|
|
On October 18 2012 00:22 emythrel wrote:
gotta love people saying candy and obama had prior contact and set this up....
It was a television show, wouldn't take 2 seconds for someone to drop the transcript on the table while the camera was off her. Also, she will have done her research and had papers in front of her. Also, she was wearing an ear piece, she might not have even had the paper in front of her, someone back stage could have simply verified the statement and relayed it to her.
My god, some people seem to think that television is run by 2 guys in a shed... its not. They have hundreds of people working backstage on all kinds of things, how do you think sports commentators get their stats? There's 50 guys backstage working and someone in their ear all the time.
no one dropped the transcript on the table. Crowley admitted that she had the transcript the whole time. if she was wearing an ear-piece and didn't actually see the paper, than she "fact-checked" Romney with false information that she hadn't personally reviewed or made sure was legitimate. (of course, that didn't happen, Crowley already admitted that she had the transcript). besides, it was literally ten seconds after Romney brought up the speech that she suddenly had the transcript. clearly not enough time for anyone to search for a speech, print out the transcript, and highlight the words: "act of terror".
since neither of those excuses work, or are true, we are left with two options:
1) Crowley "did her research" before the debate, knew that his Sept. 12 speech did contain the words: "act of terror", but also knew that he never really called Benghazi a terrorist act. despite knowing this, she decided, before the debate even started, to interrupt Romney to spin a very misleading interpretation of the speech. effectively running Obama's campaign for him. highly unethical to say the least.
or
2) what i've put forward, which is that she and Obama had some kind of prior contact, and she was alerted that this speech would come up, and was told to be ready to bring the transcript forward. this explains why she had the transcript, but didn't know what it really said. this explains how Obama knew she had the transcript (once again, Crowley has admitted that he was talking directly to her when he said: "get the transcript")
like i said, i don't expect people to want to believe this. no one likes to think that the guy they support, or that the guy they think is a good person, is actually willing to lie and cheat to get his way. at the best, we could say that Obama didn't have prior contact, and that Crowley just decided to lie before the debate even started. either she acted on her own, in which case it's highly unethical by Crowley, and very weak by Obama (needed the mod to save him). or she acted at the direction of Obama, which would be extremely unethical by both of them.
|
On October 17 2012 23:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:
so Crowley somehow had the exact transcript that Obama had mentioned just seconds earlier, and Obama somehow knew she had it to say to her: "get the transcript". why else would he have referenced that speech, and then smirked when Romney challenge him and then said: "please proceed, Governor."
since Obama's the one who brought up that speech, we can only assume that he and Crowley must have had some kind of prior contact, in which he told her he would be referencing that speech. now, it's one thing to lie (and have a moderator lie for you), but it's a whole other thing to cheat in order to trap your debate opponent using a lie. unless she just happened to magically have the random speech that Obama referenced, and just happened to know that the words "act of terror" were in that speech, but didn't know that those words didn't actually refer to Benghazi (must not have read it). i mean, any reasonable person should know what happened.
i agree with Dick Morris on this debate though, big win for Romney.
So the moderator being informed and well researched on topics that will most likely be brought up is cheating. Right. He said please proceed, governor because he knew romney was about to hang himself with his own rope. The only reason you agree with dick morrison is because you need him to reassure you. Us in the real world all know who won that debate. The guy can't even answer what his tax plan is. He just ignores the question and goes on the attack, it's really sad for the republican party these days. First they ruin mccains chance with palin and now this romney guy. If palin would have never happened mccain would probably be pres right now and he's a hell of a lot more qualified than romney co.
|
On October 18 2012 00:36 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 00:25 zeru wrote:
Occams razor people, seriously. Theres no need at all to make up conspiracy theories about really insignificant topics. To be fair, if you're so partisan all you can see is red Occam's Razor would dictate a conspiracy (in your head at least). Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 23:58 xDaunt wrote:On October 17 2012 23:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:
so Crowley somehow had the exact transcript that Obama had mentioned just seconds earlier, and Obama somehow knew she had it to say to her: "get the transcript". why else would he have referenced that speech, and then smirked when Romney challenge him and then said: "please proceed, Governor."
since Obama's the one who brought up that speech, we can only assume that he and Crowley must have had some kind of prior contact, in which he told her he would be referencing that speech. now, it's one thing to lie (and have a moderator lie for you), but it's a whole other thing to cheat in order to trap your debate opponent using a lie. unless she just happened to magically have the random speech that Obama referenced, and just happened to know that the words "act of terror" were in that speech, but didn't know that those words didn't actually refer to Benghazi (must not have read it). i mean, any reasonable person should know what happened. Though I do think that Crowley is probably guilty of manipulating the debate topics and the flow of the debate to Obama's advantage, I don't think that she cheated on the Libya thing by having prior contact with Obama. Everyone knew the issue was coming. I would expect her to be prepared. I also would expect Obama to be prepared. I do wish Romney had directly said that Obama did play politics with the attack, but I don't think that it's going to matter in the long run. While I won't disagree that Obama was definitely looking for an excuse to redirect focus to that video, you can't say that the Romney campaign hasn't been playing politics with this. From the way Republicans talk about it, the attack on Benghazi was the greatest blow to American foreign policy in forever and there was some elaborate plan by Obama to hide his monumental failure. When what I see is 4 Americans dying in a freshly rebelled country, forgive me if I think that you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill, especially when other acts of terror in the last 20 years have been so much worse. When Benghazi happened it was like Republican strategists jizzed in their pants over the fact they finally have something with which to paint Obama as soft on terrorism.
Right. It'd be nice to think that politicizing American deaths to such extremes would be distasteful enough to actually have some adverse effect. I think, as has been the case with everything in the Romney campaign, their rhetoric on this issue will dissipate like a FOTM.
It was a tragedy that could happen under any administration. George W. stood watch over intelligence briefings that suggested terrorists might hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings. I think any oversight on Obama's part in Benghazi is pretty mild in comparison.
|
On October 17 2012 23:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:
so Crowley somehow had the exact transcript that Obama had mentioned just seconds earlier, and Obama somehow knew she had it to say to her: "get the transcript". why else would he have referenced that speech, and then smirked when Romney challenge him and then said: "please proceed, Governor."
since Obama's the one who brought up that speech, we can only assume that he and Crowley must have had some kind of prior contact, in which he told her he would be referencing that speech. now, it's one thing to lie (and have a moderator lie for you), but it's a whole other thing to cheat in order to trap your debate opponent using a lie. unless she just happened to magically have the random speech that Obama referenced, and just happened to know that the words "act of terror" were in that speech, but didn't know that those words didn't actually refer to Benghazi (must not have read it). i mean, any reasonable person should know what happened.
i agree with Dick Morris on this debate though, big win for Romney.
Congratulations, I now categorize you with the birthers, truthers and other conspiracy theorists. Would you like you official tin foil hat of membership now?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this is like blaming instant replay for getting caught cheating.
|
On October 18 2012 00:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 00:36 ZeaL. wrote:
While I won't disagree that Obama was definitely looking for an excuse to redirect focus to that video, you can't say that the Romney campaign hasn't been playing politics with this. From the way Republicans talk about it, the attack on Benghazi was the greatest blow to American foreign policy in forever and there was some elaborate plan by Obama to hide his monumental failure. When what I see is 4 Americans dying in a freshly rebelled country, forgive me if I think that you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill, especially when other acts of terror in the last 20 years have been so much worse. When Benghazi happened it was like Republican strategists jizzed in their pants over the fact they finally have something with which to paint Obama as soft on terrorism.
I don't think it's playing politics to point out that the administration lied for weeks about what happened in Libya. Seriously, Obama sent his UN ambassador on five Sunday talk shows to peddle lies to the American public about the attack being instigated by some ridiculous video that no one previously knew anything about. Besides, the republican attack isn't that Obama is soft on terrorism. The charge is that his Middle East foreign policy has been an abject failure as demonstrated by rapidly evaporating American influence in the region. The Benghazi attack isn't even that important in making this charge.
I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.
Straight from Romney right after it happened. If this isn't Romney trying to score political points over this then I don't know what it is. Its fairly obvious that the Romney campaign wanted to paint Obama as a muslim loving peacenik. And if this truly is a launching pad for debate about Obama's so called failed Middle East foreign policy I don't see why all the focus has been on Benghazi. Romney did mention it last night but just stuck in some words about instability in the Middle East. Guess what, the region is unstable and has been unstable for decades, no undecided voter is surprised about that. If he wants to talk about his failed foreign policies he's gonna have to do a bit more than say oh shit, there's strife in the Middle East!
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.
that's either factually wrong or neanderthal level of chauvinism. each time an extremist kills someone it's the whole muslim world kicking the door down. get real.
|
I hope Romney's tax plan answer is the thing that costs him the election.
The lady who asked the question gave specific names of his targeted deductions, asking for more specifics. Everyone has been asking him to deliver some substance prior to this debate. The question Democrats posed is "Where is the math?" And all he can do is repeat "I'm only cutting taxes for middle-income families," enough times that it somehow must be true despite everything else he and his campaign have been saying and showing us.
It shows contempt and insults the American voter more than anything else I've heard from either side this election. If you think Obama is misleading on one issue or another, fine, but at least he addresses his own policies. Romney just has the audacity to say two different things to two different audiences in a matter of days/weeks, and expects the media circus to not care enough to call him on the flagrancy of his BS.
Next debate Romney needs to spell out some actual loopholes and deduction-eliminations that could possibly pay for across-the-board tax cuts without making it a costly hand-out to the wealthy at a drastic expense to our federal budget. Just try, try to talk to your country's electorate like they're something more than a 5th grade classroom.
|
On October 18 2012 01:01 Leporello wrote:
I hope Romney's tax plan answer is the thing that costs him the election.
The lady who asked the question gave specific names of his targeted deductions, asking for more specifics. Everyone has been asking him to deliver some substance prior to this debate. The question Democrats posed is "Where is the math?" And all he can do is repeat "I'm only cutting taxes for middle-income families," enough times that it somehow must be true despite everything else he and his campaign have been saying and showing us.
It shows contempt and insults the American voter more than anything else I've heard from either side this election. If you think Obama is misleading on one issue or another, fine, but at least he addresses his own policies. Romney just has the audacity to say two different things to two different audiences in a matter of days/weeks, and expects the media circus to not care enough to call him on the flagrancy of his BS.
Next debate Romney needs to spell out some actual loopholes and deduction-eliminations that could possibly pay for across-the-board tax cuts without making it a costly hand-out to the wealthy at a drastic expense to our federal budget. Just try, try to talk to your country's electorate like they're something more than a 5th grade classroom.
His answer to that question has been attacks and stating his credentials since the beginning. He's either hiding something or he just straight up has no plan. Either way why would anyone vote for something like that is beyond me. He knows people will vote for him not on the facts but on his party, he knows he can get away with it.
|
On October 18 2012 00:56 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 00:41 xDaunt wrote:On October 18 2012 00:36 ZeaL. wrote:
While I won't disagree that Obama was definitely looking for an excuse to redirect focus to that video, you can't say that the Romney campaign hasn't been playing politics with this. From the way Republicans talk about it, the attack on Benghazi was the greatest blow to American foreign policy in forever and there was some elaborate plan by Obama to hide his monumental failure. When what I see is 4 Americans dying in a freshly rebelled country, forgive me if I think that you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill, especially when other acts of terror in the last 20 years have been so much worse. When Benghazi happened it was like Republican strategists jizzed in their pants over the fact they finally have something with which to paint Obama as soft on terrorism.
I don't think it's playing politics to point out that the administration lied for weeks about what happened in Libya. Seriously, Obama sent his UN ambassador on five Sunday talk shows to peddle lies to the American public about the attack being instigated by some ridiculous video that no one previously knew anything about. Besides, the republican attack isn't that Obama is soft on terrorism. The charge is that his Middle East foreign policy has been an abject failure as demonstrated by rapidly evaporating American influence in the region. The Benghazi attack isn't even that important in making this charge. Show nested quote +I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks. Straight from Romney right after it happened. If this isn't Romney trying to score political points over this then I don't know what it is. Its fairly obvious that the Romney campaign wanted to paint Obama as a muslim loving peacenik. And if this truly is a launching pad for debate about Obama's so called failed Middle East foreign policy I don't see why all the focus has been on Benghazi. Romney did mention it last night but just stuck in some words about instability in the Middle East. Guess what, the region is unstable and has been unstable for decades, no undecided voter is surprised about that. If he wants to talk about his failed foreign policies he's gonna have to do a bit more than say oh shit, there's strife in the Middle East!
Well no fucking shit Romney is trying to score political points. How else is he or anyone else going to get elected if they don't "score political points?" All that I am saying is that there's nothing underhanded with what Romney is doing. There's a legitimate criticism to be made of how Obama handled the attack. You may have noticed that Romney has not charged that Obama did something to either precipitate the attack or reduce the ambassador's security. That would be underhanded given the absence of support for those charges.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
yes, more saber rattling that will be construed in the most negative way possible by your enemies, all to rile up your own political base. very worthwhile.
|
On October 17 2012 16:28 paralleluniverse wrote:Romney denies in the debate that he calls the wind energy jobs "imaginary". But here's what he said in a op-ed:
Does anyone support the current renewable energy subsidies on economic grounds?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 18 2012 01:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 16:28 paralleluniverse wrote:Romney denies in the debate that he calls the wind energy jobs "imaginary". But here's what he said in a op-ed: In place of real energy, Obama has focused on an imaginary world where government-subsidized windmills and solar panels could power the economy. This vision has failed. His promise of 5 million green jobs vanished as fast as the $500 million he gave to his campaign donors at now-bankrupt Solyndra. His goal of 1 million electric cars went up in flames alongside the Chevy Volt batteries that prompted a recall of all 8,000 sold so far. Source: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2012/03/05/u-s--can-be-energy-superpower.html Does anyone support the current renewable energy subsidies on economic grounds?
do you consider the costs of global warming etc externalities a part of the economic analysis.
|
On October 18 2012 01:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 00:56 ZeaL. wrote:On October 18 2012 00:41 xDaunt wrote:On October 18 2012 00:36 ZeaL. wrote:
While I won't disagree that Obama was definitely looking for an excuse to redirect focus to that video, you can't say that the Romney campaign hasn't been playing politics with this. From the way Republicans talk about it, the attack on Benghazi was the greatest blow to American foreign policy in forever and there was some elaborate plan by Obama to hide his monumental failure. When what I see is 4 Americans dying in a freshly rebelled country, forgive me if I think that you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill, especially when other acts of terror in the last 20 years have been so much worse. When Benghazi happened it was like Republican strategists jizzed in their pants over the fact they finally have something with which to paint Obama as soft on terrorism.
I don't think it's playing politics to point out that the administration lied for weeks about what happened in Libya. Seriously, Obama sent his UN ambassador on five Sunday talk shows to peddle lies to the American public about the attack being instigated by some ridiculous video that no one previously knew anything about. Besides, the republican attack isn't that Obama is soft on terrorism. The charge is that his Middle East foreign policy has been an abject failure as demonstrated by rapidly evaporating American influence in the region. The Benghazi attack isn't even that important in making this charge. I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks. Straight from Romney right after it happened. If this isn't Romney trying to score political points over this then I don't know what it is. Its fairly obvious that the Romney campaign wanted to paint Obama as a muslim loving peacenik. And if this truly is a launching pad for debate about Obama's so called failed Middle East foreign policy I don't see why all the focus has been on Benghazi. Romney did mention it last night but just stuck in some words about instability in the Middle East. Guess what, the region is unstable and has been unstable for decades, no undecided voter is surprised about that. If he wants to talk about his failed foreign policies he's gonna have to do a bit more than say oh shit, there's strife in the Middle East! Well no fucking shit Romney is trying to score political points. How else is he or anyone else going to get elected if they don't "score political points?" All that I am saying is that there's nothing underhanded with what Romney is doing. There's a legitimate criticism to be made of how Obama handled the attack. You may have noticed that Romney has not charged that Obama did something to either precipitate the attack or reduce the ambassador's security. That would be underhanded given the absence of support for those charges.
So you admit that Romney is trying to score political points, but called for Stephanie Cutter to be fired when she said exactly that:
On October 12 2012 04:12 xDaunt wrote:I don't understand why this woman still has a job. Show nested quote +Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said Thursday that the “entire reason” the terrorist attack at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that killed four Americans has “become the political topic it is” is because Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan talk about the attack.
STEPHANIE CUTTER: In terms of the politicization of this — you know, we are here at a debate, and I hope we get to talk about the debate — but the entire reason this has become the political topic it is, is because of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. It’s a big part of their stump speech. And it’s reckless and irresponsible what they’re doing.
BROOKE BALDWIN: But, Stephanie, this is national security. As we witnessed this revolution last year, we covered it–
CUTTER: It is absolutely national security–
BALDWIN: –it is absolutely pertinent. People in the American public absolutely have a right to get answers.
Cutter’s remarks drew immediate criticism from across the political spectrum. But the Obama spox quickly doubled down on Twitter, replying to a Buzzfeed researcher, “Romney has politicized Libya w/no plans of his own. POTUS’ priorities are getting facts & bringing terrorists to justice.”
In fact, the Obama administration has face serious criticism for its response to the events in Libya that resulted in the murder of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens. President Obama notably accused Romney of “shooting first and aiming later” in his response to the terrorist attack in Benghazi. However, yesterday, ABC News White House correspondent Jake Tapper challenged White House press secretary Jay Carney, asking, “Given the fact that so much was made out of the video that apparently had absolutely nothing to do with the attack in Benghazi, that there wasn’t even a protest outside the Benghazi post, didn’t President Obama shoot first and aim later?” Source. In fairness, there's a woman on the Romney campaign that needs to be canned as well, I just can't remember her name.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=735#14693
On October 12 2012 07:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 07:22 DoubleReed wrote:On October 12 2012 06:29 xDaunt wrote:On October 12 2012 06:26 Defacer wrote:On October 12 2012 04:12 xDaunt wrote:
I don't understand why this woman still has a job.
In fairness, there's a woman on the Romney campaign that needs to be canned as well, I just can't remember her name. I'll let you know why once I figure out the appeal of Ann Coulter. As for the second lady, you're thinking of the one that defended Romney from that attack ad by citing his healthcare plan in Massachusetts. That was pretty funny. Yeah, Andrea Saul or whatever her name is. It wasn't just that. She's said one stupid thing after another. I kinda understand politicians fucking up every now and then (or quite often if your name is Joe Biden). I don't understand why there should be any tolerance of campaign managers fucking up. They have one job: make their boss's campaign look good. This necessarily includes not saying anything stupid. If they can't get their stories straight and given coherent answers to issues, them they are failing at their job. EDIT: As for Ann Coulter, she's attractive to a lot of people (those that like the tall bitchy, blonde look), is very smart, and has a wickedly sharp tongue. Though I don't really care for her, I can see why a lot of conservatives do. I assume campaign managers also manage the campaign somewhat. So even if they say stupid things every now and then doesn't speak to how they actually do their job. Their main job is to manage campaign messaging. They of all people shouldn't be saying stupid things. EDIT: I'm watching Stephanie Cutter explain herself right now on Special Report. She's doubling down on what she said. She's a fucking idiot, and Obama's campaign should summarily fire her dumb ass.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=736#14716
Nice hypocrisy there.
|
On October 18 2012 01:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 00:56 ZeaL. wrote:On October 18 2012 00:41 xDaunt wrote:On October 18 2012 00:36 ZeaL. wrote:
While I won't disagree that Obama was definitely looking for an excuse to redirect focus to that video, you can't say that the Romney campaign hasn't been playing politics with this. From the way Republicans talk about it, the attack on Benghazi was the greatest blow to American foreign policy in forever and there was some elaborate plan by Obama to hide his monumental failure. When what I see is 4 Americans dying in a freshly rebelled country, forgive me if I think that you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill, especially when other acts of terror in the last 20 years have been so much worse. When Benghazi happened it was like Republican strategists jizzed in their pants over the fact they finally have something with which to paint Obama as soft on terrorism.
I don't think it's playing politics to point out that the administration lied for weeks about what happened in Libya. Seriously, Obama sent his UN ambassador on five Sunday talk shows to peddle lies to the American public about the attack being instigated by some ridiculous video that no one previously knew anything about. Besides, the republican attack isn't that Obama is soft on terrorism. The charge is that his Middle East foreign policy has been an abject failure as demonstrated by rapidly evaporating American influence in the region. The Benghazi attack isn't even that important in making this charge. I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks. Straight from Romney right after it happened. If this isn't Romney trying to score political points over this then I don't know what it is. Its fairly obvious that the Romney campaign wanted to paint Obama as a muslim loving peacenik. And if this truly is a launching pad for debate about Obama's so called failed Middle East foreign policy I don't see why all the focus has been on Benghazi. Romney did mention it last night but just stuck in some words about instability in the Middle East. Guess what, the region is unstable and has been unstable for decades, no undecided voter is surprised about that. If he wants to talk about his failed foreign policies he's gonna have to do a bit more than say oh shit, there's strife in the Middle East! Well no fucking shit Romney is trying to score political points. How else is he or anyone else going to get elected if they don't "score political points?" All that I am saying is that there's nothing underhanded with what Romney is doing. There's a legitimate criticism to be made of how Obama handled the attack. You may have noticed that Romney has not charged that Obama did something to either precipitate the attack or reduce the ambassador's security. That would be underhanded given the absence of support for those charges.
So falsely claiming that the first thing Obama did after the attacks was to sympathize with the attackers isn't underhanded? I guess accusing your opponent of raping and murdering a girl in 1991 wouldn't be underhanded.
|
On October 18 2012 01:19 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 01:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 17 2012 16:28 paralleluniverse wrote:Romney denies in the debate that he calls the wind energy jobs "imaginary". But here's what he said in a op-ed: In place of real energy, Obama has focused on an imaginary world where government-subsidized windmills and solar panels could power the economy. This vision has failed. His promise of 5 million green jobs vanished as fast as the $500 million he gave to his campaign donors at now-bankrupt Solyndra. His goal of 1 million electric cars went up in flames alongside the Chevy Volt batteries that prompted a recall of all 8,000 sold so far. Source: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2012/03/05/u-s--can-be-energy-superpower.html Does anyone support the current renewable energy subsidies on economic grounds? do you consider the costs of global warming etc externalities a part of the economic analysis.
If you want to go ahead, I don't think it will change the conclusion though. If external costs are the problem then the solution would be to account for them (carbon tax / cap and trade), not haphazardly promote whatever you feel the solution is.
Ex. CO2 generation from electricity production has been falling in the US due to a switch from coal to natural gas. CO2 being a problem has multiple solutions and they should all be accounted for.
Edit: A source for my statement about CO2 falling:
CO2 emissions in the United States in 2011 fell by 92 Mt, or 1.7%, primarily due to ongoing switching from coal to natural gas in power generation and an exceptionally mild winter, which reduced the demand for space heating. US emissions have now fallen by 430 Mt (7.7%) since 2006, the largest reduction of all countries or regions.
Source
|
HEMPSTEAD, NY (The Borowitz Report)—Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney set a new personal record tonight by pretending to care about average Americans for nearly ninety minutes.
Mr. Romney began the second Presidential debate by simulating concern for a college student named Jeremy’s employment future and maintained a consistent level of feigned concern on a variety of subjects for the remainder of the night.
“It was an awesome display of stamina,” said Mr. Romney’s running mate, Paul Ryan, who watched Mr. Romney pretending to be empathic from a shelter in Virginia, where Mr. Ryan was pretending to feed a homeless orphan.
Mr. Romney’s new empathy record surpasses his previous mark, set seven days ago at a rally in Sidney, Ohio, where he pretended to give a shit about his audience for nearly an hour.
Tonight’s display of bogus sensitivity made a big impression on a post-debate focus group, as a majority of participants agreed with the statement, “Mitt Romney has the facial expressions of someone who cares about me.”
Moments after the debate, Mr. Romney pronounced himself “thoroughly drained” by the forced display of humanity.
“This empathy stuff is exhausting,” he told reporters. “On Day One, it’s going to stop.”
Throughout the evening, Mr. Romney traded barbs with President Obama, the first black person he has talked to since his speech at the N.A.A.C.P.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2012/10/romney-sets-new-personal-best-for-faking-empathy.html?mbid=social_retweet
Yes, it's satire. But I found it funny.
|
On October 18 2012 01:23 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 01:08 xDaunt wrote:On October 18 2012 00:56 ZeaL. wrote:On October 18 2012 00:41 xDaunt wrote:On October 18 2012 00:36 ZeaL. wrote:
While I won't disagree that Obama was definitely looking for an excuse to redirect focus to that video, you can't say that the Romney campaign hasn't been playing politics with this. From the way Republicans talk about it, the attack on Benghazi was the greatest blow to American foreign policy in forever and there was some elaborate plan by Obama to hide his monumental failure. When what I see is 4 Americans dying in a freshly rebelled country, forgive me if I think that you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill, especially when other acts of terror in the last 20 years have been so much worse. When Benghazi happened it was like Republican strategists jizzed in their pants over the fact they finally have something with which to paint Obama as soft on terrorism.
I don't think it's playing politics to point out that the administration lied for weeks about what happened in Libya. Seriously, Obama sent his UN ambassador on five Sunday talk shows to peddle lies to the American public about the attack being instigated by some ridiculous video that no one previously knew anything about. Besides, the republican attack isn't that Obama is soft on terrorism. The charge is that his Middle East foreign policy has been an abject failure as demonstrated by rapidly evaporating American influence in the region. The Benghazi attack isn't even that important in making this charge. I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks. Straight from Romney right after it happened. If this isn't Romney trying to score political points over this then I don't know what it is. Its fairly obvious that the Romney campaign wanted to paint Obama as a muslim loving peacenik. And if this truly is a launching pad for debate about Obama's so called failed Middle East foreign policy I don't see why all the focus has been on Benghazi. Romney did mention it last night but just stuck in some words about instability in the Middle East. Guess what, the region is unstable and has been unstable for decades, no undecided voter is surprised about that. If he wants to talk about his failed foreign policies he's gonna have to do a bit more than say oh shit, there's strife in the Middle East! Well no fucking shit Romney is trying to score political points. How else is he or anyone else going to get elected if they don't "score political points?" All that I am saying is that there's nothing underhanded with what Romney is doing. There's a legitimate criticism to be made of how Obama handled the attack. You may have noticed that Romney has not charged that Obama did something to either precipitate the attack or reduce the ambassador's security. That would be underhanded given the absence of support for those charges. So falsely claiming that the first thing Obama did after the attacks was to sympathize with the attackers isn't underhanded? I guess accusing your opponent of raping and murdering a girl in 1991 wouldn't be underhanded.
There's nothing false about what Romney said. Period. Obama spent weeks blaming the attack on the video, thereby "sympathizing with terrorists." That was as irresponsible as it was stupid, and Romney absolutely should point that out.
|
On October 18 2012 01:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 01:23 ZeaL. wrote:On October 18 2012 01:08 xDaunt wrote:On October 18 2012 00:56 ZeaL. wrote:On October 18 2012 00:41 xDaunt wrote:On October 18 2012 00:36 ZeaL. wrote:
While I won't disagree that Obama was definitely looking for an excuse to redirect focus to that video, you can't say that the Romney campaign hasn't been playing politics with this. From the way Republicans talk about it, the attack on Benghazi was the greatest blow to American foreign policy in forever and there was some elaborate plan by Obama to hide his monumental failure. When what I see is 4 Americans dying in a freshly rebelled country, forgive me if I think that you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill, especially when other acts of terror in the last 20 years have been so much worse. When Benghazi happened it was like Republican strategists jizzed in their pants over the fact they finally have something with which to paint Obama as soft on terrorism.
I don't think it's playing politics to point out that the administration lied for weeks about what happened in Libya. Seriously, Obama sent his UN ambassador on five Sunday talk shows to peddle lies to the American public about the attack being instigated by some ridiculous video that no one previously knew anything about. Besides, the republican attack isn't that Obama is soft on terrorism. The charge is that his Middle East foreign policy has been an abject failure as demonstrated by rapidly evaporating American influence in the region. The Benghazi attack isn't even that important in making this charge. I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks. Straight from Romney right after it happened. If this isn't Romney trying to score political points over this then I don't know what it is. Its fairly obvious that the Romney campaign wanted to paint Obama as a muslim loving peacenik. And if this truly is a launching pad for debate about Obama's so called failed Middle East foreign policy I don't see why all the focus has been on Benghazi. Romney did mention it last night but just stuck in some words about instability in the Middle East. Guess what, the region is unstable and has been unstable for decades, no undecided voter is surprised about that. If he wants to talk about his failed foreign policies he's gonna have to do a bit more than say oh shit, there's strife in the Middle East! Well no fucking shit Romney is trying to score political points. How else is he or anyone else going to get elected if they don't "score political points?" All that I am saying is that there's nothing underhanded with what Romney is doing. There's a legitimate criticism to be made of how Obama handled the attack. You may have noticed that Romney has not charged that Obama did something to either precipitate the attack or reduce the ambassador's security. That would be underhanded given the absence of support for those charges. So falsely claiming that the first thing Obama did after the attacks was to sympathize with the attackers isn't underhanded? I guess accusing your opponent of raping and murdering a girl in 1991 wouldn't be underhanded. There's nothing false about what Romney said. Period. Obama spent weeks blaming the attack on the video, thereby "sympathizing with terrorists." That was as irresponsible as it was stupid, and Romney absolutely should point that out.
Yes, Stephanie Cutter IS an idiot, she may have been correct about Romney trying to score political points, but isn't that what happens when the other guy has a failure? You call him out and you score points. How is it underhanded? I think blaming the attacks on the video is underhanded and good on Romney for calling it out.
|
On October 18 2012 01:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 01:23 ZeaL. wrote:On October 18 2012 01:08 xDaunt wrote:On October 18 2012 00:56 ZeaL. wrote:On October 18 2012 00:41 xDaunt wrote:On October 18 2012 00:36 ZeaL. wrote:
While I won't disagree that Obama was definitely looking for an excuse to redirect focus to that video, you can't say that the Romney campaign hasn't been playing politics with this. From the way Republicans talk about it, the attack on Benghazi was the greatest blow to American foreign policy in forever and there was some elaborate plan by Obama to hide his monumental failure. When what I see is 4 Americans dying in a freshly rebelled country, forgive me if I think that you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill, especially when other acts of terror in the last 20 years have been so much worse. When Benghazi happened it was like Republican strategists jizzed in their pants over the fact they finally have something with which to paint Obama as soft on terrorism.
I don't think it's playing politics to point out that the administration lied for weeks about what happened in Libya. Seriously, Obama sent his UN ambassador on five Sunday talk shows to peddle lies to the American public about the attack being instigated by some ridiculous video that no one previously knew anything about. Besides, the republican attack isn't that Obama is soft on terrorism. The charge is that his Middle East foreign policy has been an abject failure as demonstrated by rapidly evaporating American influence in the region. The Benghazi attack isn't even that important in making this charge. I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks. Straight from Romney right after it happened. If this isn't Romney trying to score political points over this then I don't know what it is. Its fairly obvious that the Romney campaign wanted to paint Obama as a muslim loving peacenik. And if this truly is a launching pad for debate about Obama's so called failed Middle East foreign policy I don't see why all the focus has been on Benghazi. Romney did mention it last night but just stuck in some words about instability in the Middle East. Guess what, the region is unstable and has been unstable for decades, no undecided voter is surprised about that. If he wants to talk about his failed foreign policies he's gonna have to do a bit more than say oh shit, there's strife in the Middle East! Well no fucking shit Romney is trying to score political points. How else is he or anyone else going to get elected if they don't "score political points?" All that I am saying is that there's nothing underhanded with what Romney is doing. There's a legitimate criticism to be made of how Obama handled the attack. You may have noticed that Romney has not charged that Obama did something to either precipitate the attack or reduce the ambassador's security. That would be underhanded given the absence of support for those charges. So falsely claiming that the first thing Obama did after the attacks was to sympathize with the attackers isn't underhanded? I guess accusing your opponent of raping and murdering a girl in 1991 wouldn't be underhanded. There's nothing false about what Romney said. Period. Obama spent weeks blaming the attack on the video, thereby "sympathizing with terrorists." That was as irresponsible as it was stupid, and Romney absolutely should point that out.
No you don't get to move the goalposts. Romney made that post on 9/11, just a few hours after the attacks. This was in response to the embassy in Cairo's post condemning the movie. This was the first official white house response from Clinton:
“Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”
You have to twist yourself into a pretzel to make it seem like Obama was "sympathizing with terrorists".
What happened in the later weeks was either the Obama administration fucking up or trying to cover things up. What happened that night was Mitt Romney got a boner because of dead Americans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
