• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

"Act of Terror"- Libya

You do realize the country doesn't stop running because he happens to not be in the White House. He probably goes through debriefings, reports, etc.. then gets to practicing. You really are making something out of nothing. I really don't give a shit about most things, but a definite pet peeve is people that get upset, uppity, etc... about things that in reality they are just making up in their mind to further justify an already set mindset. It happens on both sides and its complete bullshit. This is a specialty of RJ and apparently now a specialty of yours.
 
tigerswood said:
No. Please don't put words in my mouth. Thanks. And I'm done. Goodnight all. Should be an interesting few weeks.
Click to expand...
I wasn't trying to. I thought you said you were upset that Mitt kept on campaigning instead of taking time off- that he would have scored some points with you if he'd done so?
 
Caturday said:
Ha, yea. The Sunday talk show circuit was a fucking joke and a disgrace. But don't stop believing, hold on to that feeling.
Click to expand...


What feeling? You're making no sense. What is disgraceful is the Pubs and Fox News trying to blow this up into some nonsensical conspiracy.
 
tigerswood said:
Holy crap this is illegible babble. Goodnight friend. Hope you're at least drunk/high.
Click to expand...

Not drunk or high. Other than two autocorrections of "hat instead of what" and "aid instead of said" that my tablet made what exactly was illegible? Seems to mean the most likely of the two of us to be drunk is the one dense enough that he cannot understand there is a distinct difference between the phrases "act of terror" and "terrorist act by a terrorist group". Obama said the former the next day but took over a week to say the latter. It isn't semantics. Its just a giant fuck up by Romney. He can recover by hammering home the point about it taking awhile to label it a terrorist attack but he outright lied when he said that Obama never called it an "act of terror". Feel free to again label this as babble since you know you've been shown to be wrong but aren't big enough to admit it.
 
tigerswood said:
Well, I'm also arguing that our President and administration failed the four Americans who were killed, including the only sitting Ambassador since 1979, and did a horrible job of handling the aftermath. He was too busy trying to raise money than do his actual job. And it's no wonder he performed better this debate, considering he was, paraphrasing from CNN, "holed up in a resort in Williamsburg" practicing against John Kerry, rather than doing his actual job.
Click to expand...

hahahahaha

Jesus fucking Christ. This is the first time I remember a sitting President getting attacked for doing debate prep. Wow. You're a fucking joke.
 
Caturday said:
Let's be honest here. Obama was the first to politicize it by lying. It would be a nonissue if he'd been honest.
Click to expand...

Obama was first to politicize? Seriously? Odd then, that the GOP roundly took Romney to task for doing it.
 
It's always funny when posters come to the politics board for the first time and make an ass out of themselves. Here's to you, tigerswood. Stick to Shelton Mitchell stories.
 
I love that this I has been going on for a month and now we are supposed to believe that using the word "terror" is supposed to explain 5 days of dialogue put forth by the administration.

I am a little saddened by some of the justifications of our administration clearly lying to the public for a week. Especially considering most of then hate George Bush for doing exactly that.

I don't have any ill agenda towards Obama but this is a massive lie that he continues to propitiate, and I keep trying to figure out why. I expected RJ to defend the Denocratic line regardless of reality. I did not expect PH or some of the other reasonable posters to defend this pretty obvious series of lies.

POTUS is backing up Romney right now. The issue isn't the semantics of the speech. The issue is a five day media blitz trying to convince us that it was the result of a protest. The issue is that Rice went out 4 days later and propagated the protest narrative.

The reality is that the administration wanted us to believe the protest narrative in spite of world intelligence satin otherwise. The question lies in Why, and will Romney ever make a coherent enough argument in the debate to call Obama out on his avoiding the facts last night.
 
are people really this worked up over semantics?
 
I just fail to see how people can't understand. And I don't see the big lie as much as the big confusion. The whole episode hasn't been optimally managed, I'll agree. But it hardly seems to me that Obama and his administration were intentionally conspiring to lie or cover up or politicize the events. The honor for that sort of purposeful obfuscation seems to lie elsewhere.
 
5 days of narrative is too long for a meaningless mistake. Especially when from all reports we knew exactly what was going on from the beginning. It just doesn't add up. We know when a camel sneezes in the desert and what some of you want to have us believe is that even with drones over head, distress phone calls from the embassy, video evidence of the event, a backup team that came on the scene; that somehow we were honestly mistaken for 5 days following the killing of our ambassador.

I simply find it hard to believe that Obama is that incompetent. If he is that incompetent then I voted for the wrong man. I would actually feel better knowing he was hiding something as bad as that sounds. I will take almost anything over incompetence.
 
There's no such thing as a degree of competence that can eliminate confusion and mistakes. Or prevent infallibly evil intended people from the destruction they're bent upon.

But the purposeful distortions seem more coming from the anti-Obama folks, IMO. And I didn't vote for O last time 'round. [Yes, no one is happier than I to see McCain still alive and seeming well]. And yes, Obama has grown on me. Partly because I've grown so disgusted with the insanity of the anti-Obama crowd.
 
Milhouse said:
are people really this worked up over semantics?
Click to expand...


You yourself pointed out that Romney was walking the day after four americans were killed. Walking. Think about that for a minute. Is that what you want in a president? I think not.
 
Wrangor said:
5 days of narrative is too long for a meaningless mistake. Especially when from all reports we knew exactly what was going on from the beginning. It just doesn't add up. We know when a camel sneezes in the desert and what some of you want to have us believe is that even with drones over head, distress phone calls from the embassy, video evidence of the event, a backup team that came on the scene; that somehow we were honestly mistaken for 5 days following the killing of our ambassador.

I simply find it hard to believe that Obama is that incompetent. If he is that incompetent then I voted for the wrong man. I would actually feel better knowing he was hiding something as bad as that sounds. I will take almost anything over incompetence.
Click to expand...


Are you the guy that allegedly voted for Obama in 08, and are currently an undecided moderate?
 
tigerswood said:
Please show me the next time in the media he referred to it as terrorism or an act of terror, since you are so sure he was including this event. Was it 12 days later? I know it was quite some time..
Click to expand...

Give it up. You lost.
 
Monday night is Foreign Policy, all will be out on the table then.
 
It's all good because Obama's going to have to answer it again.

It's like Romney got to see the opponent set up a play, then call time out and defend it. Will Obama change his play? Can he?
 
Milhouse said:
are people really this worked up over semantics?
Click to expand...

I don't get the controversy over the semantics...in my mind the real issue with this whole exchange was that the moderator stepped way outside of her boundaries/responsibilities as a moderator to take one candidate's side on a disagreement. Regardless of what Candy actually thinks about either candidate, the all important perception of impartiality for someone in her role disappeared.

For those on the board who have watched far more debates than me, is this something that is normal? Have moderators typically taken the role of self-appointed fact checker?
 
09deaconX said:
I don't get the controversy over the semantics...in my mind the real issue with this whole exchange was that the moderator stepped way outside of her boundaries/responsibilities as a moderator to take one candidate's side on a disagreement. Regardless of what Candy actually thinks about either candidate, the all important perception of impartiality for someone in her role disappeared.

For those on the board who have watched far more debates than me, is this something that is normal? Have moderators typically taken the role of self-appointed fact checker?
Click to expand...

Highly unusual, and even less common for them to do so and be wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top