2012 Election Thread
- Thread starter IRHari
- Start date
4thHorseman
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 91 (100%)
"Could you say that a lil louder Candy?"
[quote name='dafoomie']Romney needs to reference 'fast and furious' in his response to this question. Teed up for him.
She also said it took 2 weeks for the administration to come off the spontaneous riot story if you were still paying attention by then.[/QUOTE]
Who cares...I was too busy
-ing
She also said it took 2 weeks for the administration to come off the spontaneous riot story if you were still paying attention by then.[/QUOTE]
Who cares...I was too busy
-ing
cancerman1120
CAGiversary!
Mitt is the whitest man on the planet.
So the answer to gun violence is marriage...but not for gay people.
So the answer to gun violence is marriage...but not for gay people.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='dafoomie']'I mean what I say' might qualify as a statement but it isn't an answer to the question that was posed.[/QUOTE]
Oh, so you're not a person of your word, and would weasel out of making good on that bet?
I take back my desire to have gotten in on it, then.
Oh, so you're not a person of your word, and would weasel out of making good on that bet?
I take back my desire to have gotten in on it, then.
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2012/09/president-obama-on-libya-killings
Obama's comments the day after in the rose garden.
"Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.
As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."
That's the only use of the word terror I see. He uses it after referencing the 911 attacks anniversary, never in direct relation to the Libya killings, but you gotta admit Mitt goofed.
Obama's comments the day after in the rose garden.
"Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.
As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."
That's the only use of the word terror I see. He uses it after referencing the 911 attacks anniversary, never in direct relation to the Libya killings, but you gotta admit Mitt goofed.
[quote name='dohdough']Who the 
knows right? I'm just Sum Dum Guy...
But hey, Obama wasn't the one that got fact checked by the moderator or told that they were off-topic...Just Sayin Brah[/QUOTE]
They both were, but you were too busy creaming your pants to hear it.
knows right? I'm just Sum Dum Guy...But hey, Obama wasn't the one that got fact checked by the moderator or told that they were off-topic...Just Sayin Brah[/QUOTE]
They both were, but you were too busy creaming your pants to hear it.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='dafoomie']Have you stopped beating your wife?[/QUOTE]
Why ask a question if no response will ever satisfy you?
Cool false premise, dude.
Why ask a question if no response will ever satisfy you?
Cool false premise, dude.
Here's a Repub response-
No, Obama Didn’t Call Benghazi “Act of Terror” in Speech
Alana Goodman | @alanagoodman
09.30.2012 - 6:00 PM
Now that the Obama administration’s initial narrative that the Benghazi assault was a spontaneous response to an anti-Islam film has collapsed, the new spin from the White House is that President Obama has actually called it a terrorist attack all along.
“Well, first of all, Candy, as you know, the President called it an act of terror the day after it happened,” David Axelrod told CNN’s Candy Crowley this morning, referring to a speech Obama made in the Rose Garden on Sept. 12.
Axelrod’s claim has been pushed by journalists over the past few days, most notably Josh Gerstein at Politico, in a blog post headlined “Obama talked of Libya attack as ‘terror’ 2 weeks ago”:
Despite a drumbeat from the right and even independent fact-checkers that President Barack Obama has been unwilling to label as terrorism the attack on a United States diplomatic mission in Libya, the president indicated just a day after the killing of the American ambassador there that the assault was part of a series of “acts of terror” the U.S. has faced.
Mark Landler made the same claim in an otherwise solid article at the New York Times:
The White House maintains that its account changed as intelligence agencies gathered more details about the attack, not from any desire to diminish its gravity. Mr. Obama, his aides point out, labeled the assault an “act of terror” in his first public response, in the Rose Garden, a day after it happened.
Gerstein and Landler are simply wrong on this.
Obama said during the speech that “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation” — but at no point was it clear that he was using that term to describe the attack in Benghazi. He’d also spent the previous two paragraphs discussing the 9/11 attacks and the aftermath. “Acts of terror” could have just as easily been a reference to that. Or maybe it wasn’t a direct reference to anything, just a generic, reassuring line he’d added into a speech which did take place, after all, the day after the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Here’s the line with some additional context:
Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.
As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
If Obama wanted to call the Benghazi assault a terrorist attack in that speech, he had plenty of opportunities to do so. Instead, he described it as a “terrible act,” a “brutal” act, “senseless violence,” and called the attackers “killers,” not terrorists. It’s also important to consider the context. For a week after this speech, the White House would not call it a terrorist attack. The official position was that Libya was a spontaneous response to an anti-Islam film, not a premeditated or preplanned act.
Some may wonder why it even matters. Maybe Obama really was referring to Benghazi as an “act of terror” in the speech, and he just failed to make that clear enough — so what?
Actually, this is much more than an issue of semantics. Calling it a terrorist attack would have given Obama powers under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) to use military action, including drone warfare, against the perpetrators. If he were serious about “bring[ing] to justice the killers,” which he vowed to do in the speech, then labeling this incident a terrorist attack (if he believed that’s what it was) would have been critical. Instead, we now have the FBI sitting with its hands bound in Tripoli, unable to move forward with a serious investigation.
No, Obama Didn’t Call Benghazi “Act of Terror” in Speech
Alana Goodman | @alanagoodman
09.30.2012 - 6:00 PM
Now that the Obama administration’s initial narrative that the Benghazi assault was a spontaneous response to an anti-Islam film has collapsed, the new spin from the White House is that President Obama has actually called it a terrorist attack all along.
“Well, first of all, Candy, as you know, the President called it an act of terror the day after it happened,” David Axelrod told CNN’s Candy Crowley this morning, referring to a speech Obama made in the Rose Garden on Sept. 12.
Axelrod’s claim has been pushed by journalists over the past few days, most notably Josh Gerstein at Politico, in a blog post headlined “Obama talked of Libya attack as ‘terror’ 2 weeks ago”:
Despite a drumbeat from the right and even independent fact-checkers that President Barack Obama has been unwilling to label as terrorism the attack on a United States diplomatic mission in Libya, the president indicated just a day after the killing of the American ambassador there that the assault was part of a series of “acts of terror” the U.S. has faced.
Mark Landler made the same claim in an otherwise solid article at the New York Times:
The White House maintains that its account changed as intelligence agencies gathered more details about the attack, not from any desire to diminish its gravity. Mr. Obama, his aides point out, labeled the assault an “act of terror” in his first public response, in the Rose Garden, a day after it happened.
Gerstein and Landler are simply wrong on this.
Obama said during the speech that “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation” — but at no point was it clear that he was using that term to describe the attack in Benghazi. He’d also spent the previous two paragraphs discussing the 9/11 attacks and the aftermath. “Acts of terror” could have just as easily been a reference to that. Or maybe it wasn’t a direct reference to anything, just a generic, reassuring line he’d added into a speech which did take place, after all, the day after the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Here’s the line with some additional context:
Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.
As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
If Obama wanted to call the Benghazi assault a terrorist attack in that speech, he had plenty of opportunities to do so. Instead, he described it as a “terrible act,” a “brutal” act, “senseless violence,” and called the attackers “killers,” not terrorists. It’s also important to consider the context. For a week after this speech, the White House would not call it a terrorist attack. The official position was that Libya was a spontaneous response to an anti-Islam film, not a premeditated or preplanned act.
Some may wonder why it even matters. Maybe Obama really was referring to Benghazi as an “act of terror” in the speech, and he just failed to make that clear enough — so what?
Actually, this is much more than an issue of semantics. Calling it a terrorist attack would have given Obama powers under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) to use military action, including drone warfare, against the perpetrators. If he were serious about “bring[ing] to justice the killers,” which he vowed to do in the speech, then labeling this incident a terrorist attack (if he believed that’s what it was) would have been critical. Instead, we now have the FBI sitting with its hands bound in Tripoli, unable to move forward with a serious investigation.
[quote name='mykevermin']Why ask a question if no response will ever satisfy you?
Cool false premise, dude.[/QUOTE]
Even CNN is calling Obama's response to that question a complete dodge, and calling Romney's failure to call him on it directly a mistake.
Cool false premise, dude.[/QUOTE]
Even CNN is calling Obama's response to that question a complete dodge, and calling Romney's failure to call him on it directly a mistake.
cancerman1120
CAGiversary!
My brother in law is going to have a heart attack. Screaming at the tv. The irony is he is a firefighter and will most likely be going on disability...the irony makes me laugh.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='dafoomie']Even CNN is calling Obama's response to that question a complete dodge, and calling Romney's failure to call him on it directly a mistake.[/QUOTE]
"I accept responsibility" isn't good enough for you.
That says a lot about your integrity - but, please, by all means, keep dodging.
"I accept responsibility" isn't good enough for you.
That says a lot about your integrity - but, please, by all means, keep dodging.
Obama was much better tonight. Think he won this by about the same margin as Romney won the first one.
On CNN you could really see the undecided voter live reactions plunge when Romney was petulant, much like they did with Obama's lackluster responses many times in the first one.
Will be interested to read the pundit takes on it in the papers tomorrow.
On CNN you could really see the undecided voter live reactions plunge when Romney was petulant, much like they did with Obama's lackluster responses many times in the first one.
Will be interested to read the pundit takes on it in the papers tomorrow.
[quote name='mykevermin']"I accept responsibility" isn't good enough for you.
That says a lot about your integrity - but, please, by all means, keep dodging.[/QUOTE]
I accept responsibility is not an answer to the question which was asked.
Maybe you can go and tell Anderson Cooper he lacks integrity because this is what he's saying on TV right now.
That says a lot about your integrity - but, please, by all means, keep dodging.[/QUOTE]
I accept responsibility is not an answer to the question which was asked.
Maybe you can go and tell Anderson Cooper he lacks integrity because this is what he's saying on TV right now.
cancerman1120
CAGiversary!
[quote name='nasum']Ok, now that it's all over, can we at least agree that the redheaded Milf in the brown dress was just sooooooooooo hot...[/QUOTE]
I will cross the aisle for that!
I will cross the aisle for that!
cancerman1120
CAGiversary!
So G. Bush can be reelected after 9/11 but Obama is the worst person in the world when an embassy is attacked?
another stupid debate over..
who won
who cares
those who want mitt to win say he won
those who want obama to win says he won
all i know is i missed the first hour of it for watching an awful zombie movie out of russia or someplace
WHAT THE HELL THEY ARE EVEN outsourcing ZOMBIE MOVIES
Apocalypse of the Dead was the movie
who won
who cares
those who want mitt to win say he won
those who want obama to win says he won
all i know is i missed the first hour of it for watching an awful zombie movie out of russia or someplace
WHAT THE HELL THEY ARE EVEN outsourcing ZOMBIE MOVIES
Apocalypse of the Dead was the movie
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='dafoomie']I accept responsibility is not an answer to the question which was asked.
Maybe you can go and tell Anderson Cooper he lacks integrity because this is what he's saying on TV right now.[/QUOTE]
Ever seen his AM show? Anderson Cooper is an expert on lacking integrity.
Maybe you can go and tell Anderson Cooper he lacks integrity because this is what he's saying on TV right now.[/QUOTE]
Ever seen his AM show? Anderson Cooper is an expert on lacking integrity.
cancerman1120
CAGiversary!
[quote name='slidecage']another stupid debate over..
who won
who cares
those who want mitt to win say he won
those who want obama to win says he won
all i know is i missed the first hour of it for watching an awful zombie movie out of russia or someplace
WHAT THE HELL THEY ARE EVEN outsourcing ZOMBIE MOVIES[/QUOTE]
I pretty much agree with this...what is happening to me?
who won
who cares
those who want mitt to win say he won
those who want obama to win says he won
all i know is i missed the first hour of it for watching an awful zombie movie out of russia or someplace
WHAT THE HELL THEY ARE EVEN outsourcing ZOMBIE MOVIES[/QUOTE]
I pretty much agree with this...what is happening to me?
[quote name='mykevermin']Ever seen his AM show? Anderson Cooper is an expert on lacking integrity.[/QUOTE]
"Who denied increased security at the embassy in Benghazi?"
Direct and to the point. Who made that decision? Didn't answer the question.
Oh, and I don't watch daytime TV, I work.
"Who denied increased security at the embassy in Benghazi?"
Direct and to the point. Who made that decision? Didn't answer the question.
Oh, and I don't watch daytime TV, I work.
Admiral Ackbar
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 25 (100%)
Holy shit, I have a binder full of women too.
CaseyRyback
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 131 (100%)
[quote name='dafoomie']Have you stopped beating your wife?[/QUOTE]
Are you the new David Stern?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7DuoEIZAEQ
Are you the new David Stern?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7DuoEIZAEQ
[quote name='Clak']Our old friend intellectual dishonesty, there you are. Bonus points for the quip about working.[/QUOTE]
So he didn't really mean to ask who specifically made the decision when thats exactly what he said to Obama? I'm glad you and Obama were both able to read his mind and answer what he must've meant to say and not what he said.
So he didn't really mean to ask who specifically made the decision when thats exactly what he said to Obama? I'm glad you and Obama were both able to read his mind and answer what he must've meant to say and not what he said.
cancerman1120
CAGiversary!
[quote name='dafoomie']You have the most obnoxious sig on a site full of them.[/QUOTE]
I have my new sig.
I have my new sig.
[quote name='dmaul1114']Obama was much better tonight. Think he won this by about the same margin as Romney won the first one.
On CNN you could really see the undecided voter live reactions plunge when Romney was petulant, much like they did with Obama's lackluster responses many times in the first one.
Will be interested to read the pundit takes on it in the papers tomorrow.[/QUOTE]
Candy is a Democrat infiltrator and CNN should be renamed as Communist News Network.
On CNN you could really see the undecided voter live reactions plunge when Romney was petulant, much like they did with Obama's lackluster responses many times in the first one.
Will be interested to read the pundit takes on it in the papers tomorrow.[/QUOTE]
Candy is a Democrat infiltrator and CNN should be renamed as Communist News Network.
cancerman1120
CAGiversary!
Conservatives had no problem saying Obama gets no credit for killing Bin laden yet it is all his fault what happened in Libya. If this is what they think is a smoking gun then I feel for them.
bread's done