Hussein is Desperate and Shrill - He Lost - Again

[coaster]

Very true.  His lack of opposable thumbs is probably an issue as well.

And the fact that he dials with his head..

[Eddie Coyle]

How did that Nazi fuck Rutabaga get your phone number?

     Hey he's a "man of letters", ya know.   They happen to be KKK.

[11angeleyes11]

Here's the facts:

50% have declared Obama the winner.

The Romney 47% of the undecided have now decided to vote Obama.

3% have declared Romney, that segment consists of Romney and all of his yet unintroduced, wives, women and children in the Utah community of Romania.

If this makes you will bad, cheer up.  You can watch on all of the networks tomorrow a noon photo op set-up in Detroit where Romney will adorn a Pasta Man apron and serve beans and franks to all of the autoworkers.  It will only last ten minutes, but you may watch it tomorrow night on the You-Tube video archive.   

[HAL 9000]

So Obama got more time than Romney in the first debate, Biden got more time than Ryan in the VP debate, and Obama got more time than Romney in tonight's second debate. Moderator/media bias? Naw...

I thought Crowley did a piss-poor job of moderating. She exemplifies the phrase, "Lipstick on a pig." Oh... am I being harsh? Too bad. I calls 'em as I sees 'em.

I hate the town-hall format - the people have such idiotic questions (though they're actually chosen by the moderator), and most of the time, the candidates don't answer the questions directly. I heard Obama dance around direct answers more than Mr. Bojangles.

If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you can read this in English, thank a soldier.

[ACE of CLUBS]

Paper*Boy ...... reply #26
You've nailed it ..... very good insight!
The crux of your country's problems are to get American industry going again, and to get the American public to 'Buy American'..
Without predatory corporate taxes, red tape, and all the other hoops industry has to jump through, mabey the public would consider supporting the American economy. 
Good luck to all Americans in the upcoming election that realize that Obama has fucked his country...it will take a generation to un-do his damage.

[Sardondi]

...I hate the town-hall format - the people have such idiotic questions (though they're actually chosen by the moderator), and most of the time, the candidates don't answer the questions directly.....

Yep. I hate it too. It's a cynical and totally false attempt to democratize the debate, and make the candidates look more like regular guys. The entire premise is false though because the guys spend their lives trying to be set apart from the hoi polloi. And they're running for President of the United States, which is miserable and endless drudgery. Only borderline sociopaths could do it. I mean, seriously, what "regular guy" would live the life of a candidate? It's hellish. But these guys all burn with the white hot heat of the fire in the belly. They would do virtually anything if it meant they could be President for 8 years. By simple definition a legitimate candidate for President is a freak, and simply incapable of being a normal human with authentic, trustworthy emotional responses.

So that's why I hate it. Plus, the format is rife with bias, as the moderator(s) almost always bend the questions or the time allotted for their preferred candidate. And guess what party that candidate always happens to belong to?

[slipstream]

Romney had Obama on the ropes about Libya.  Crowley came to Obama's aid, but she was clearly in the wrong to do so, and she was wrong on the facts.

[analog kid]

[Sardondi]

Romney had Obama on the ropes about Libya.  Crowley came to Obama's aid, but she was clearly in the wrong to do so, and she was wrong on the facts.

It was plain to the world. I blame Romney though for allowing the momentum to be taken away from him. He was going for the triple-extra credit "kill during an exchange", during which he was trying to maneuver Obama into actually answering him, when he didn't need to that at all. He wasted time, flubbed the delivery trying to make Obama speak to him, and then Crowley jumped in to answer (incorrectly) for Obama and then just take the mic away from Romney.

But it was clear what she did. This moment will become the symbol of this debate, and will be what people take away from it. And it won't help either Obama or the media.

[analog kid]

He wasted time, flubbed the delivery trying to make Obama speak to him, and then Crowley jumped in to answer (incorrectly) for Obama and then just take the mic away from Romney.

Crowley was right. Obama did mention terrorism in the speech and Romney's claim that it took 14 days before the president used the word was false. You can argue that the use of the phrase "acts of terror" was too broad or what-have-you, but Romney's claim that the word "terror" wasn't used for two weeks isn't true.

Romney: "I think interesting the president just said something, which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror."

Obama: "That's what I said."

Romney: "You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you're saying?"

Obama: "Please proceed, governor."

Romney: "I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror."

Obama: "Get the transcript."

[slipstream]

Crowley was right. Obama did mention terrorism in the speech and Romney's claim that it took 14 days before the president used the word was false. You can argue that the use of the phrase "acts of terror" was too broad or what-have-you, but Romney's claim that the word "terror" wasn't used for two weeks isn't true.

No, Crowley was wrong.  "Acts of Terror" was used broadly, as in acts of violence, and not specifically to a planned terrorist attack.  He didn't mention the Benghazi attack being a planned terrorist attack in his U.N. speech, WHY NOT?


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-president-obama-delivers-remarks-united-nations-invokes/story?id=17319652&singlePage=true#.UH7IXEay838


The speech was all about a spontaneous prostest that went out of control, and not about a planned terrorist attack.  Crowley gave Obama preferential treatment.

[Pragmier]

Romney: "I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror."

Obama in Colorado on Sept 13, addressing the tragedy of 2 days prior. 9:50 mark:

"So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished."

Romney needs to stop trying "gotcha" moments, they diminish his point and doesn't need them. The failure to protect our people is the issue, not who said what when.

[Sardondi]

Crowley was right. Obama did mention terrorism in the speech and Romney's claim that it took 14 days before the president used the word was false. You can argue that the use of the phrase "acts of terror" was too broad or what-have-you, but Romney's claim that the word "terror" wasn't used for two weeks isn't true.

That is completely out of context. The quote by Obama was about "acts of terror" in general, and were obviously not directed toward the Benghazi attack. The party line remained for two weeks that some silly video aroused these people to get out their RPGs, go to their cadre leaders and get their orders to begin a coordinated attack.

The point Romney made, which is unassailable, was that for two weeks afterward, the WH maintained the attack was a random event by persons upset by a video. It passes reason for him to be arguing whether or not the word "terror" was used, because it's pointless. But the facts are the facts. The American people saw and heard what Obama did. Only in Team O's America could anyone think a campaign could spin it away.

[analog kid]

Romney: You didn't say act of terror.

Obama: Yes I did.

Crowley: Yes he did.

Transcript: "act of terror"

It's pretty straight forward.

[slipstream]

"So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished."

Okay, once again the President in this sentence does not directly call the Benghazi a terrorist attack.  He refers broadly to "acts of terror".  This is not the same thing as saying, "This act of terror will go unpunished".

[slipstream]

Romney: You didn't say act of terror.

Obama: Yes I did.

Crowley: Yes he did.

Transcript: "act of terror"

It's pretty straight forward.

Yes it is, and Obama, on that day, never called what happened in Benghazi a terrorist attack.

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.”

[analog kid]

Yes it is, and Obama, on that day, never called what happened in Benghazi a terrorist attack.


He used terror as an activity, and did not call the Benghazi attacks an act of terror.

Whatever context anyone wants to inject there is irrelevant. Romney's argument was that the phrase "act of terror" wasn't used at all, which was untrue. And I note how you guys are wont to pluralize the quote.

[slipstream]

Whatever context anyone wants to inject there is irrelevant. Romney's argument was that the phrase "act of terror" wasn't used at all, which was untrue. And I note how you guys are wont to pluralize the quote.

Yes, "act of terror" was not used on that day, but "acts of terror was".  The difference is substantial when given the context. Romney was referring to an organized and planned attack.  The President was referring acts of terror in general.

[analog kid]

Yes, "act of terror" was not used on that day, but "acts of terror was".  The difference is substantial when given the context. Romney was referring to an organized and planned attack.  The President was referring acts of terror in general.

Yeah, on review I'm wrong there and I concede you guys' point.

[onan]

This is one of the most specious threads going.

Of course Obama wants all our dignitaries killed because he is a muslim.

What a bunch of tripe.

And you can prove it because he didn't say terror. Fuck me bloody.

This is the best you guys have?

[slipstream]

This is one of the most specious threads going.

Of course Obama wants all our dignitaries killed because he is a muslim.

What a bunch of tripe.

And you can prove it because he didn't say terror. Fuck me bloody.

This is the best you guys have?

I guess the above is an option when one runs out of logic.

[The General]

The sad part of all of this is that the whole country (well, the ones that pay attention) is arguing about  the semantics and context of a single word in a speech while the big picture gets ignored. 

The ignored reality is that the government is spending one trillion dollars a year MORE than they take in.  They could cut that in half and we'd still be fucked.  The government could tax every working American at a rate of 100% and it still wouldn't pay off the entire debt. 

The government cannot sustain this system of spending way more than they take in, and printing money as fast as they can.  We're headed toward disaster and the two parties argue about which one of them can preserve the most spending.  We're on a sinking boat, folks.  The boat will sink.  There aren't enough life rafts. 

[onan]

I guess the above is an option when one runs out of logic.

I do believe you to be very logical in your posts... just a waste of logic here. You want to place significance to when and what meaning to terror is used, by all means go for it. but it is a waste.

[slipstream]

just a waste of logic here. You want to place significance to when and what meaning to terror is used, by all means go for it. but it is a waste.

You mean to dismiss that the President misled people, and got help from a member of the media in doing so. 

[McPhallus]

I do believe you to be very logical in your posts... just a waste of logic here. You want to place significance to when and what meaning to terror is used, by all means go for it. but it is a waste.

I think language is important to how people frame events, beliefs, and foreign policy.

[onan]

You mean to dismiss that the President misled people, and got help from a member of the media in doing so.

I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

[analog kid]

You mean to dismiss that the President misled people, and got help from a member of the media in doing so.

This is really the crux of the argument, and something I have a problem with.

"This accusation not only misses the mark but also demonstrates how
profoundly the accusers misunderstand how intelligence works. In fact,
the White House's evolving timeline for what happened in Benghazi is
proof of precisely the opposite of what the breathless accusers suggest
-- it is a sign of a normal, healthy intelligence process"  ...former CIA analyst explains

[Eddie Coyle]

 
           Hopefully I can derail the thread with this:

            You mean to tell me that Norah O' Donnell was in the building, yet Candy Crowley was the one moderating? WOW.

[PB the Deplorable]

This is one of the most specious threads going.

Of course Obama wants all our dignitaries killed because he is a muslim.

What a bunch of tripe.

And you can prove it because he didn't say terror. Fuck me bloody.

This is the best you guys have?

For whatever reason, Obama does not seem to recognize the threat of Islamic Jihad to he extent he should.  I don't know if it's because he is a Muslim, or if he used to be, or if he thinks nearly all Muslims are like the people he grew up around in Indonesia.  Maybe he hates America and our freedom like other extreme Leftists and recognizes the Jihadis as people working toward a common goal.  I really don't know.

But he was unprepared for violence on the first anniv of 9/11 after the 'Arab Spring', when some pretty dubious groups have either taken over or are still jockeying for position in some of these places.  He did not provide requested security at Bengazi despite repeated requests.  It did take the Admnistration 2 weeks to tell us this was a pre-planned act of terror and not just a spontaneous reaction to a 3 month old video on YouTube that almost no one saw.

It's extemely dangerous to have the US President be this naive, if that's what it is, about Islamic Jihad.  These people tell us every day - on their websites, through their media outlets - that they are in a war with us, and their goal is a worldwide Islamic calafate under them with Shariah Law.  We need someone that listens to that, understands it, and takes appropriate steps.  That person is not Obama.

[slipstream]

I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Why?  Make an argument.