EPTPresident Obama Re-Elected - Page 873
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
kmillz
United States1548 Posts
On October 18 2012 03:55 xDaunt wrote: If Obama meant to call the Benghazi attack an act of terrorism in the Rose Garden, he wouldn't have waffled on the issue for weeks thereafter. It's as simple as that. Y'all are being duped. Exactly. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18827 Posts
On October 18 2012 03:44 kmillz wrote: No, that is your opinion, I disagree with it too. I think Obama camp took a big hit from the Bengazi scandal, so saying "score political points with it and ultimately failed" is certainly NOT a fact. Considering the little game of reading comprehension failure you've just played out for the thread, I'm inclined to consider your assessment of the "facts" rather suspect. But, by all means, continue on with the partisan hackery turned language arts magic. It behooves the campaign you champion. | ||
|
cLAN.Anax
United States2847 Posts
On October 18 2012 03:51 Stratos_speAr wrote: It's part of speaking eloquently. Anyone that tries to argue that he wasn't referring to both 9/11 and this attack as an act of terror is either delusional or doesn't have a complete grasp of the English language. His "eloquence" must be improving. I'm surprised he didn't begin that statement with, "Let me make it (absolutely) clear," lol. | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
On October 18 2012 03:33 xDaunt wrote: Looking around the landscape today, I'm not so sure that Obama scored anything more than a technical victory last night. Take a look at these post-debate polls: CBS News: CNN: If those are in fact the numbers, particularly on handling the economy, Obama is dead meat. Oh, I by no means think he's in the clear. Far from it, El Presidente is in trouble and short of Romney having a meltdown and having a racist tirade I don't think that will change any time soon. I was simply commenting on the ridiculous partisanship when the debates are viewed in their own little bubble. Crazy stuff. | ||
|
kmillz
United States1548 Posts
On October 18 2012 03:56 farvacola wrote: Considering the little game of reading comprehension failure you've just played out for the thread, I'm inclined to consider your assessment of the "facts" rather suspect. But, by all means, continue on with the partisan hackery turned language arts magic. It behooves the campaign you champion. I think the reading comprehension failure is on your part, read the next 2 weeks of what Obama camp has to say about the anti-Islamic video and how it resulted in the attack. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 18 2012 04:03 oneofthem wrote: well shit, i didn't realize you need to boldly declare terrorist attack with a pending investigation. el mejor presidente romney would certainly have condemned the muslims without any. The problem is that the administration didn't just say that they were "investigating." Multiple officials, including Obama, Secretary Clinton, and the UN ambassador, all blamed that stupid video. EDIT: In fact, I believe it was the UN ambassador who even said that "there was no evidence of terrorism." | ||
|
Innovation
United States284 Posts
"The ambassador walked guests out at 8:30 p.m. or so." This is the night of the attack on 9/11. "There was nobody on the street." This is about the possible protests before the attack. "There was nobody on the street" according to this call with two senior State Department officials. Then at 9:30 p.m. they saw on the security cameras at the consulate that there were armed men invading the compound. Again, no protest, no spontaneous protest. There were armed men invading the compound. Quote, "Everything is calm at 8:30 p.m., nothing unusual. There had been nothing unusual during the day outside all day. And then the attack." This was known by the State department within 24 hours yet everyone in the Obama administration continued to call it the result of a "spontaneous demonstration resulting from an offensive YouTube video" for 14 days. It has irrefutably been shown that it was not the video that caused this attack and that there was intelligence early on to prove it and that the administration either simply was totally and completely incompetent because it couldn't get the story right for two weeks despite the information being available or it was trying to cover up the administrations failed policies and failure to protect its ambassador. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
there's no question that there was an intelligence gap that allowed this attack to go down. you could argue they were a bit slow to get to the bottom of things. but there is hardly any ground for declaring it a cover-up as opposed to a case of incompetence. | ||
|
Lmui
Canada6213 Posts
I think that the debate hurt Romney though as far as further lowering his chances with women voters. I'm not sure that it will change much considering how poorly he was perceived by women beforehand but his ignorance of the challenges that women around the USA face in finding jobs, pay equality and women's rights in general. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
armada[sb]
United States432 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 18 2012 04:17 armada[sb] wrote: I think it shows how little that Romney can attack Obamas record that this is the only point that you all continue to harp on. Grasping at straws. If you cared so much about lying you wouldn't be voting for Romney. Are you joking? Romney absolutely shat on Obama's horrible record last night. | ||
|
cLAN.Anax
United States2847 Posts
On October 18 2012 04:17 armada[sb] wrote: I think it shows how little that Romney can attack Obamas record that this is the only point that you all continue to harp on. Grasping at straws. If you cared so much about lying you wouldn't be voting for Romney. Perhaps Romney can't attack Obama's record because, even though he's had four years as Pres., he doesn't have a record to attack?...  | ||
|
Innovation
United States284 Posts
someone's mad their boy romney fumbled the benghazi point yesterday. Romney could have been better in his response but it becomes difficult to respond when the moderator is interrupting him to defend Obama which is not her role as a moderator. There were plenty of chances for her to do the same with outright lies that the president said during the debate but she never "fact checked" Obama the way that she tried to shut down Romney last night. It certainly points to her leanings. Whether Romney could have done a better job in the debate with that question or not has nothing to do with the facts of what the Obama administration has done with the Benghazi attack. Is the only thing you can say when presented with facts is a troll "U MAD?" response? | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 18 2012 04:23 Innovation wrote: Romney could have been better in his response but it becomes difficult to respond when the moderator is interrupting him to defend Obama which is not her role as a moderator. There were plenty of chances for her to do the same with outright lies that the president said during the debate but she never "fact checked" Obama the way that she tried to shut down Romney last night. It certainly points to her leanings. Whether Romney could have done a better job in the debate with that question or not has nothing to do with the facts of what the Obama administration has done with the Benghazi attack. Is the only thing you can say when presented with facts is a troll "U MAD?" response? All last night did was delay the inevitable. The Libya issue will come up again Monday, and Romney will get it right then. It's too easy of an issue to screw up twice on. Last night's debate isn't going to matter. | ||
|
cLAN.Anax
United States2847 Posts
On October 18 2012 04:23 Innovation wrote: Romney could have been better in his response but it becomes difficult to respond when the moderator is interrupting him to defend Obama which is not her role as a moderator. There were plenty of chances for her to do the same with outright lies that the president said during the debate but she never "fact checked" Obama the way that she tried to shut down Romney last night. It certainly points to her leanings. I only caught the tail end of the debate, but I didn't think the moderator was all that bad or biased, 'least the part that I watched. Could have been a better moderator quality-wise (better speaker perhaps), but still pretty fair to both candidates in my opinion. | ||
|
HellRoxYa
Sweden1614 Posts
On October 18 2012 04:28 xDaunt wrote: All last night did was delay the inevitable. The Libya issue will come up again Monday, and Romney will get it right then. It's too easy of an issue to screw up twice on. Last night's debate isn't going to matter. We'll see. If it's the same Obama that came out in the last debate then Romney wont be gaining much, and perhaps even be losing when he shouldn't. | ||
|
urashimakt
United States1591 Posts
On October 18 2012 04:23 Innovation wrote: Romney could have been better in his response but it becomes difficult to respond when the moderator is interrupting him to defend Obama which is not her role as a moderator. There were plenty of chances for her to do the same with outright lies that the president said during the debate but she never "fact checked" Obama the way that she tried to shut down Romney last night. It certainly points to her leanings. Whether Romney could have done a better job in the debate with that question or not has nothing to do with the facts of what the Obama administration has done with the Benghazi attack. Is the only thing you can say when presented with facts is a troll "U MAD?" response? Crowley didn't defend Obama. Obama defended Obama. He said Romney was wrong and prompted a fact check. Here's the exact transcript: OBAMA: The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime. ROMNEY: I — I think interesting the president just said something which — 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. CROWLEY: It — it — it — he did in fact, sir. So let me — let me call it an act of terror… OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy? CROWLEY: He — he did call it an act of terror. It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that. And a link to the video excerpt can be found here. If you think the moderator shouldn't be allowed to end the dispute of a fact check when prompted, you may be a tad bit biased here. | ||
| ||
