Originally Posted by Minte (Post 19257199)

I think that the confusion is over the fact that for a week after the terrorist attack, which turned out to be an Al Qaeda terrorist attack,the administration only pointed at the fact that it was a spontaneous reaction to a YouTube video. If they didn't know it was al qaeda within 5 minutes after it happened the question is why didn't they? And if they did know,why the blatant smokescreen?

Originally Posted by Relentless (Post 19257311)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/couple
A couple plus a couple is always four as a result.
Never 3 and never 5.
If you add a couple and a couple but do not get four as a result...
You either didn't have two couples to start with or you added incorrectly.

Once again, you can dislike what he said, you can believe it was not forceful enough or specific enough... But on the question of what was said, an act of terror and a terrorist act are exactly the same thing. Romney tried to call him on it and the moderator correctly pointed out Romney was in fact incorrect.

What I find strange is that Republicans want the President to know all the specifics of a terrorist attack 48 hours after it happens, but they don't require Romney to know any of the specifics of his own economic plan four years after he started running for office. Our CIA and NSA will sort out what happened in Libya and kill those responsible, the same way Bin Laden was killed. However, that tax and loophole plan Romney keeps talking about will still be trillions of dollars away from magically adding up to become revenue neutral. Perhaps that might be worth a bit more focus from our electorate.

Originally Posted by Relentless (Post 19257328)

Please describe the smokescreen being used to avoid giving any specific details of Romney's economic plan until after the election.


You are bothered that the President didn't detail a terrorist act a couple (meaning two) weeks after the incident, but not bothered by Romney failing to explain his Sketchy Deal economic policy, beyond cutting NPR and planned parenthood, more than four years after he started running for office?

Originally Posted by Minte (Post 19257199)

I am not speaking for Ed Hammer,

I think that the confusion is over the fact that for a week after the terrorist attack, which turned out to be an Al Qaeda terrorist attack,the administration only pointed at the fact that it was a spontaneous reaction to a YouTube video.

If they didn't know it was al qaeda within 5 minutes after it happened the question is why didn't they? And if they did know,why the blatant smokescreen?

Originally Posted by seeric (Post 19256501)

FWIW: Romney was a disrespectful prick to the POTUS. I read many comments on Facebook from angry people about that. No matter what he is the current POTUS and that comes with a deserved respect. I don't think Romney's brazen disrespect is going to sit well with swing voters and women for sure.

Originally Posted by kane (Post 19257581)

I think, in all honesty, they had no real idea who was behind the killing or the details surrounding it those first few days. By saying it was an act of terror it kind of covers their asses because even if it turned out to be a group of people pissed about a movie they could call it a form of terrorism.

For me the question is: Would a Romney, or for that matter any other administration, have been able to get any better, quicker, more accurate intel?

I think the real dropping of the ball wasn't the way he handled things after the fact it was whatever took place that kept them from getting more security at that embassy.

Originally Posted by GrantMercury (Post 19257608)

Thank you for that. Couldn't agree more. Mitt is such a fucking entitled SOB - the rules don't apply to him - but that bullying persona is appealing to the GOP voters, who tend to want authoritarian personalities and daddy figures.

Obama 2012.

Originally Posted by bronco67 (Post 19256940)

Romney thinks its his turn to be president, and rich people usually get what they want. That is all.

Originally Posted by GrantMercury (Post 19257623)

Right. His cunty wife actually said it out loud. "It's our turn now". -- Queen Ann Romney, to Diane Sawyer



http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fzbQ_wKORB...you_people.jpg

Originally Posted by Ed Hammer (Post 19257622)

News attack hounds unleashed on Obama? They are totally bias. Worse than fox and msnbc.

Originally Posted by StickyGreen (Post 19256563)

You obviously have a lot to learn about economics. The level of the Dow Jones is not much of an indicator of how the overall economy is doing.

Like I said before, the Federal Reserve is printing a billion a day right now, completely destroying the dollar. We will soon experience hyperinflation, regardless of which one of these clowns are in office that you all like to argue back and forth about.

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon (Post 19257644)

wasn't hyperinflation already supposed to have happened? another 4 years will pass and people will still be saying the same thing most likely. most people judge the economy by what they see around them. if it take 2008-2009 and compare it to 2011-2012, for me things are wayyy better. my business is mostly selling to other businesses. in 2009-09, it was hard, there weren't many buying or spending much. now its a completely different story. i have noticed some slowdown the past couple of months but its still leaps and bounds beyond the 2008 crash period.

Originally Posted by Relentless (Post 19257665)

Minte, the 3rd debate is all foreign policy and Libya will be a big part of it I would expect. Romney would do well to question why precautions were not taken rather than trying to suggest our government disregards to lives of our diplomats intentionally or is misleading anyone after the incident.

Precautions not taken is a strong line to argue, the others make Romney seem more evil than sincerely interested and highlight his own failures to be specific about massive parts of his campaign platform.

As to sketchy vs status quo, I'd almost always take status quo. Even dire situations require well conceived solutions, not sketchy reactions. See Iraq as an example

Originally Posted by Relentless (Post 19257665)

Minte, the 3rd debate is all foreign policy and Libya will be a big part of it I would expect. Romney would do well to question why precautions were not taken rather than trying to suggest our government disregards to lives of our diplomats intentionally or is misleading anyone after the incident.

Precautions not taken is a strong line to argue, the others make Romney seem more evil than sincerely interested and highlight his own failures to be specific about massive parts of his campaign platform.

As to sketchy vs status quo, I'd almost always take status quo. Even dire situations require well conceived solutions, not sketchy reactions. See Iraq as an example

Originally Posted by Ed Hammer (Post 19257652)

To each their own. for me Things are much much worse.

Edit: 6 months ago I was looking at buying a new house with a large down payment. It's sad, But because of new government involvement this is no longer a possibility.

Originally Posted by Minte (Post 19257417)

Romney's sketchy deal. It very well is sketchy. Most of it is based on the idea that if we are able to build the economy that the additional taxes that will be generated by income and sales will move the deficit in the right direction.

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon (Post 19257746)

I don't know what the laws are there exactly but I know here in canada its hard for self employed people to get mortgages unless you have 20% down payment. Some regulation is good, in my opinion. People are generally too stupid to take responsibility and only purchase they can reasonably afford. If you just let anyone get a loan, you will end up with in part, what happened in 2008. When it effects everyone, there has to be some rules.

Originally Posted by Ed Hammer (Post 19257652)

To each their own. for me Things are much much worse.

Edit: 6 months ago I was looking at buying a new house with a large down payment. It's sad, But because of new government involvement this is no longer a possibility.

Originally Posted by clickhappy (Post 19256803)

Then show me how Romney has any track record of creating jobs?

Dont split hairs if I use the word ever and he actually hired 20 or 30 people.
I'm talking about substantial job creation. he's been in positions of power but only has a track record of finding good companies, sucking money out of them, then moving on to the next company, and putting his money offshore.

So you show me how Romney created jobs

Originally Posted by Brujah (Post 19256809)

Robbie must be right, and Romney has created millions of jobs. Maybe they were created in China!

Originally Posted by Mutt (Post 19257901)

CNN's poll following the debate had Obama winning 37% to Romney at 31% with the rest calling it a tie BUT the interesting thing was the poll also asked other questions like which candidate do you think is best to deal with the economy, which candidate shows more leadership, etc and the poll results were very different on those questions - Romney by a wide margin. Interesting, it looked to me like they were saying they like Obama better but they think Romney would make a better president.

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19257885)

Never said Romney "created millions of jobs"

I said that anybody who claims he never "created" one single job is full of it.

Now I have people on here also saying that hiring someone isn't "creating jobs".. WTF???

That is EXACTLY what it is. Hiring people.

And the statement was made that Romney never created one single job "ever".

That's just dumb. As is you trying to put words in my mouth.

Originally Posted by TheStout (Post 19257955)

A little lesson in context for ye who read and post without using your brain to process.

If you buy a painting did you CREATE it. Do you understand the meaning of create?

If you buy a company with 500 employees and fire 200 of them and hire 20 what did you really create? Net -180 working Americans. Congratu-fucking-lations.
.

Originally Posted by Jesus H Christ (Post 19257951)

I personally want Obama to win because a second term president can get a lot more done then a first term. No one remembers how hated and dismal Clinton was in his first term, but later came back to be a great president.

Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 19257792)

Romeny's plan is to "build the economy". So what your saying is that Romney doesn't have a plan, he has an idea. But the problem is no matter how many times Romeny clicks his heels or says it out loud, it's still going to be a thought, an idea, a concept and not a plan.

Romeny is going to lower our taxes? How?
Romeny is going to reduce the deficit? How?
Romeny is going to increase spending to the military? How is going to do that while reducing taxes?
Romney is going to increase jobs? How?
Romney is going to fix healthcare? How? By making passing a healthcare law like he did when he was governor? Which is pretty much what we just passed?
Romney is going to fix social security? How? By reducing the amount of money we put in it (i.e. reducing our taxes?)?

Romney doesn't have a plan. He has an idea.

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19257974)

Your painting analogy is fucking dumb.

. Romney hires plenty of people just for his campaign alone. When I hire someone I create a job. Romney had employees he hired when he was at Bain. He had employees he hired when he ran the Olympics. He had employees he hired who worked for him as Governor of Massachusetts.

I was replying to an exaggeration posted the Romney had never created a single job "ever". And I CORRECTLY pointed out that is fucking stupid.

And you are just msking up numbers with your last sentence. You have ZERO idea what Romney has or hasn't done. You simply pulled numbers out of your ass that make you feel good about voting for Obama.

How about voting for someone else other than Romney or Obama? Or are you drinking too much Obama Kool-Aid to see his failure over the last 4 years?

Originally Posted by BFT3K (Post 19257829)

Originally Posted by kane (Post 19257694)

Good point. Asking why there was a security failure and what happened that kept security from being assigned there when it was asked for is a legit and strong question and Obama will likely have a difficult time coming up with a good answer for.

Trying to make it look like Obama was off celebrating when all this was going down just makes Romney look bad and desperate and Obama slapped him down for it last night.

So far Romney has tripped over his dick on foreign policy. He better do his homework.

Originally Posted by TheStout (Post 19257986)

1. I will not be voting Obama, Romney or anyone else in the USA. I am Canadian (insert stupid joke about how Canadians do not know enough about US politics).
2. Who or what you were replying to has little to do with my post. I said hiring someone does not necessarily mean you created a job.
3. If you hire an unemployed person you create a job. If you hire someone coming from another job you didnt create much. If you buy a company to fire them and sell the pieces you didnt create much. I am curious as to what Romneys Net Job creation has been in the USA. Since neither of us will probably EVER know the answer to that please do not attempt to answer it.
4. I admitted I have no idea what Romney has done and that wasnt my point. My point is that hiring does not always equal job creation.

Thanks for trying your best to understand and still failing :)

Originally Posted by Minte (Post 19257199)

I am not speaking for Ed Hammer,

I think that the confusion is over the fact that for a week after the terrorist attack, which turned out to be an Al Qaeda terrorist attack,the administration only pointed at the fact that it was a spontaneous reaction to a YouTube video.

If they didn't know it was al qaeda within 5 minutes after it happened the question is why didn't they? And if they did know,why the blatant smokescreen?

Originally Posted by Minte (Post 19257720)

No question that Romney needs a better handler when it comes to debating foreign policy. Even though I thought the way it came down last night on that subject was at best, a lawyer like dodge.

Originally Posted by onwebcam (Post 19258014)

The reason for the delay in calling it a "terrorist attack" is because they needed to make up a story. The Navy seal who got killed was over there trying to round up the weapons we supplied to the "terrorists" AKA "the rebels" AKA "Al Qaeda" AKA "the database" to overthrow Gaddafi so they couldn't be used against us. As usual our two-faced policies bit us in the ass and they rioted as a result. The Admin admittedly was warned of the pending riots AKA "terrorist attacks" and did nothing. The documentary story was just a smoke screen for the American public as usual.

Originally Posted by Relentless (Post 19258046)

The dodge maybe... the fact that Romney was seen as insulting the President and falsely accusing him of disregarding lives of our diplomats was a much louder tone. No President has ever wanted any diplomat to die or disregarded the safety of our diplomats - with the possible exception of the Valerie Plame incident Scooter Libby took the fall for... I don't think you or anyone else, especially Romney, should question whether Obama wants our diplomats alive and well... or is troubled by the death of one of them.

There is also a very strong notion that whether you like or dislike him, agree or disagree with him, Obama remains President of the United States at this time. You can be angry and contrary without being disrespectful. Romney stepped over that line too much in the debate and it will hurt his chances more than it helps him. 'Mr. President, the American people deserve to know why our diplomat was denied enhanced security measures as a precaution" in the most respectful tone will do much more damage to Obama than shouting at him and trying to be snarky while Romney makes himself look anything but Presidential in the process. Clinton shredded the entire GOP while complimenting W and thanking his supporters. Romney lacks the velvet glove when he swings the hammer and it hurts him in debates the exact same way it hurts him in foreign policy.



My honest answer to this is, I was ready to vote for someone other than Obama. I would have voted Republican this time around, and have done so in the past, IF they chose to run a candidate who was not dangerous. Bloomberg, Christy, maybe even Rubio... like them or dislike them, they have some ideas and they aren't dangerous. I could see myself voting for them over Obama to get beyond the status quo. Not with the same optimism I'd have for voting Bill Clinton back into office... but President Bloomberg doesn't make me wonder what crazy war or awful policy mess we would get into.

I view Romney as dangerous. Not incompetent, not stupid... dangerous. Seeing what he did while at Bain, watching him avoid any specifics to his policy plan, listening to him sabre rattling already with Iran, Syria, China, Palestine.... I believe a Romney term could well bring us back to many of the things W did that none of us are proud of - surging deficits, wars, dangerous deregulation, straining relations with our trading partners and inflaming diplomatic conflicts into expensive life consuming wars....

Run someone who isn't dangerous. No Bachmans, Romneys, Huckabees, Santorums... a real honest fiscal conservative in the mold of Bob Dole or with a more liberal view on social issues like Bloomberg and I will vote them in over the status quo gladly. On the flip side, the Dems need to pull the plug on their own idiots like Al Sharpton and Nancy Pelosi... Harry Reid's false claims about tax fraud by Romney were despicable.

I do not see Obama as dangerous, and I do think his next term will be better than his first term. Romney has the potential to be better than Obama, but the risk of who he will likely be, coupled with the complete lack of evidence provided by him about his own platform, makes the status quo an easy choice this time around. :2 cents:

Originally Posted by Minte (Post 19258068)

I believe that if he does get elected he will be more able to break the gridlock that currently exists.

Originally Posted by Minte (Post 19257984)

Those are your words.. I am not saying he doesn't have a plan. He has told us with some detail in both debates and in numerous interviews where he plans to start the process moving in the correct direction.

Now,as long as we are on the subject of plans/ideas/concepts...I listened carefully to both debates. And I continue to read from a lot of different sources and all I hear from the Obama camp is to stay the course..that he will get it done.

And if this is his course, it's time for a change. He's had his shot. Things are not better after 4 years. Romney pointed out in detail last night the short list of Obama failures.

Originally Posted by flashfire (Post 19258124)

Romey keeps stating the same things with no facts to back it up

Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 19258128)

T
Keep in mind this wasn't a situation where you walk in with a blank slate and just fix things. There's not a switch that fixes everything, and the thing we need the most the one thing we don't have - time. I've said this before and I'll say it again - This isn't a four or eight year problem; It's a ten year problem. It will continue to linger way past that because the over all society has changed and our financial habits have changed.

Things aren't better? Half of the of the twenty houses on my street were vacant shortly after Obama took office; I did a thread about it on GFY. Now EVERY house is occupied. Every one of them. Forclousures are dropping and new housing is up - It was on the news this morning: http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-...t-in-september

Romeny sat up there and said "Gas is higher now than when Obama took office". And it's true - But gas was at it's highest point when Bush was in office.

Romney is telling us he can fix everything and all he's telling us is "I'll build up the economy". That's not a plan. It's not even really an idea. It's more of a thought. He's been running now for four years and he cannot tell us how he's going to fix this.

Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 19258128)

Things are better.

Keep in mind this wasn't a situation where you walk in with a blank slate and just fix things. There's not a switch that fixes everything, and the thing we need the most the one thing we don't have - time. I've said this before and I'll say it again - This isn't a four or eight year problem; It's a ten year problem. It will continue to linger way past that because the over all society has changed and our financial habits have changed.

Things aren't better? Half of the of the twenty houses on my street were vacant shortly after Obama took office; I did a thread about it on GFY. Now EVERY house is occupied. Every one of them. Forclousures are dropping and new housing is up - It was on the news this morning: http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-...t-in-september

Romeny sat up there and said "Gas is higher now than when Obama took office". And it's true - But gas was at it's highest point when Bush was in office.

Romney is telling us he can fix everything and all he's telling us is "I'll build up the economy". That's not a plan. It's not even really an idea. It's more of a thought. He's been running now for four years and he cannot tell us how he's going to fix this.

Originally Posted by Relentless (Post 19258164)

Anyone who thinks gas prices are high because oil pumping is low does not understand how gas prices are set... You could quadruple oil production today and still have gas prices at the pump go up.