-to-re-elect-Obama

[subego]

Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but there's a certain amount of respect you show the ****ing President.

If you're going to accuse them of being an enemy sympathizer, show enough respect to wait until you know the details first. Is that too much to ask?

Before someone brings up how Democrats showed a lack of respect to Bush, allow me to preemptively not give a shit. I'm sooo tired of the equivalency excuse for poor behavior. Take some personal responsibility for Christ's sake.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

The entire point of my post was:
1. You just made an entire post that yet again criticized Obama roundly, yet didn't mentioned a thing about Romney other than that you've been "critical" in the past. Out of mild curiosity, are you even capable of openly criticising Romney now that he is the Republican party leader? I'm honestly curious.

Yes, I am capable of openly criticizing Romney as the primary Republican party leader just as I was openly critical of Bush as the Republican Party leader while serving in the White House.

2. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but haven't the Usual Reasonable Liberals - OAW, OldManMac, subego, Dakar, lpmckenna to name a couple off the top of my head, and again forgive me if I'm wrong about any of those names - been entirely vocal with their criticism of Obama? Or am I just imagining things? Haven't they been critical of both candidates?
3. This is a thread specifically about Romney's latest gaffe. Why do you seem to feel that because this thread is about Romney's gaffe, you should list various other gaffes by Obama as a "reminder list"? Your position in this last post seems to be that because someone has pointed out Romney's mistake, it means they are not aware of any of Obama's mistakes. I trust you realize how false that logic is?

I appreciate the contributions of each of the above and in Dakar's case regrettably did not respond to the positive message he brought and am sorry that was overlooked. He also expressed some confusion over all that was being made of this so at least in this I don't feel entirely alone here. There is an important difference between being openly critical of one's actions and being openly critical of a person. You don't have someone challenging policy here. There is no argument that one would either forward or counter. The thread was more or less; this is disgustingly political of Romney -- discuss.

My frustration with this tactic has been its personal nature and increasing regularity. Generally, I will criticize Obama's actual policies and politics, but that' not what I'm seeing with regard to criticisms of Romney. When I see criticisms of Romney that I believe lack substance and are intended to paint him into something mean-spirited and horrific, I'm going to throw all the mean-spirited horrific things Obama has done back into their faces to remind them that this is an election between two people and that if these are truly your gauges of integrity and electability, why are you protecting one by attempting to direct everyone's attention to the other? You'd better be writing in Gandhi for President.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There is an important difference between being openly critical of one's actions and being openly critical of a person. You don't have someone challenging policy here. There is no argument that one would either forward or counter. The thread was more or less; this is disgustingly political of Romney -- discuss.

Nope. You still don't get it. You don't want to.

Romney did not merely politicized the events in Libya and Egypt, he lied about about what happened. And he has received virtually universal condemnation from everyone for doing it. Except from you, it seems.

Generally, I will criticize Obama's actual policies and politics, but that' not what I'm seeing with regard to criticisms of Romney.

If Romney would actually outline some policies, they might get criticized. But for now, since he has done little else but tell lies, that's what will be criticized.

BTW, attacking Romney and Ryan for their endless litany of lies is not "mere personal attacks." Good character is important in a leader, and both of these men are of shockingly low character, as displayed by their non-stop dishonesty.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Nope. You still don't get it. You don't want to.
Romney did not merely politicized the events in Libya and Egypt, he lied about about what happened. And he has received virtually universal condemnation from everyone for doing it. Except from you, it seems.
If Romney would actually outline some policies, they might get criticized. But for now, since he has done little else but tell lies, that's what will be criticized.
BTW, attacking Romney and Ryan for their endless litany of lies is not "mere personal attacks." Good character is important in a leader, and both of these men are of shockingly low character, as displayed by their non-stop dishonesty.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Do you really believe, honestly; that Obama has not lied? All things being equal, how is it exactly that you've determined Romney and Ryan are worse liars than Obama and Biden?

Trust me, the difference is that one ticket is simply more aligned with you politically and you'll give their incessant BS a pass. That's the reality. Romney and Ryan have given you every bit as much substance as Obama; enough that you've made your decision who you support. Don't claim they've given you nothing to critique when they were soundly opposed by you before you knew a damned thing about them personally.

When there's nothing of substance left to argue and you can't defend the merit of failed policy -- slander. I get it mckenna and that's primarily due to your contribution.

[Spheric Harlot]

This isn't about Obama.

[Wiskedjak]

Here's what I've noticed so far:

Obama says "Vote for me, because here's what I'm gonna do for you" and complains a bit about how Romney sucks. He's probably lying about much of it.
Romney says "Vote for me, because here's how much Obama sucks" and talks a bit about what he's gonna do for you. He's probably lying about much of it.

Just look at Ryan's attempt at Social Media on Quora. He spends most of it whining about Obama, and a tiny little bit vaguely saying "we're better". And, then, he doesn't even follow up on any of the responses, completely ignoring the entire point behind Social Media (maybe the word "social" scared him off).
http://www.quora.com/Paul-Ryan-Congressman-Vice-Presidential-Nominee/Does-Paul-Ryan-think-America-is-better-off-now-than-four-years-ago

[subego]

[Tap tap tap]

Is this thing on?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

[Tap tap tap]
Is this thing on?

Sorry, I forgot about you.

Can you show me where Romney referred to Obama as an attacker-sympathizer?

[subego]

Romney said the Obama administration's disgraceful first response was to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.

Are you construing this statement as not including an indictment of the individual in charge of his own administration?

Is there a practical difference between disgracefully sympathizing with those who waged the attacks and being an attacker sympathizer?

Do you think Romney's statement was accurate?

[Chongo]

The statement in question, issued before anything happened in Cairo or Libya

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

[subego]

Your point being?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Romney said the Obama administration's disgraceful first response was to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.
Are you construing this statement as not including an indictment of the individual in charge of his own administration?
Is there a practical difference between disgracefully sympathizing with those who waged the attacks and being an attacker sympathizer?
Do you think Romney's statement was accurate?

Loosely, yes, which is why the Administration tried to divorce itself from the statement. Assuming that the attacks weren't more orchestrated than the Administration is reporting and that it really had something to do with this bizarre film; this is a government that not only allows the freedom of this type of expression, but would use tax dollars to fund such prolific works as "Piss Christ" and display them at the Smithsonian. I don't see any reason to bring more attention to some lone quack with a video camera by trying to condemn the work from an official US post. The Romney/Ryan ticket has accused the Obama Administration of laying a framework of appeasement that encourages our adversaries to engage adventurism and they believe this is a prime example of it.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Loosely, yes, which is why the Administration tried to divorce itself from the statement. Assuming that the attacks weren't more orchestrated than the Administration is reporting and that it really had something to do with this bizarre film; this is a government that not only allows the freedom of this type of expression, but would use tax dollars to fund such prolific works as "Piss Christ" and display them at the Smithsonian. I don't see any reason to bring more attention to some lone quack with a video camera by trying to condemn the work from an official US post. The Romney/Ryan ticket has accused the Obama Administration of laying a framework of appeasement that encourages our adversaries to engage adventurism and they believe this is a prime example of it.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you Poop Pee POTUS by BigDon

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Loosely, yes, which is why the Administration tried to divorce itself from the statement. Assuming that the attacks weren't more orchestrated than the Administration is reporting and that it really had something to do with this bizarre film; this is a government that not only allows the freedom of this type of expression, but would use tax dollars to fund such prolific works as "Piss Christ" and display them at the Smithsonian. I don't see any reason to bring more attention to some lone quack with a video camera by trying to condemn the work from an official US post. The Romney/Ryan ticket has accused the Obama Administration of laying a framework of appeasement that encourages our adversaries to engage adventurism and they believe this is a prime example of it.

How was the Embassy statement practically different from Romney's statement?

"They have the right to do that, but it’s not right to do things that are of the nature of what was done by, apparently this film."


Edit: wasn't Piss Christ 25 years ago?

[Spheric Harlot]

People claiming that "Piss Christ" was acceptable norm are almost certainly not old enough to remember the OUTRAGE it caused.

[subego]

I have a vague recollection. People definitely flipped out, but I found it pretty tame.

I also vaguely recall some bondage fetish stuff which was way worse IMO.

[Spheric Harlot]

People in the US were also picketing Robert Mapplethorpe exhibits in the late 1980s.

I would like to thank them for doing so, because I possibly wouldn't have heard of him otherwise, and my life would be lacking his extraordinary work.

[subego]

That sounds right.

I recall his less extreme work being quite good.

I don't have an opinion on the more extreme stuff. I wasn't interested at the time so I didn't see it.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you Poop Pee POTUS by BigDon

The cartoon is ignorant. The picture doesn't bug me.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

People claiming that "Piss Christ" was acceptable norm are almost certainly not old enough to remember the OUTRAGE it caused.

Were there deaths as a result?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

The cartoon is ignorant. The picture doesn't bug me.

Try getting an NEA grant for a depiction of the "prophet" submerged in urine, or a portrait of his daughter Fatima covered in dung. (let alone put on display at the Smithsonian)

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Were there deaths as a result?

What's your point?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Try getting an NEA grant for a depiction of the "prophet" submerged in urine, or a portrait of his daughter Fatima covered in dung. (let alone put on display at the Smithsonian)

What's your point here, too?

[lpkmckenna]

Remember the "clutching their guns and Bibles" moment from Obama in the last election? Now we have Romney's moment, the moment when he tells his fellow millionaires what he won't say to the face of the American people as a whole:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser

This man really thinks 47% of all Americans are unworthy of any regard by him whatsoever because they enjoy government benefits.

[Chongo]

It sounds like he taking about trying to preach to the Democrat choir.

He could have also put it this way
Chaput on Obama: “I Can’t Vote for Somebody Who is Pro-Abortion”

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

How was the Embassy statement practically different from Romney's statement?
"They have the right to do that, but it’s not right to do things that are of the nature of what was done by, apparently this film."

I don't think you can remove the incident and the subsequent reaction of the Obama administration from the equation before asking how they're practically different. Otherwise, one's an interview several days after the fact and not an official US response to a breaking foreign issue. In other words, how was Romney's reaction on the 11th practically different from the Administration's reaction?

Edit: wasn't Piss Christ 25 years ago?

Is there a reason I should question whether or not tax dollars are still funding the arts, including that which might be offensive to some religious people? We can't have embassies getting blown up every time someone produces something insensitive.

[subego]

Which response? You have two distinct responses which were different. One from the embassy, one from the State Department.

I still don't get the NEA question. Could you just give your argument to me straight rather than with the rhetorical flourish?

[Chongo]

If it's proven that Libya gave the US at least three days warning prior to what is looking more and more like a well planned attack, Obama is toast.

[subego]

If we were given specific information.

If it was "you may get attacked on 9/11". Well, duh.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Which response? You have two distinct responses which were different. One from the embassy, one from the State Department.

Romney was taking issue with the Administration's first response; the embassy statement. The one the Administration later tried to separate itself from.

I still don't get the NEA question. Could you just give your argument to me straight rather than with the rhetorical flourish?

I tried this and you didn't accept the argument on its face -- you asked questions. So here we are.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

If it's proven that Libya gave the US at least three days warning prior to what is looking more and more like a well planned attack, Obama is toast.

I don't think there's anything that would bring Obama down at this point, short a major gaffe or some as yet unknown and massive scandal that will break open in the next couple of weeks. Obama maintains an edge in just about every swing state necessary to pull this election off. It's now up to the debates and that's Obama's home-field so to speak.

I'm afraid Romney is going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm afraid Romney is going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Any moment now I'm expecting him to take his mask off and reveal that he's really John Kerry.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Any moment now I'm expecting him to take his mask off and reveal that he's really John Kerry.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Romney was taking issue with the Administration's first response; the embassy statement. The one the Administration later tried to separate itself from.
I tried this and you didn't accept the argument on its face -- you asked questions. So here we are.

Well, apparently the big difference is supposed to be the embassy statement was a disgraceful apology for American values.

Do you feel "a disgraceful apology for American values" is an accurate assessment of the statement?


I just don't get your NEA question, so I can't answer it. My request for restatement assumes you have interest in hearing my answer. If not, then I guess it doesn't matter.

[Chongo]

The NEA is all for "art" that, in the words of our Muslim friends, blasphemes Christianity. (Catholicism in particular) I have yet to see them underwrite an exhibit of "art" blaspheming anything Islamic.

[andi*pandi]

We can all agree that killing people is bad form response to someone mocking your god. How can we stop them doing so? Are you wishing that Christians could behave like the Muslims do? Free speech should be free speach, whether the source is the NEA or some youtube clip out there. The NEA should be able to sponsor Islam-mocking art, but maybe they don't for fear of starting WWIII. Is that fair? No.

There are plenty of non-NEA sponsored bits of blasphemy, so let's not get distracted. Life of Brian, South Park, The Passion (?), Last Temptation of Christ, Dogma... I think we can call ourselves civilized that no one has died due to these things. (I'm hoping this is true.)

We have the high ground here.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Well, apparently the big difference is supposed to be the embassy statement was a disgraceful apology for American values.
Do you feel "a disgraceful apology for American values" is an accurate assessment of the statement?

Not any more than calling Bush unpatriotic, but you see -- it's an election season which was my point out of the gate. Of course everything's going to get all blowed up, that's what happens here. I don't think the ones getting riled up over it are accurately assessing the situation either.

I just don't get your NEA question, so I can't answer it. My request for restatement assumes you have interest in hearing my answer. If not, then I guess it doesn't matter.

Has there been an official statement from the White House decrying the Westboro Baptist "God hates fags" bunch? No? Why decry some obscure film few know anything about? We've generally gone to great pains in championing freedom of speech which includes the funding of art and expression that some may find offensive. These freedoms will hopefully continue to be upheld, but instead of using this as an example of why that freedom is so important -- we decry it only marginalizing the freedom itself while apparently doing no other good that one could say it was worth it.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Has there been an official statement from the White House decrying the Westboro Baptist "God hates fags" bunch? No? Why decry some obscure film few know anything about?

The White House didn't make a statement about this video. A local embassy did.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

The White House didn't make a statement about this video. A local embassy did.

The rule of thumb is that these posts are official US posts and they maintain the message of the Administration. This is why if something stupid is said, the White House will try to publicly divorce itself from the statement; because it is otherwise responsible for it.

[ebuddy]

OMG! YES, THE NEW FORUM FORMAT STILL SUCKS!!!

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

From NH puplic radio
OBAMA FLASHBACK: The Day I'm Inaugurated Muslim Hostility Will Ease

Now we can add this: Obama: US expects ‘full cooperation’ in protection of diplomats

President Obama on Tuesday said he expects “full cooperation” from the “Muslim world” in protecting US diplomats from protests in the Middle East.

“The message we have to send, I think, to the Muslim world is, we expect you to work
 with us to keep our people safe,” Obama said in an interview with late night talk show host David Letterman.

No time for the Israeli PM, but he has to to go on Letterman?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

The White House didn't make a statement about this video. A local embassy did.

The rule of thumb is that these posts are official US posts and they maintain the message of the Administration. This is why if something stupid is said, the White House will try to publicly divorce itself from the statement; because it is otherwise responsible for it.

Technically correct.

I see you're spinning us back to Page 1.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Not any more than calling Bush unpatriotic, but you see -- it's an election season which was my point out of the gate. Of course everything's going to get all blowed up, that's what happens here. I don't think the ones getting riled up over it are accurately assessing the situation either.

I see a distinct difference between calling the person who came up with "freedom fries" unpatriotic vs. calling the person accused of Marxism "an enemy sympathizer".

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Has there been an official statement from the White House decrying the Westboro Baptist "God hates fags" bunch? No? Why decry some obscure film few know anything about? We've generally gone to great pains in championing freedom of speech which includes the funding of art and expression that some may find offensive. These freedoms will hopefully continue to be upheld, but instead of using this as an example of why that freedom is so important -- we decry it only marginalizing the freedom itself while apparently doing no other good that one could say it was worth it.

You're talking about the guy who made it illegal to protest at a military funeral. Now that's a rejection of American values.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Demonhood 

That everyone here condemns this attack, thinks they were horrific and feels sadly for the family/friends of the deceased is a given.

That's a pretty major assumption. I'm sure some support the attack, couldn't care less about the family and friends of the deceased.

Just saying...

[Athens]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Uh, catching up from last night I have to say I'm confused by this thread. Not sure who got taken to task for not saying something.
I'm also confused as to the entire cause of the situation. I've heard perhaps this is an organized attack or its because of that retarded video. (If its the latter, I hope that person is happy with what they stirred up).
So with that in mind, I'd like to post something positive in here instead.
When was the last time this happened?



Sounds like some Libyans actually respected the Ambassador. Despite the terrible circumstances, I find some of my faith in humanity has been restored.

Happens all the time. Just American news profits off of the bad news so they never shows it. Its like Russel Peters in his comedy skits he points out that the view these people have of Americans are that of nose picking hillbilly red necks as the typical norm for Americans which is so far from the truth its actually sad. The same goes for America's view on Islam and those countries that all the people are in dirty rags with bombs attached to there waist screaming death to America. Also far from the truth and reality. Just imagine what Muslims would think if the only news the local news played of America was that right wing religious group that says God hates fags and protests funerals. That small but loud group of a few hundred people could easily be mistaken for the majority on a TV show.

Just saying.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Athens 

That's a pretty major assumption. I'm sure some support the attack, couldn't care less about the family and friends of the deceased.
Just saying...

He said here. As in on this forum.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by subego 

He said here. As in on this forum.

Yes.. I know, here on this forum... My Statement was for here, on this forum. Its a assumption to think EVERY person who posts here is against the attack or could give a damn about some US diplomat being killed, here, on this, forum.

[subego]

Well, actually he meant in the thread, but I figured you'd back-off before I needed to get specific.



Anyone specific you had in mind? I know all these people's posting histories. I'm not seeing it.