Politics

Politics

  • Obama

    Votes: 4 1.1%
  • Romney

    Votes: 172 48.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 46 13.1%
  • a:3:{i:1637;a:5:{s:12:"polloptionid";i:1637;s:6:"nodeid";s:7:"2882145";s:5:"title";s:5:"Obama";s:5:"

    Votes: 130 36.9%

  • Total voters
    352

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
Too much Hannity for you, friend. Only republicans could say a guy didn't say something, be shown he did say that something, then turn around and claim that isn't what he meant.

I think the Lybia argument is dumb on its face: the President can't stop any single crazy person from doing a crazy thing. When we talk about terrorism, we need to look at the big picture. Any one of us could go kill a bunch of people right now if we were so inclined. But, unfortunately, people are dumb enough for this to be a political issue. Romney had to score on that point, and he ended up looking like a fool. I think its poetic justice, since it is absurd to blame the President for what happened in the first place.

Agree it is tough to see how Mr. Obama might have direct connection to the security detail decisions at that level...

Dumb is making Libya analogous to a lone crazed gunman...we are talking many guns and RPGs dude...they attacked with a plan. We are talking about people watching it unfold...and someohow it being portrayed as spontaneous reaction to a movie. I got two issues. 1) I don't know why Clinton, Obama, Rice were spewing that nonsense...but they aren't stupid people, so it was for a political benefit. 2) They rendered a man's life basically unliveable because of what he "said" in a movie . The Obama administration rained down on this guy, perp-walked him, made sure everyone knew his name...did so, at least in part, under the guise of the Libya attacks...knew when they did this to the guy, he had nothing to do with Libya...

Defend it...misdirect...whatever...its dirty...and #2 is dangerous(Edit:# 2 is always dangerous ...LOL at myself).
 
Last edited:

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
I'll point out...I was here after the first debate. I was dead wrong (according to the polls...not, in my opinion, according the facts), but I was here.

don't doubt you...but the numbers of folks who came out tonight ...I chuckled
 

Irish8248

Well-known member
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
880
The biggest impact this debate had (actually we can thank Biden/Ryan in part) is that the American public will begin to tune this stuff out and therefore the third debate on foreign policy will have the least amount of viewers and the least amount of undecided or "leaners" watching. The winner of the third debate will not be the performer but the one who can talk in soundbites. That way they can get their talking point played on TV, radio, and in the paper while many undecided Americans will skip out and look to the "media" for their news and decide from there.

I think this debate was setup to fail for a few reasons, #1 it was held in NY with NY undecided voters. Cmon. how is that reflective of "middle America"? Im from upstate NY and I could just feel the tension #2 just looking at the host made me angry, kinda like the ooze in ghost busters 2. #3 couple the mod with Obama needing to be more aggressive, it was bound to get ugly.
 

In Lou I Trust

Offseason gon' be long
Messages
1,108
Reaction score
188
Too much Hannity for you, friend. Only republicans could say a guy didn't say something, be shown he did say that something, then turn around and claim that isn't what he meant.

I think the Lybia argument is dumb on its face: the President can't stop any single crazy person from doing a crazy thing. When we talk about terrorism, we need to look at the big picture. Any one of us could go kill a bunch of people right now if we were so inclined. But, unfortunately, people are dumb enough for this to be a political issue. Romney had to score on that point, and he ended up looking like a fool. I think its poetic justice, since it is absurd to blame the President for what happened in the first place.

Semantics. Obama, the day after the attacks, did NOT say that the attack was an act of terror. He may have, however, insinuated that with his "no acts of terror" quote. Romney was getting at the fact that the Obama administration, for 2 weeks, said it was a protest that was related to an anti-Islam video and not an organized attack by a terrorist organization. Nobody says he could have stopped this from happening; they just want to know why the embassy requested more security and was denied. Then to make it even more interesting... the administration denies ever receiving that request. Until they did. By the way... that video has the CNN emblem on it... the Democratic equivalent of Fox; Hannity isn't on CNN.
 
Last edited:

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
Semantics. Obama, the day after the attacks, did NOT say that the attack was an act of terror. He may have, however, insinuated that with his "no acts of terror" quote. Romney was getting at the fact that the Obama administration, for 2 weeks, said it was a protest that was related to an anti-Islam video and not an organized attack by a terrorist organization. Nobody says he could have stopped this from happening; they just want to know why the embassy requested more security and was denied. Then to make it even more interesting... the administration denies ever receiving that request. Until they did. By the way... that video has the CNN emblem on it... the Democratic equivalent of Fox; Hannity isn't on CNN.

Yes... you are right.... CNN must have edited in the "act of terror" quote.
 

BobD

Can't get no satisfaction
Messages
7,918
Reaction score
1,034
Did anyone else find it funny when Romney said "I like wind jobs"?
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
Obama the magnificent was actually awake for this debate and that helped him, but I'd call it a draw. He can't defend his policies over the last 4 years, but Romney still has trouble explaining his tax plan.
 

RuntheBall

Well-known member
Messages
1,270
Reaction score
69
One thing I would have liked Romney to say during the energy portion is the high percentage of government dollars Obama gives to "green" energy (wind, etc.) I think it would have been good for him to clearly state that the money given to these types of energy could have created more jobs and cheaper energy if that money was given to clean coal, natural gas, or something else.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
there was virtually no discussion about the environment as it relates to increasing the use of fossile fuels. I don't know how you can debate the subject without this being included. I believe this was a missed opportunity for the president. That said, I think he won this debate because he grew a pair and called out Romney on his BS when it came up. The "act of terror" exchange was a gut punch for Romney. I also thought that Obama's line about Romney being the "last guy who was going to get tough on China was very effective."
 

ab2cmiller

Troublemaker in training
Messages
11,453
Reaction score
8,532
So let me get this straight, the day after the attack Obama refers to "acts of terror".

Then for a week we have the whole video excuse is shoved down our throat that it wasn't planned etc.

Then we finally have numerous people coming out and admitting it was a terrorist attack including the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Jay Carney, and even Hillary Clinton.

But even the midst of all that Obama refuses to call it an act of terrorism.
What Obama administration has said about Libya attack - CNN.com
September 19 -- Director of the National Counterterrorism Center Matthew Olson, responding to a question by Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairman Joe Lieberman on whether the attack was a terrorist attack:

"They were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy. ... At this point, what I would say is that a number of different elements appear to have been involved in the attack, including individuals connected to militant groups that are prevalent in eastern Libya, particularly the Benghazi area, as well we are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to al Qaeda or al Qaeda affiliates, in particular al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb." Olson also said U.S. officials had no "specific evidence of significant advanced planning."

September 20 -- Jay Carney:

"It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials."

September 20 -- President Obama at a town hall meeting organized by the Spanish-language Univsion Network, responding to a question about the possible involvement of al Qaeda:

"What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests."


September 21 -- Hillary Clinton:

"What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and we will not rest until we have tracked down and brought to justice the terrorists who murdered four Americans."

September 25 -- President Obama on ABC's The View," in response interviewer Joy Behar's question, "I heard Hillary Clinton say it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?":

"We're still doing an investigation. There's no doubt that (with) the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn't just a mob action. We don't have all the information yet, so we're still gathering it. But what's clear is that around the world there's still a lot of threats out there." Obama also said "extremist militias" were suspected to have been involved.

I find it perfectly understandable why the President would go from referring to the incident as an "act of terror" but then two weeks later refuse to state that it was a terrorist attack even though everyone else had finally admitted that.

Maybe just maybe his "acts of terror" was referring to 9/11 Iraq and Afghanistan, because just maybe he had just mentioned those items right before he used the word "acts of terror".

Link to full transcript
Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya | The White House
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.

But that would be to logical, it's just easier to realize that Obama recognized it as a terrorist attack right from the start. LOL I got a bridge I'm looking to sell.

This whole thing has been handled terribly right from the start.
 
Last edited:

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006
Too much Hannity for you, friend. Only republicans could say a guy didn't say something, be shown he did say that something, then turn around and claim that isn't what he meant. I think the Lybia argument is dumb on its face: the President can't stop any single crazy person from doing a crazy thing. When we talk about terrorism, we need to look at the big picture. Any one of us could go kill a bunch of people right now if we were so inclined. But, unfortunately, people are dumb enough for this to be a political issue. Romney had to score on that point, and he ended up looking like a fool. I think its poetic justice, since it is absurd to blame the President for what happened in the first place.

Really????
How about "You didn't build that!"?

Anyway, all in all I think the debate was pretty close with Obama getting the edge. A couple of things to point out tho...the bar was set pretty low for Obama after the last one. Most D's were just happy that he actually responded and showed some emotion without going the way of Biden. I am at work and I can't find it, but there was an old SNL skit about a townhall debate and all the questions from the audience were like "I am an undecided voter but my question is why are Republicans so evil?" This debate wasn't quite that bad, but many of the questions were more into Obama's wheelhouse than Romney's. How are you as an R different from W? I voted for Obama last time but am not sure I should again? Another item I have liked in all 3 debates so far is that the D's keep pleading with the moderators about time but yet they have had the advantage in every one

BTW...if the moderator herself is walking back her defense of Obama shortly after the debate and the guy from Politico and Anderson Cooper among others are parsing, then you got a bit of a problem. Plus, MY QUESTION is this...if Obama believes he called it terrorist attack on day 1, why does he have UN ambassador say protest/movie on 5 different Sunday shows on day 5? Why does he bring up protest and movie at UN speech?
 

Irish Houstonian

New member
Messages
2,722
Reaction score
301
The Administration digging its heels in re: Benghazi is only making it worse. So you thought it was because of YouTube? Big deal? Just admit it and move on.

If you just admit it upfront instead of throwing crazy Joe Biden on the public denying everything, Obama finding it "offensive" when someone questions him about it, all the Meet the Press guys blaming Romney for the issue, and Clinton falling on the sword for you, nobody would care.

But now we have this newsworthy story about the UN, Candi Crowley, YouTube, requests for more security, etc. And we're all going to have to deal with it until the media finds something else to talk about.

Just becuase the stonewall approach worked for Fast & Furious doesn't mean you should use it every time.
 

irishpat183

Banned
Messages
5,625
Reaction score
504
I think Romney left a lot on the table when it came to Libya and Fast and Furious (much of that was Crowley's fault)...

The entire admin blew it on that one, no matter what liberal spin you put on it. Horrible job top to bottom.


As far as performance, Obama showed up this time...but the questions were gift wrapped to him. The question to Romney about "how are you different than Bush"?? f**king really?

How is Obama different that Bush? He spent more, extended his tax cuts, is involved in wars....
 
Last edited:

irishpat183

Banned
Messages
5,625
Reaction score
504
The Administration digging its heels in re: Benghazi is only making it worse. So you thought it was because of YouTube? Big deal? Just admit it and move on.
If you just admit it upfront instead of throwing crazy Joe Biden on the public denying everything, Obama finding it "offensive" when someone questions him about it, all the Meet the Press guys blaming Romney for the issue, and Clinton falling on the sword for you, nobody would care.

But now we have this newsworthy story about the UN, Candi Crowley, YouTube, requests for more security, etc. And we're all going to have to deal with it until the media finds something else to talk about.

Just becuase the stonewall approach worked for Fast & Furious doesn't mean you should use it every time.



Too late for that from a political standpoint. The right is gonna hammer that...they should. And anyone blaming Mittens for his attack on Obama about that is crazy. He should attack him. He's responsible at the end of the day.

I find it hard to believe that the guy has been in office for 4 years....and nothing is his fault.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
Anyway, all in all I think the debate was pretty close with Obama getting the edge.

I thought the debate was a joke.

Did anyone care to bring up that women do not make 72% of what men make for equal work? Nope, because then you'd have to explain that that calculation is simple adding up all of the money earned by men and women for the year and is not at all representative of sexism whatsoever.

<iframe width="400" height="225" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/EwogDPh-Sow" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Did anyone bring up that the measuring system that Bernanke is using to measure inflation doesn't take into account two important things: the cost of fuel and the cost of food. HMMMMM, that might be important.

Did anyone care to bring up the Fed Reserve in general?

Again, Ron Paul being out there would have been a real bloodbath.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
I think Romney left a lot on the table when it came to Libya and Fast and Furious (much of that was Crowley's fault)...

Obama is a masterful job of making the last line people heard one that is negative for Romney. You could see Romney's anger in not having a chance for rebuttal. That's another reason why the debate sucked. We didn't see a discussion of issues, it was trading insults, cherry-picked stats (e.g. gas production down 14% on federal lands), and in general talking points. Democrats heard what they wanted to hear, and likewise with the Republicans.

Zero progress made last night, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:

Domina Nostra

Well-known member
Messages
6,251
Reaction score
1,388
If the issue were whether the word "terror" was ever used, the President was right. But the issue is whether the Administration created the impression that a military-style, cooridinated attack on an embassy on the Anniversary of 911 was reall a spontantous act or terror by angry protestors in reaction to a video.

It was a clever slieght of hand by the President. If this were a mock trial, rather than a real issue of National Security, I would commend him for it. It bought him time on the issue, but I'm not sure where the President goes from here on Benghazi.

I thought the story was that the President didn't know that the attacks were coordinated, premeditated terroist attacks, and that Mitt Romney was incompotent for calling him out before he had the facts? The problem with that is that it is (1) his people went out and acted like the attack was the result of the video-if they didn't know shouldn't they have kept their mouths shut as well... and (2) the intelligence commununity and the State Dept did know.

So now the President has flipped the script saying that he did know from Day 1. If so (1) why did everyone, including the media, think the opposite, and (2) what did he do about the attacks if it was clear from day 1?

Let's see what emerges from all of this.
 
Last edited:

no.1IrishFan

Well-known member
Messages
6,279
Reaction score
421
If I were moderating last nights debate, the first and only question I would have asked is: "What are you going to do about getting a Soprano's movie made?". Seriously, it's been 5 gosh dang years since they just cut to black, and I need to know what happened in the dang diner!!!!!
 

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006
I thought the debate was a joke.

Did anyone care to bring up that women do not make 72% of what men make for equal work? Nope, because then you'd have to explain that that calculation is simple adding up all of the money earned by men and women for the year and is not at all representative of sexism whatsoever.

<iframe width="400" height="225" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/EwogDPh-Sow" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Did anyone bring up that the measuring system that Bernanke is using to measure inflation doesn't take into account two important things: the cost of fuel and the cost of food. HMMMMM, that might be important.

Did anyone care to bring up the Fed Reserve in general?

Again, Ron Paul being out there would have been a real bloodbath.

BB...just FYI...I was using what happened for my judgement...substance & detail & truth from either side was (and pretty much always is) lacking in presidential debates. Even when you use "facts" like unemployment at 7.8, the point that it is based on a different participation rate skews the "fact" that the number is back to Jan 2009 numbers.

It is a joke in the sense that it is really more of a pagent.

What I thought was funny was:
MSNBC's Undecided Voter Panel Swayed by Romney | The Weekly Standard

That's twice that has happened out of the two prez debates
 

In Lou I Trust

Offseason gon' be long
Messages
1,108
Reaction score
188
Was anyone else disappointed with Candy's poor question choices? AK-47's, equal pay for women, how do you differ from Bush? Garbage questions that only do the undecided voters a disservice in my mind. I highly doubt that the one thing holding the undecideds back is Romney's opinion of how he and Bush are different. Obamacare is quite a hot topic and it shocked me that she never asked a question about it. Was her intention to try and give Obama an opportunity to talk about how Romney has flip-flopped on gun issues?
 

no.1IrishFan

Well-known member
Messages
6,279
Reaction score
421
Was anyone else disappointed with Candy's poor question choices? AK-47's, equal pay for women, how do you differ from Bush? Garbage questions that only do the undecided voters a disservice in my mind. I highly doubt that the one thing holding the undecideds back is Romney's opinion of how he and Bush are different. Obamacare is quite a hot topic and it shocked me that she never asked a question about it. Was her intention to try and give Obama an opportunity to talk about how Romney has flip-flopped on gun issues?

I might be in the minority here, but I think the questions were actually pretty good from the audience. I think the way they were asked was great, the problem was that neither candidate really answered them directly.
 

Irish Houstonian

New member
Messages
2,722
Reaction score
301
I think there's definitely a huge void between what the Left wants out of Obama, and what the regular voting public wants. The Left wants anger, the public wants inspiration.

The public broke up with W. Bush because he was mired in recession, spent too much, had too many wars, and had a little too-much police state.

Enter Obama: more transparency; a different era in Washington; bi-partisanship; reduction of the debt; balanced budgets; restoring our good name abroad, etc.

This is why people voted for Obama -- he inspired the public to believe in a new vision of Washington. He literally sold Hope and Change for the future.

Now, instead of returning to what got him elected, the Left wants him to be...an attack dog on Romney??? That's the exact opposite of hope. It's the antithesis of inspiration.

That is not what inspires people. That is not what inspires people.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ASVUj89hyg0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
Was anyone else disappointed with Candy's poor question choices? AK-47's, equal pay for women, how do you differ from Bush? Garbage questions that only do the undecided voters a disservice in my mind. I highly doubt that the one thing holding the undecideds back is Romney's opinion of how he and Bush are different. Obamacare is quite a hot topic and it shocked me that she never asked a question about it. Was her intention to try and give Obama an opportunity to talk about how Romney has flip-flopped on gun issues?

The audience asked the questions. Crowley asked follow-up questions on the same topic. Don't completely disagree with you on the quality of the questions, but Crowley isn't to blame. These are apparently the things that uncedided voters in New York care about -- at least these particular undecided voters.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
I think there's definitely a huge void between what the Left wants out of Obama, and what the regular voting public wants. The Left wants anger, the public wants inspiration.

The public broke up with W. Bush because he was mired in recession, spent too much, had too many wars, and had a little too-much police state.

Enter Obama: more transparency; a different era in Washington; bi-partisanship; reduction of the debt; balanced budgets; restoring our good name abroad, etc.

This is why people voted for Obama -- he inspired the public to believe in a new vision of Washington. He literally sold Hope and Change for the future.

Now, instead of returning to what got him elected, the Left wants him to be...an attack dog on Romney??? That's the exact opposite of hope. It's the antithesis of inspiration.

That is not what inspires people. That is not what inspires people.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ASVUj89hyg0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I wasn't aware that the left wasn't part of the regular voting public. I also disagree with much of your assessment. I'm left leaning (I know, shocker). I don't want anger, but I also don't want someone who is going to stand toe to toe with a guy and not fight back (Obama, first debate). Sure, I'd love to be inspired but I also want someone who will stand up for what I believe.
 
Top