Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

# RomneyShamblesFollow

#152 Sep 12 2012 at 2:27 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,982 posts
I'm sure the Hashashins were plenty crude.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#153 Sep 12 2012 at 5:38 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Jophiel wrote:
In another show of foreign policy acumen, Romney blames Obama for apologizing to the embassy attackers...

...based on a statement originating from the US embassy in Egypt prior to any of the attacks.


Holy screwed up timeline Batman! My understanding of events, in order:

1. Protesters begin gathering at the Embassy in Eqypt in response to some video released several months ago, which I guess just now got to them or something.

2. US embassy in Eqypt issues a statement apologizing for the video in an apparent attempt to calm the mob.

3. Mob gets more agitated, starts throwing things, burning things, and climbing the walls outside, ultimately tearing down a US flag and replacing it with another.

4. At some point as this is going on, Romney makes his statement criticizing the apology. He did not "blame Obama". He blamed "the administration". At the risk of stating the obvious, the executive branch is responsible for our embassies.

5. Sometime after that the attack in Libya occurred, killing 4 Americans.


At the time Romney made the statement, the attack in Libya had not happened. He was responding purely to the growing unrest outside our embassy in Egypt and what he felt was the wrong response to that unrest. One can even argue that he might just have been right.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#154 Sep 12 2012 at 5:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
4. At some point as this is going on, Romney makes his statement criticizing the apology. He did not "blame Obama". He blamed "the administration". At the risk of stating the obvious, the executive branch is responsible for our embassies.

CNN wrote:
Tuesday morning in Egypt, the U.S. Embassy in Cairo released a statement stating it "condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims." The statement came after protests erupted in parts of the Arab world in response to an online video found offensive by Muslims.

While the statement doesn't specifically mention the video, it says the embassy "firmly reject(s) the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."

After the statement, protesters began to breach the embassy in Cairo, where ultimately several men scaled the walls of the mission and tore down its American flag.
[...]
At 10:10 p.m. ET, Romney's campaign released an embargoed (until midnight) statement blasting the Obama administration. The statement had a veiled reference to the Egypt embassy's statement that condemned offensive speech against Muslims and referred to it as the administration's "first response":

"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."

He didn't blame "the" administration, he made point to mention Obama. He said that the statement was a response to "the attacks", which it was not since no attacks had yet occurred. He connected the statement to the attack in Libya and the death of the the worker when the statement was made well before that attack and wasn't related at all.

So aside from being completely wrong, good job parroting what you were told to say to protect Romney from his latest colossal foreign policy fuck-up.

Edited, Sep 12th 2012 6:52pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#155 Sep 12 2012 at 6:38 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
4. At some point as this is going on, Romney makes his statement criticizing the apology. He did not "blame Obama". He blamed "the administration". At the risk of stating the obvious, the executive branch is responsible for our embassies.

CNN wrote:
Tuesday morning in Egypt, the U.S. Embassy in Cairo released a statement stating it "condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims." The statement came after protests erupted in parts of the Arab world in response to an online video found offensive by Muslims.

While the statement doesn't specifically mention the video, it says the embassy "firmly reject(s) the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."

After the statement, protesters began to breach the embassy in Cairo, where ultimately several men scaled the walls of the mission and tore down its American flag.
[...]
At 10:10 p.m. ET, Romney's campaign released an embargoed (until midnight) statement blasting the Obama administration. The statement had a veiled reference to the Egypt embassy's statement that condemned offensive speech against Muslims and referred to it as the administration's "first response":

"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."

He didn't blame "the" administration, he made point to mention Obama.


Yes. "The Obama Administration". WTF? You get that he's the president and therefore the head of the executive branch. We're not talking about an off the record statement made by some junior bureaucrat here. We're talking about an official statement released by our embassy. No one's saying that Obama himself said those words. But he is responsible for them. His policies set the diplomatic tone around the world, which our embassies reflect. I suppose if the statement were out of the blue, you might have a point, but the approach of apologizing to everyone isn't exactly new to this administration, is it?

Quote:
He said that the statement was a response to "the attacks", which it was not since no attacks had yet occurred.


Huh? You are confused I suspect. He (Romney) was responding to the statement from the Egyptian embassy. That statement was made in response to growing anger about the video. The statement was repeated in a tweet from the embassy after the grounds had been breached (but prior to the deaths in Libya). Romney was criticizing that statement.

Quote:
He connected the statement to the attack in Libya and the death of the the worker when the statement was made well before that attack and wasn't related at all.


You really are confused. Did you even read the site you linked (and follow the links on said page)? It explains it all to you. Why not actually read it?


You appear to be confusing what was known at the time Romney wrote his statement, what was known when the Egyptian embassy made their statements, and what was known when the Obama campaign responded to Romney's statement.


You also seem to be missing the key point: Romney condemned a statement of apology from our embassy made in the early stages of this. The same statement which the Obama administration has now disavowed. Um... So Romney was right. It just took the Obama administration an extra day to figure it out themselves.

And one might also wonder: If Romney hadn't criticized the statement from the embassy, would the Obama administration have disavowed it? And since they did disavow it *after* he pointed it out, doesn't that mean he was absolutely right to make the criticism? So what's the problem?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#156 Sep 12 2012 at 6:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Yes. "The Obama Administration". WTF?
You previously wrote:
He did not "blame Obama". He blamed "the administration"

Spin! Spin little top! Spin!! Smiley: laugh

Quote:
No one's saying that Obama himself said those words. But he is responsible for them. His policies set the diplomatic tone around the world, which our embassies reflect. I suppose if the statement were out of the blue, you might have a point, but the approach of apologizing to everyone isn't exactly new to this administration, is it?

I see someone's dutifully reciting the Romney Approved Talking Points!
Romney Approved Talking Points wrote:
[If asked...] Reports indicate the embassy in Cairo released its initial statement before the invasion of the embassy commenced. Doesn’t this show they were trying to tamp down the protest and prevent what ultimately happened, not sympathize with the protesters?

– The Administration was wrong to stand by a statement sympathizing with those who had breached our embassy in Egypt instead of condemning their actions.

– Distancing themselves from the statement and saying it wasn't ‘cleared by Washington’ reflects the mixed signals they are sending to the world.

– American leadership needs to be decisive and resolute when our interests are threatened or attacked. For the last four years, this has been lacking.

– We have seen a foreign policy of weakness, indecision, and a decline in American influence and respect – and yesterday we saw the consequences.


Quote:
Huh? You are confused I suspect.

" 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"

Nope, no confusion. Romney plainly said that the embassy statement was the "first response" to the attacks.

Quote:
And one might also wonder: If Romney hadn't criticized the statement from the embassy, would the Obama administration have disavowed it? And since they did disavow it *after* he pointed it out, doesn't that mean he was absolutely right to make the criticism? So what's the problem?
Romney Approved Talking Points wrote:
– If pressed: The Obama campaign is now attacking Governor Romney for being critical of the same statement the Administration itself disavowed. This is hypocritical.

Romney Talking Point Approved! Good little puppy! Good boy!

Of course, Obama didn't call the statement "disgraceful" or accuse the embassy staff of "sympathizing with those who waged the attacks" but he did say it didn't represent the administration so it's exactly the same thing as Romney using this event to attack Obama!

I mean... it is if you follow the Romney Approved Talking Points.

Edited, Sep 12th 2012 8:02pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#157gbaji, Posted: Sep 12 2012 at 7:28 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I'm not the one reading up on Romney talking points Joph. I used this thing called logic to arrive at my conclusions.
#158 Sep 12 2012 at 7:38 PM Rating: Excellent
President Obama told CBS News on Wednesday that Romney "seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later."

"There's a broader lesson to be learned here," Mr. Obama told "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft at the White House. "And I -- you know, Governor Romney seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later. And as president, one of the things I've learned is you can't do that. That, you know, it's important for you to make sure that the statements that you make are backed up by the facts. And that you've thought through the ramifications before you make 'em."

Asked if Romney's attacks were irresponsible, the president replied, "I'll let the American people judge that."


Gbaji's mental gymnastics on this issue bring to memory the whole "crosshairs" v "surveying symbols" debate in regards to Palin's website during `08. I bet he gets bloody noses denying reality as hard as he does.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#159 Sep 12 2012 at 7:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I'm not the one reading up on Romney talking points Joph.

No, I'm sure you received them from your usual sources since you managed to hit them almost verbatim.

Quote:
Let's recap shall we? Romney criticizes a statement made by the US embassy in Egypt. Within 24 hours of that criticism, the Obama administration disavows that same statement. But you're criticizing Romney? For what?

For saying that the people in the Egyptian embassy who issued the "disgraceful" statement were "sympathizers" with the people attacking them. For using the attack and a man's death as a cheap chance to attack Obama. For rushing out to attack Obama before he even fully understood what was going on.

Go find your Approved Talking Points and get back to me about that stuff.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#160gbaji, Posted: Sep 12 2012 at 8:08 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Well! A quote from Obama on the subject. That settles it! Smiley: lol
#161 Sep 12 2012 at 8:34 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm not the one reading up on Romney talking points Joph.

No, I'm sure you received them from your usual sources since you managed to hit them almost verbatim.


Amazing how I managed to do that without ever having read them prior to your post. Perhaps when there's a great and obvious truth in front of you, it's not hard for multiple intelligent people to come to the same conclusion about that truth.

I know this confounds those who have to wait to see what their leaders want them to believe about something before they can take a position, but it is true that some of us really are able to think for ourselves. Your assumption speaks more about you than me.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#162 Sep 12 2012 at 8:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Amazing how I managed to do that without ever having read them prior to your post.

In that form? Sure. Spoon-fed to you by your usual sources?

Well, whatever you think you need to say to convince us...

However, I'm curious. You insist that Romney wasn't targeting Obama himself with his statements of disgraceful sympathizers but you haven't said WHO exactly the disgraceful sympathizers are. It's not enough to just say "the administration". "The administration" is made up of people. We know where the statement, and later Tweet, originated from so is Romney calling the people of the US embassy in Cairo disgraceful sympathizers? And do you support Romney's opinion of them? And if he's not saying it about Obama and he's not saying it about the people who issued the statement, then WHO exactly is the disgraceful sympathizer Romney is attacking?

Edited, Sep 12th 2012 9:41pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#163 Sep 12 2012 at 8:58 PM Rating: Good
Gbaji wrote:
I think Obama is butthurt that Romney just make him look like a chump with it comes to foreign policy. Good to see that the usual suspects are still just as clueless as ever though.


And I think you're butthurt that your perpetual candidate, Romney, who's own stance on issues changes like an etch a sketch, decided he'd stop being a ***** at the wrong time & is now eating **** for it.

Only one of the two Presidential candidates is going to take a hit in the polls on this. Unfortunately for you, it's your guy whom already has questionable foreign policy credentials.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#165 Sep 12 2012 at 11:19 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,921 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm sure the Hashashins were plenty crude.

But they got the job done!
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#166 Sep 12 2012 at 11:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Of course willard was talking about barry only a fool would argue the point. The real question is whether or not the statements made were accurate and hat effect they had on the Libyans. Fort hood wasn't a disgruntled worker popping off a few shots. I mean barry had these same brotherhood of muslims in the whitehouse. The first 9 hours after finding out about
his was to apologize about a stupid movie. Almost makes you wish he'd been out of touch with his mistress in south america.

Less is more, my troll-y little friend.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#167 Sep 13 2012 at 4:45 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,426 posts

I think Obama is butthurt that Romney just make him look like a chump with it comes to foreign policy.


Doubt it, he's seen the internal polling. I think Obama's probably just planning out his second term
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#171 Sep 13 2012 at 6:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,248 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:

I think Obama is butthurt that Romney just make him look like a chump with it comes to foreign policy.


Doubt it, he's seen the internal polling. I think Obama's probably just planning out his second term


Lol. Think we all know obamas going the way of carter. The only polls obamas doing well in dems have been greatly oversampling.



Just like four years ago, right? How's it feel, being wrong every single time?

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#172 Sep 13 2012 at 6:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
With the Wilder Effect, Obama needs to be up by 30 points to win!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#173 Sep 13 2012 at 7:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,426 posts



I'm sure that's not the first time you've said that. Does the wifey fall for it?

Anything to avoid discussing obamas failed foreign policy I suppose


Failed? Oh, right, you must mean killing Bin Laden. I forget what giant terrified cowards you poor bastards are. I know the plan was to just run and hide and cry like little ******* until he died of natural causes, sorry that a real man stepped up and slayed him like St George and the dragon.

Have you read the new book about it? Surprisingly Obama isn't actually in the Sit Room, that's just his double. He was on the scene. That's right, your President was there, leading the assault. Unarmed, they say, but that doesn't include his 3 foot long spear like cock, which it turns out was the only weapon he needed. You see, it can sense a threat to America, and snuff it out faster than a bullet. The real reason they buried the old fella at sea was to avoid having to explain the obvious bruises on his face. I remember they floated the idea of claiming the Seal team had brought and elephant along with them, but it just wasn't plausible.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#174 Sep 13 2012 at 7:18 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,849 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:
The only polls obamas doing well in dems have been greatly oversampling.
Could you be any more generic?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#175 Sep 13 2012 at 7:32 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,426 posts

The only polls obamas doing well in dems have been greatly oversampling.


The amusing part is it's likely the opposite is true, with most firms under-representing cell phone only households. That aside, while the national horse race stuff is close, the state by state crosstabs are a nightmare for Romney. Voters are extremely apathetic about him, even his supporters. He wins, among his supporters on stuff like "understands my problems" like 51/49 and still looses "have a beer" with type likability stuff. You guys could have won this election easily with a real candidate, but as a party your leaders were too stupid to anything but drive the clown car they filled in the midterms to Iowa as Romneys only opposition. Tim Pawlenty wins this election 300/238. ****, Mike Huckabee probably wins this elecetion, But no, you morons, as always made the terrified choice, and put this stiff forward. Good work.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#176 Sep 13 2012 at 8:33 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
Voters are extremely apathetic about him, even his supporters. He wins, among his supporters on stuff like "understands my problems" like 51/49 and still looses "have a beer" with type likability stuff.
Political Wire wrote:
A new Esquire/Yahoo News poll confirms what most other national polls are showing this week: President Obama leads Mitt Romney among likely voters nationwide, 50% to 46%.

Also interesting: Americans believe Obama would win in a fistfight with Romney, 58% to 22%.
Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#177 Sep 13 2012 at 8:45 AM Rating: Good
******
43,849 posts
I dunno, those pep rally kids can put up quite a fight.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#178 Sep 13 2012 at 8:50 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,468 posts
Don't retreat, just reload.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#179 Sep 13 2012 at 9:12 AM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,576 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Political Wire wrote:
A new Esquire/Yahoo News poll confirms what most other national polls are showing this week: President Obama leads Mitt Romney among likely voters nationwide, 50% to 46%.

Also interesting: Americans believe Obama would win in a fistfight with Romney, 58% to 22%.
Smiley: laugh

In a Mass Knife Fight to the Death Between Every American President, Who Would Win and Why?
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#180 Sep 13 2012 at 9:18 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,426 posts
In a Mass Knife Fight to the Death Between Every American President, Who Would Win and Why?

He's right, A Jackson, not close at all.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#181 Sep 13 2012 at 9:28 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,849 posts
It'd be fun to listen for Teddy to scream "BULLY!" after every kill, though.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#182 Sep 13 2012 at 9:33 AM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,976 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
In a Mass Knife Fight to the Death Between Every American President, Who Would Win and Why?

He's right, A Jackson, not close at all.

Too bad we can't put FDR in a Mech.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#183 Sep 13 2012 at 9:34 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,468 posts
I can see Ford tripping over himself and gutting himself.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#184 Sep 13 2012 at 10:30 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
In a Mass Knife Fight to the Death Between Every American President, Who Would Win and Why?

He's right, A Jackson, not close at all.


Didn't he go with TR?

My money's actually on Lincoln. Big reach and some serious wrestling skills can go a long way.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#185 Sep 13 2012 at 12:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,459 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
In a Mass Knife Fight to the Death Between Every American President, Who Would Win and Why?

He's right, A Jackson, not close at all.
This. No contest. Teddy was angry, but too fat.
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#186 Sep 13 2012 at 1:07 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Don't retreat, just ******.

#187 Sep 13 2012 at 1:18 PM Rating: Excellent
A. Jackson apparently once beat a man who tried to assassinate him. He did have a the good luck to have the assassins gun misfire.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#188 Sep 13 2012 at 1:28 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,036 posts
Grant would be my first and most obvious pick. I'd have to study the bios, stats etc before actually putting any money on the contest though.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#189 Sep 13 2012 at 2:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
If fifty-eleven years of Survivor has taught us anything, it's that all the average guys vastly outnumber the exceptional guys and will dogpile them down, thus assuring that the eventual winner is just a hair above average but not good enough to have been a first minute target.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#190 Sep 13 2012 at 2:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,841 posts
So many old people on that list.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#191 Sep 13 2012 at 3:14 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,976 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
A. Jackson apparently once beat a man who tried to assassinate him. He did have a the good luck to have the assassins gun misfire.

Didn't Teddy get shot during a speech and still finish it?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#192 Sep 13 2012 at 3:15 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,976 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
My money's actually on Lincoln. Big reach and some serious wrestling skills can go a long way.

Tall guy, long reach. Skinny guys fight 'till they're burger.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#193 Sep 13 2012 at 3:34 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,574 posts
Debalic wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
My money's actually on Lincoln. Big reach and some serious wrestling skills can go a long way.

Tall guy, long reach. Skinny guys fight 'till they're burger.


Shatner. I'd fight Shatner.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#194 Sep 13 2012 at 4:13 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Jophiel wrote:
However, I'm curious. You insist that Romney wasn't targeting Obama himself with his statements of disgraceful sympathizers but you haven't said WHO exactly the disgraceful sympathizers are.


First off, let's stop calling them "sympathizers". That word has a whole extra connotation that is not present in Romney's statement.

Secondly, let's stop playing games with tense. Since all the events at the time were past tense, Romney's statement is past tense. But two things which both occurred in the past did not necessarily happen at the same time. You (and a lot of other people apparently) are interpreting Romney's statement that "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.” as though the administration sympathized with the attacks themselves. But his statement doesn't say that. It simply says that they sympathized (past tense) with those who waged the attacks (also past tense).

The attacks happened after the sympathy. If a man feeds his dog, and then later the dog bites him, it would be perfectly correct to say after the fact that the man fed the dog who bit him. If you give a hitchhiker a ride downtown and that guy later robs a bank, it would be correct for someone (also after the fact) to say that you gave a ride to the man who robbed the bank. If the US gives foreign aid to a country and that country later engaged in an attack on us, we would also be correct to say that we gave aid to the same country that attacked us. In all cases, we're pointing out something bad someone (or a dog in the first case) did despite us doing something presumably beneficial to them before hand.

See how that works? Just want to clarify that since it seems like some people are getting confused about the order of things and thus what Romney was talking about.

Quote:
It's not enough to just say "the administration". "The administration" is made up of people.


It's a label Joph. So is "the Obama administration". If we're both talking about the same thing, we're talking about the same thing. Did you think there was some other administration in charge of our embassies involved here? You can't possibly be seriously arguing that by including Obama's name in the phrase this somehow makes it more an attack on Obama?

It's his administration. He sets the policy. He's responsible for that policy. What part of this is confusing you?

Quote:
We know where the statement, and later Tweet, originated from so is Romney calling the people of the US embassy in Cairo disgraceful sympathizers?


No. He's saying that it's disgraceful that their first response was to sympathize with those who waged the attacks. It's right there in the quote. Are you unable to understand plain English. He's not saying they sympathized with the attacks but with those who waged them. And he's exactly correct. The approach was to attempt to appease the angry mob by taking their side on the whole video issue. Obviously, it failed miserably, but more to the point it's not in keeping with the principles and presumed policy of the US.

If it were in keeping with those principles, the Obama administration would not have later disavowed the statement(s). Get it? I thought I already explained this to you like twice now.

Quote:
And do you support Romney's opinion of them?


Of them? Why do you have to make it personal Joph? I support Romney's opinion of their actions with regard to the statements in question. And what's funny is that so does Obama. So what are you complaining about? If Obama wanted to argue that what Romney said was wrong, he could have stood by the statements that Romney was attacking. But he not only didn't, but disavowed them himself (well, his press folks did anyway). So Romney and Obama both agree that those statements were not in line with the policies and principles of the United States.

So what is your beef exactly? You seem to want to blame Romney for saying something which Obama agrees with. Why aren't you criticizing Obama for not standing by his embassy personnel and their statements if you really feel so strongly about this?

Quote:
And if he's not saying it about Obama and he's not saying it about the people who issued the statement, then WHO exactly is the disgraceful sympathizer Romney is attacking?


Huh? You're not even making sense anymore. You're like a broken record at this point. Get back to me when you can ask an intelligent question. He's saying it about the embassy personnel who wrote the **** messages. Those people are part of the Obama administration. I'll ask again: what part of this is confusing for you. He never said it came from Obama himself. He said it came from the Obama administration.

You're going to great lengths to twist the words around in order to make a pretty weak point. How about you not do that and just take the message for what it meant: That the statements being made by the embassy personnel were disgraceful. They basically took the side of the angry mob in opposition to our own first amendment. I'm sorry, but that's a big deal and Romney was absolutely correct to point it out.


I'll ask for the third time: Do you believe that if Romney (or someone) hadn't made a big deal about this that the White House would have disavowed the statements. Or would they have just ignored it and hoped no one noticed that one of their embassies basically just told the Muslim world that we reject the use (abuse is the word they used IIRC) of freedom of speech which might involve things which Muslims view negatively (like burning a Koran). Do you think that's in line with the official position the US has towards freedom of speech? Cause if it is, you and I have a completely different opinion of the first amendment.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#195 Sep 13 2012 at 4:25 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
No, that's not how English works.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#197 Sep 13 2012 at 4:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
First off, let's stop calling them "sympathizers".

No. Romney said they sympathized with the attackers. One who sympathizes is a sympathizer. I'm sorry Romney's words are ones you're spinning hard to support but that's just the problem with blindly supporting the man.

Do you agree with Romney's statement that the people in the US embassy in Cairo sympathized with their attackers?
Quote:
Of them? Why do you have to make it personal Joph?

Because despite your conservative belief that "the government" is just some faceless thing, these were real people facing a real fear that Romney called sympathizers with their attackers and refered to their statements as disgraceful. Why can't you man up and answer the question instead of trying so hard to deflect it and pretend that this WASN'T about real people?

Edited, Sep 13th 2012 5:47pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#198 Sep 13 2012 at 5:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,248 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
A. Jackson apparently once beat a man who tried to assassinate him. He did have a the good luck to have the assassins gun misfire.


Teddy Roosevelt got shot in the chest and finished his speech.


____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#199 Sep 13 2012 at 5:11 PM Rating: Decent
Keeper of the Shroud
*****
13,098 posts
Samira wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
A. Jackson apparently once beat a man who tried to assassinate him. He did have a the good luck to have the assassins gun misfire.


Teddy Roosevelt got shot in the chest and finished his speech.




Since Teddy Roosevelt was an alien robot sent back into the past to try to take over the world, that really doesn't count.
#200 Sep 13 2012 at 5:33 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
No, that's not how English works.


Um... Yes, is it. He's referring to the people that the embassy's statement sympathized with. Those people were (among others) those who attacked our embassies. Thus they sympathized with those who attacked our embassies. That is absolutely correct English. What is *not* correct is to interpret that to mean that he's claiming that they sympathized with the attacks themselves. There's absolutely nothing in his statement which says that, yet it seems like that's how many of you want to interpret it anyway.


Why spend so much time trying to make the statement say something it doesn't. Just read the statement. It's pretty darn clear if you aren't using a politically motivated filter. I'll point out (again) that the same statement Romney called disgraceful was later disavowed by the White House. So what are people complaining about?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#201 Sep 13 2012 at 5:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Why spend so much time trying to make the statement say something it doesn't.

In your case, I'm guessing "blind desperate defense of Romney".

The man is too cowardly to stand up to his party in regards to their platform but is the first to accuse embassy workers of "sympathy" with those mobbing the building. He's an opportunistic craven little shit of a man with no spine and I'm just glad that he's almost certain to lose this election.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 49 All times are in CDT
Elinda, Jophiel, Poldaran, Prim, Samira, Anonymous Guests (44)