View Full Version : Second Presidential Debate, 16 October 2012
Just wanted to start this thread since President Obama just said during the debate that he was going to look at reinstating an assault weapons ban...
Better get them while they're legal...
This thread is intended for a discussion about everything having to do with the debate.
ETA: Not really happy with the format because it seems like one person or the other gets left hanging because they each have two minutes and then there is a two minute discussion time that is being monopolized by whoever gets to speak first, which doesn't allow for a rebuttal
Red Flag 1
10-16-2012, 20:36
Obama did flair a bit over the topic of Embassy security. He never did answer the question asked about requests for increased security in Libya. I think Mitt missed that chance when he went after obama's address the next day.
RF 1
Oldrotorhead
10-16-2012, 20:38
Already ordered, LaRue NEEDS to start working OT. He can talk about a ban but I don't believe Congress will make it law. I didn't really like Romney's answer that he compromised in MA to ban "assault weapons" either.
" WHEN MY Grandfather fought in WWII."..........and my other Grandfather fought for the Mau Mau. Using Grandfathers is non-issue either way. Every male member of my family that was of age in WWII served. Neither Romney or Obama served in the military and that is more pertinent to me.
Skelepede
10-16-2012, 20:53
So by my approximation President Obama wants to supply weapons to cartels, but ban weapons for college students. I find it very strange he used the Colorado shooting as the impetus to pushing through another assault weapons ban.
If he is reelected he is not going to need congress he will have the almighty executive order. I was one of many who purchased additional firearms and ammunition after the 08 election I admit it was reactionary but I have begun to fear my government which is something I never did before the annointed one was elected. Obama will be a lot scarier if he is retained. His performance tonight certainly did not improve his standing with me, and how anyone could be undecided at this point is beyond me.
I have to say the fact that the president even mentioned a "assault" weapons ban was huge. I think that could be a election changer in itself. The cats out of the bag on that one. At least he was finally honest about something.
However, I do agree that Romney was very careful to not really go one way or the other on his opinion. I do not trust him fully on the gun control issue either, but I would much rather have him as my president than any more Obama at all. If I have to trade a scare on Gun Control with Romney over Obama, well its Romney all the way for me at this point.
Further Gun Control issues and that nonsense are important to me, but my country is currently more important to me as a whole on the much bigger issues.
frostfire
10-16-2012, 21:02
Already ordered, LaRue NEEDS to start working OT.
:D I've been a walking advertisement for LaRue products for over a year here, so I will take partial blame for the increased wait time. PredatOBR I presume?
Obama sure has an amazing rhetorical skill...fully covering the entire pathos-ethos-logos spectrum. I'm not surprised at all that anyone not paying close attention to the "changes" these past for years would fall for it.
Just saw facebook posting by HS student I used to mentor and now she's voting for the first time. Needless to say, her choice reflects the presidential popularity contest 4 years ago. I am dissapointed :(...but at least she watched the entire debate, exercises her right, and not a bystander
I don’t see Gov Romney’s coming off as well as the first debate. He did go..BUT.
I would have liked to hear him say something along the lines of. I have a record that I can run on, four years ago you voted on someone that had no record. I ask you to go back and look at the last four years and ask yourself if you voted correctly.
POTUS came off looking ten times better, but Hell who wouldn’t after hanging your head down for 73 mins out of 90mins?? All of us would.
Let the Spin rooms and MSM run a mess for the next week.
Romney is still a really impressive debater. It's a fight this time, at least Obama came out to debate.
ETA: Not really happy with the format because it seems like one person or the other gets left hanging because they each have two minutes and then there is a two minute discussion time that is being monopolized by whoever gets to speak first, which doesn't allow for a rebuttalAgreed. The format was a baited trap for both candidates to complain about unequal time. Unfortunately, Govern Romney navigated the trap less skillfully than the president--he gave the impression of not knowing the rules of the game.[The president] did flare a bit over the topic of Embassy security. He never did answer the question asked about requests for increased security in Libya. I think Mitt missed that chance when he went after [the president's] address the next day.
RF 1Agreed. I also think Romney got very flustered when Ms. Crowley agreed with the president that he had called the incident an act of terror.
My thought is that Romney either did not read the speech for himself or simply misremembered.
blue02hd
10-16-2012, 21:18
Agreed. The format was a baited trap for both candidates to complain about unequal time. Unfortunately, Govern Romney navigated the trap less skillfully than the president--he gave the impression of not knowing the rules of the game.Agreed. I also think Romney got very flustered when Ms. Crowley agreed with the president that he had called the incident an act of terror.
My thought is that Romney either did not read the speech for himself or simply misremembered.
Easy mistake to make, especially after the UN speech. IMO, Obama is trying to have it both ways,,,
Easy mistake to make, especially after the UN speech. IMO, Obama is trying to have it both ways,,,Absolutely agree.
IMO, Governor Romney's campaign has mishandled the attacks from the jump and he did himself no favors tonight.
Oldrotorhead
10-16-2012, 21:27
"I've been a walking advertisement for LaRue products for over a year here, so I will take partial blame for the increased wait time. PredatOBR I presume?"
No got that in 7.64 tAR, waiting in a 5.56 OBR. If I was really worried I'd be at Walmart for a Colt tomorrow.:) Romney didn't give a warm and fuzzy feeling on this topic either.
They had a timer? They didn't use it. Both candidates should have been given a 10 or 15 second warning and then the mike should have been shut off.
They had a timer? They didn't use it. Both candidates should have been given a 10 or 15 second warning and then the mike should have been shut off.FWIW, there were timers in the sight lines of both candidates that did give warnings as time wound down. And as both campaigns agreed to the format, it might be unrealistic to think either candidate would be put in a situation where his mic would be cut off.
Oldrotorhead
10-16-2012, 21:53
FWIW, there were timers in the sight lines of both candidates that did give warnings as time wound down. And as both campaigns agreed to the format, it might be unrealistic to think either candidate would be put in a situation where his mic would be cut off.
OK, they had timers and ignored them with no consequences after they both agreed to the format. I still think after the mike was shut off once or twice they both would have timed their statements much better. If they can't keep this simple agreement what are their promises worth to us peasants?
FWIW, there were timers in the sight lines of both candidates that did give warnings as time wound down. And as both campaigns agreed to the format, it might be unrealistic to think either candidate would be put in a situation where his mic would be cut off.
I think Fox ended up with unofficial times of: Obama/43:57 and Romney/40:58
I agree that cutting off microphones would have led to "Mic-gate"...
I was unhappy that the moderator took it upon herself to interject herself into the debate during the Libya discussion...it is not a moderator's job to open his/her pie hole in defense of either debate participant...
For example: if either candidate wanted to stand up there during the debate and argue that he would have unicorns on every street corner in America blowing rainbow farts at passing traffic to improve air quality, it would not be the moderator's job to say, "There are no such thing as unicorns!". It would be within his/her purview to ask follow-up questions...like "How would you pay for all the unicorns?" or "What do rainbows smell like?...
ironyoshi
10-16-2012, 22:02
I have no idea why submitting a reply to this thread resulted in a new one, but the point still stands.
My thought is that Romney either did not read the speech for himself or simply misremembered.
That's because the President didn't call the Benghazi attacks an act of terror.
link (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/09/30/no-obama-didnt-call-benghazi-act-of-terror-in-speech/)
If Obama wanted to call the Benghazi assault a terrorist attack in that speech, he had plenty of opportunities to do so. Instead, he described it as a “terrible act,” a “brutal” act, “senseless violence,” and called the attackers “killers,” not terrorists. It’s also important to consider the context. For a week after this speech, the White House would not call it a terrorist attack. The official position was that Libya was a spontaneous response to an anti-Islam film, not a premeditated or preplanned act.
The narrative was a "spontaneous protest" for weeks.
I feel Romney utterly loss on this tax credit question. Five points..one points..how many points.. Mitt didn't shine here..IMNSHO
I think Fox ended up with unofficial times of: Obama/43:57 and Romney/40:58
Fox has President Obama at 62% and GOV Romney at 39% on their web site poll. Viewer poll??!!!??
For example: if either candidate wanted to stand up there during the debate and argue that he would have unicorns on every street corner in America blowing rainbow farts at passing traffic to improve air quality, it would not be the moderator's job to say, "There are no such thing as unicorns!". It would be within his/her purview to ask follow-up questions...like "How would you pay for all the unicorns?" or "What do rainbows smell like?...
I can just see it now - we will have a taxpayer funded unicorn fart study added to decade long mosquito porn study.
I have no idea why submitting a reply to this thread resulted in a new one, but the point still stands.As does a point previously made. That it is up to each reader to decide for him/herself what the president meant when he said "terror." While some think it did not refer to the previous day's attacks, others do.
The proof does not lie in a magazine article but in the unreleased contemporaneous records, transcripts/recordings of conversations, memos, journal/diary entries, and email/correspondence kept by people within the president's administration.
Barring conclusive evidence, and its ongoing mishandling of this crisis, I think the Romney campaign would be well served to rethink the way it discusses the attacks.
I can just see it now - we will have a taxpayer funded unicorn fart study added to decade long mosquito porn study.
I believe that the Pest and Parasite Pornography Act of 1969 and the Mythical and Magical Creature Flatulence Act of 2000 provided for millions of dollars in grants for studies of these pressing national strategic issues...
medic&commo
10-16-2012, 22:29
The debate went well considering the format.
This probably won't be a game changer for most, but for those that really listened and thought about the current state of the union it should've been.
Several topics were brought up, seldom mentioned in the MSM.
(Fast & Furious, Terrorism in Libya).
Romney made constant references back to the economy and jobs and how they could be improved. It would be great IF he were able to keep his word.
I know, an oxymoron - an honest politician but it's my 'Hope & Change' for 2012.
Obama made repeated references to what he inherited.
With the majority in Congress, Obama wasn't able to affect anything into law, except his agenda.
That tells me these things (fixing the economy, truly increasing jobs) weren't really important to him.
My litmus test is gun control, Obama failed miserably, not sure about Romney.
Yet another election where I vote for the lesser of two evils & where, wanting to be an optimist, I vote thinking they mean what they say - until proven otherwise.
m&c
Yet another election where I vote for the lesser of two evils & where, wanting to be an optimist, I vote thinking they mean what they say - until proven otherwise.
m&cWhy settle for the lesser of two evils?
Short Round watched the whole thing - like she did on the first one.
For 12 years old talk about a political junky.
I asked her who won just as it was ending. She said Romney. I think the way the Libya stuff was handled really bugged her.
Short Round watched the whole thing - like she did on the first one.
For 12 years old talk about a political junky.
I asked her who won just as it was ending. She said Romney. I think the way the Libya stuff was handled really bugged her.
Smart young lady...it's good that she has her BS meter calibrated so well, so early in life. She will undoubtedly run circles around her future boyfriends...
ironyoshi
10-17-2012, 06:07
As does a point previously made. That it is up to each reader to decide for him/herself what the president meant when he said "terror." While some think it did not refer to the previous day's attacks, others do.
A spontaneous riot instigated by an online video =/= a terrorist attack.
It simply does not. The American public knows terrorist attacks as 9-11, the Spanish train bombings, the London bus bombings, and Middle Eastern car bombs. A terrorist attack is premeditated and specifically designed to inflict maximum damage.
Obama labeled Benghazi the same way he did Cairo. We know Cairo was a protest. A terrorist attack, it was not. Only when other people did some digging did we find out the attackers in Benghazi were armed with RPGs and mortars, as well as the location of the safe house. We found that one of the four Americans that was killed knew the Lybian security guards were in on it before he died.
There is no room for equivocation here. Obama refused to call a spade a spade.
Barring conclusive evidence, and its ongoing mishandling of this crisis, I think the Romney campaign would be well served to rethink the way it discusses the attacks.
It absolutely would not. This is pedantic and misses the thrust of the essential failure of the Obama administration in the wake of Benghazi - to tell the truth.
EDIT:
Candy Crowley actually realizes she made a mistake in "fact-checking" Romney:
link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=athcyCTnTTs)
A spontaneous riot instigated by an online video =/= a terrorist attack.
It simply does not. The American public knows terrorist attacks as 9-11, the Spanish train bombings, the London bus bombings, and Middle Eastern car bombs. A terrorist attack is premeditated and specifically designed to inflict maximum damage.
Obama labeled Benghazi the same way he did Cairo. We know Cairo was a protest. A terrorist attack, it was not. Only when other people did some digging did we find out the attackers in Benghazi were armed with RPGs and mortars, as well as the location of the safe house. We found that one of the four Americans that was killed knew the Lybian security guards were in on it before he died.
There is no room for equivocation here. Obama refused to call a spade a spade.
It absolutely would not. This is pedantic and misses the thrust of the essential failure of the Obama administration in the wake of Benghazi - to tell the truth.
EDIT:
Candy Crowley actually realizes she made a mistake in "fact-checking" Romney:
link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=athcyCTnTTs)Thank you for not reading what I posted about this event on this BB.
Thank you for not paying attention for the way some of the American people are interpreting the president's remarks in the Rose Garden.
Thank you for telling me what the American people know about terrorism. Thank you for redefining terrorism.
When you're finished telling the American people how they must interpret an event (the attacks in Libya) and an unfolding event (the administration's handling of the attacks in Libya) maybe you can help clear up the causes of the Second Anglo-American War.
ironyoshi
10-17-2012, 10:32
Thank you for not reading what I posted about this event on this BB.
Thank you for not paying attention for the way some of the American people are interpreting the president's remarks in the Rose Garden.
Thank you for telling me what the American people know about terrorism. Thank you for redefining terrorism.
When you're finished telling the American people how they must interpret an event (the attacks in Libya) and an unfolding event (the administration's handling of the attacks in Libya) maybe you can help clear up the causes of the Second Anglo-American War.
You will be forgiving if I don't look at a separate thread immediately. I didn't expect you to see or respond to the mistaken thread of mine.
If I substitute "the American people" (do they have anything in common with the "some" that occasionally "say" things in phoned-in newspaper articles?) with one "Sigaba" your post begins to make a lot more sense.
By the way, since you didn't address Candy Crowley's admission of wrongdoing, here's another link of her contradicting herself. This time on September 30th instead of October 16th. (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1209/30/sotu.01.html) I guess Candy is no longer a member of the American people, is she?
CROWLEY: I am joined by Obama campaign senior adviser David Axelrod. I want to pick up on what John McCain and I were talking about. There's a back and forth now about why didn't this administration -- why did it take them until Friday after a September 11th attack in Libya to come to the conclusion that it was premeditated and that there was terrorists involved. John McCain said it doesn't pass the smell test, or it's willful ignorance to think that they didn't know before this what was going on. Your reaction?
AXELROD: Well, first of all, Candy, as you know, the president called it an act of terror the day after it happened. But when you're the responsible party, when you're the administration, then you have a responsibility to act on what you know and what the intelligence community believes. This was -- this is being thoroughly investigated.
CROWLEY: But first it was, like, not planned.
AXELROD: We need to bring to justice--
CROWLEY: First, they said it was not planned, it was part of this tape. All that stuff.
AXELROD: As the director of national intelligence said on Friday, that was the original information that that was given to us. What we don't need is a president or an administration that shoots first and asks questions later.
CROWLEY: But isn't that what happened?
AXELROD: And, you know, Governor Romney leaped out on this Libya issue on the first day, and was terribly mistaken about what he said. That is not what you want in a president of the United States. And as for Senator McCain, for whom I have great respect, he has disapproved of our approach to Libya from the beginning, including the strategy that brought Gadhafi to justice.
CROWLEY: But this has to do not with the approach to Libya but with the murder of four Americans in Libya. And didn't the administration shoot first? Didn't they come out and say, listen, as far as we can tell, this wasn't preplanned, this was just a part of --
(CROSSTALK)
ZonieDiver
10-17-2012, 10:57
EDIT:
Candy Crowley actually realizes she made a mistake in "fact-checking" Romney:
link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=athcyCTnTTs)
Okay, I've now wasted several minutes of my very action-packed day reviewing your link of Ms. Crowley's blurb. I had enough of her to last a lifetime watching the 'debate' last night. (At least I got paid to do it!)
I do NOT see how you can characterize what she says in your linked blurb as she "realizes she made a mistake". She criticized his choice of words (as I did in a post in another thread: http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=470865&postcount=4).
Please expand on how you see her comments as admitting a mistake. Quite honestly, I think she was exactly correct. She did follow-up, as she mentions in your linked blurb, by saying Romney was correct in that they played the "demonstration-riot-gone bad" card for two weeks.
So... what's your point here?
Ironyoshi, give it up. You haven't realized , yet, who you're arguing with. Even if you're right, you can't win. ;)
ZonieDiver
10-17-2012, 11:12
In the end, I think Candy Crowley did the Romney campaign a big favor by doing what she did. This brought this section of the 'debate' front and center to be bandied about by the Talking Heads for days...maybe a week or more.'
In the end, this event (Benghazi) is going to bite the administration in the ass. This gives people a reason to HAVE TO talk about it, instead of letting it slide away while we wait for the 'thorough investigation'.
ironyoshi
10-17-2012, 11:16
Okay, I've now wasted several minutes of my very action-packed day reviewing your link of Ms. Crowley's blurb. I had enough of her to last a lifetime watching the 'debate' last night. (At least I got paid to do it!)
I do NOT see how you can characterize what she says in your linked blurb as she "realizes she made a mistake". She criticized his choice of words (as I did in a post in another thread: http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=470865&postcount=4).
Please expand on how you see her comments as admitting a mistake. Quite honestly, I think she was exactly correct. She did follow-up, as she mentions in your linked blurb, by saying Romney was correct in that they played the "demonstration-riot-gone bad" card for two weeks.
So... what's your point here?
On further reflection you are right in that she does not admit she "made a mistake." I forgot she did have something to say afterward, which was largely washed out in the confusion. But here are her exact words as to the "follow-up":
"It did...it did, as well, take two weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out"
Excuse me? That seems to mean that the idea about the Benghazi "protest" originated two weeks after.
Here are her words from the linked video:
"I did, actually, because right after that I did turn around and say 'but you are totally correct, that they spent two weeks telling us this was about a tape, and that there was this riot outside the Benghazi consulate, which there wasn't"
So apparently Ms. Crowley is under the impression she actually said something which she did not. She is also unaware that she accused the Obama administration of hiding the fact that there were terrorists involved, as well, which is exactly contradictory to her famous interjection. She is a little out of it.
But you are correct, I did not realize the tangle of nuances in the totality of her blurb. (Not that pretty much anyone else did.)
ironyoshi
10-17-2012, 11:20
Ironyoshi, give it up. You haven't realized , yet, who you're arguing with. Even if you're right, you can't win. ;)
:(
Hope springs eternal... on the internet.
ZonieDiver
10-17-2012, 11:20
You got this,
Excuse me? That seems to mean that the idea about the Benghazi "protest" originated two weeks after.
From this?
"It did...it did, as well, take two weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out"
To quote the immortal Arte Johnson, "Verrrrrrry interesting."
ironyoshi
10-17-2012, 11:27
You got this,
From this?
To quote the immortal Arte Johnson, "Verrrrrrry interesting."
That's a common connotation of "come out." As in, "the new iPhone took a couple years to come out."
The other connotation I can think of is "come out" as in "that stain finally came out of the shirt" but it's clear the first is more applicable here.
I don't suppose anyone could explain how President Obama, according to Candy, simultaneously labeled Benghazi an act of terror and denied that any terrorists were involved.
ZonieDiver
10-17-2012, 12:14
That's a common connotation of "come out." As in, "the new iPhone took a couple years to come out."
I can think of another common connotation of "come out" that you failed to mention.
However, I think you are realllllllllllllllllly grasping at straws here. Did you work for Bill Clinton to help him parse "is"?
You will be forgiving if I don't look at a separate thread immediately. I didn't expect you to see or respond to the mistaken thread of mine. MOO, your issue is that you're not using the search button nor reading any of the hundreds of previous conversations on this BB about the current president that date back to his days as a junior senator from Illinois.
Had you done any background reading, you might have noticed that a point I've been developing since c. 2008 is that the president, while not especially intelligent, is adept at baiting his opposition and then counter punching effectively. Last night, Governor Romney experienced this dynamic first hand by making the decision to focus specifically on what the president said in the Rose Garden rather than making a general point about the administration's inconsistent response to the attack. (IMO, it is telling that you've made the decision to keep rephrasing what Crowley said rather than focusing on what the president said in the Rose Garden, and understand how the phrasing of his remarks emboldened him to invite Governor Romney to continue with his point.)
Moreover, had you done any background research into previous debates between presidential and vice presidential candidates--topics also discussed on this BB once or twice--you might have known that participants have sought to land knock out blows with mixed outcomes. That is, sometimes folks go after big game only to have their prey turn on them and gouge them (e.g. Bentsen telling Quayle in 1988, "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy).
As for your attempts at snark, I think you should reconsider that approach, or, at least, do a much better job at reading what is posted.
The point that I've made--and the point you choose to miss so you can keep on doing what ever it is you're attempting to do--is that the Romney campaign continues to mishandle the attack in Libya as an example of the current president's mismanagement of national security affairs.
As for your attempt to define "some people," I wonder if, in your random sampling of data points to support your dubious contention that you were right all along, you've managed to cull any information from Twitter or other social media websites to find discussions among people who don't agree that you were right all along?
In the end, I think Candy Crowley did the Romney campaign a big favor by doing what she did. This brought this section of the 'debate' front and center to be bandied about by the Talking Heads for days...maybe a week or more.'
In the end, this event (Benghazi) is going to bite the administration in the ass. This gives people a reason to HAVE TO talk about it, instead of letting it slide away while we wait for the 'thorough investigation'.
Zonie... I have to agree.. it is front and center.. she did good in the long run for Mitt.
ironyoshi
10-17-2012, 12:52
I can think of another common connotation of "come out" that you failed to mention.
However, I think you are realllllllllllllllllly grasping at straws here. Did you work for Bill Clinton to help him parse "is"?
That is the most common connotation. If you twist it into the other one then it can work as intended, I suppose, but it will remain awkward as all hell. What a mess of a moderator.
Had you done any background reading, you might have noticed that a point I've been developing since c. 2008 is that the president, while not especially intelligent, is adept at baiting his opposition and then counter punching effectively.
Sigaba, I do not have the time or inclination to read four years' worth of your musings. There are other sources of news much more suited to the political junkie.
Last night, Governor Romney experienced this dynamic first hand by making the decision to focus specifically on what the president said in the Rose Garden rather than making a general point about the administration's inconsistent response to the attack. (IMO, it is telling that you've made the decision to keep rephrasing what Crowley said rather than focusing on what the president said in the Rose Garden, and understand how the phrasing of his remarks emboldened him to invite Governor Romney to continue with his point.)
The implication here that the phrasing of the Rose Garden remarks was some kind of elaborate counterpunching trap is not at all plausible. If so, Obama should have figured out how to spring the trap before he was trounced in the most one-sided televised debate since Kennedy-Nixon.
What this President fails to grasp by design he occasionally stumbles into through serendipity.
Moreover, had you done any background research into previous debates between presidential and vice presidential candidates--topics also discussed on this BB once or twice--you might have known that participants have sought to land knock out blows with mixed outcomes. That is, sometimes folks go after big game only to have their prey turn on them and gouge them (e.g. Bentsen telling Quayle in 1988, "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy).
This is as old as the hills, and more importantly, irrelevant. Mostly because Candy Crowley was the one who "gouged" anyone in this case. Candy Crowley is not a Presidential candidate.
The issue I have with what I see as pedantic concern for the Romney campaign is that it seems fairly clear you cannot both
a) claim the Benghazi debacle as a terrorist attack
b) claim the Benghazi debacle was a spontaneous, populist uprising due to a poorly made internet video
The two are not the same, and the Candy Crowley of September 30th and the Candy Crowley of October 16th have unwittingly made that distinction clear.
Ironyoshi, give it up. You haven't realized , yet, who you're arguing with. Even if you're right, you can't win. ;)
Yep; kinda like arguing with a box of rocks. At least you can use a box of rocks, throw them, prop open doors, yard art...:rolleyes:
PedOncoDoc
10-17-2012, 15:32
Yep; kinda like arguing with a box of rocks. At least you can use a box of rocks, throw them, prop open doors, yard art...:rolleyes:
Have you tried using any of the involved parties as a door prop and/or yard art? They may be surprising effective. I'll leave the ability to throw them well enough alone. :D
ZonieDiver
10-17-2012, 15:52
Sigaba said:
MOO, your issue is that you're not using the search button nor reading any of the hundreds of previous conversations on this BB about the current president that date back to his days as a junior senator from Illinois.
Ironyoshi replied:
Sigaba, I do not have the time or inclination to read four years' worth of your musings. There are other sources of news much more suited to the political junkie.
Now you've done it! Pissed me off! You read past things, or read what you want to read into them.
First things first - Sigaba didn't suggest that you should review "four year's worth of <his> musings" at all. He suggested that you familiarize yourself with previous conversations within this BB on this and related topics. This is something that new persons are advised to do upon joining, I do believe.
I personally don't give a shit how much of a "political junkie" you are, or think you are. You're not in your living room, on a street corner, or at the student union sipping coffee with fellow students. You're in the home of Quiet Professionals. We DO research. We DO delve into conversations - past and present - to get an idea about the people with whom we are conversing.
There may very well be "other places" which are "more suited" to the so-called "political junkie. Quite frankly, if you are not going to deem OUR HOUSE as a place that is "more suited" for your apparently abundant research, which you never seem to reference in your posts with a link or quote, then I'd suggest you refrain from engaging in OUR discussions.
Have you tried using any of the involved parties as a door prop and/or yard art? They may be surprising effective. I'll leave the ability to throw them well enough alone. :D
Doc we use O6s as door stop here (at least that is what a really squared away COL told me :D) and as I am in the South, I prefer cars on cinder blocks as yard art and use the rocks to write obscenities...:cool:
I prefer cars on cinder blocks as yard art and use the rocks to write obscenities...:cool:
This is the Quote of the day!!! Priceless!!! :D
Badger52
10-18-2012, 10:12
Just wanted to start this thread since President Obama just said during the debate that he was going to look at reinstating an assault weapons ban...
Better get them while they're legal...
Thought BKKMAN's opening comment was worth a look at the transcript, since both threads seem to have beaten up the Crowley-Libya horse pretty good.
For people who tend to vote based on a single parochial issue (probably alot) I wonder if this will make them stay home. "NRA-endorsed" to the critical thinker ain't what it used to be in my view. This exchange did not come off well for Gov. Romney (politically a missed opportunity perhaps in "the game" although it is revealing of his stripes), and Obama got to invoke the "it's for the children" mantra first. Romney's treatment of this is gonna have some folks putting "Won't Get Fooled Again" on the turntable. Gov. Romney attempted to tie-in the Fast & Furious debacle but it would seem that a candidate segue from guns to schools is OK, but guns to a gun-related scandal is not....
:rolleyes:
CROWLEY: Because what I -- what I want to do, Mr. President, stand there a second, because I want to introduce you to Nina Gonzalez, who brought up a question that we hear a lot, both over the Internet and from this crowd.
QUESTION: President Obama, during the Democratic National Convention in 2008, you stated you wanted to keep AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. What has your administration done or planned to do to limit the availability of assault weapons?
OBAMA: We're a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and I believe in the Second Amendment. We've got a long tradition of hunting and sportsmen and people who want to make sure they can protect themselves.
But there have been too many instances during the course of my presidency, where I've had to comfort families who have lost somebody. Most recently out in Aurora. You know, just a couple of weeks ago, actually, probably about a month, I saw a mother, who I had met at the bedside of her son, who had been shot in that theater.
And her son had been shot through the head. And we spent some time, and we said a prayer and, remarkably, about two months later, this young man and his mom showed up, and he looked unbelievable, good as new.
But there were a lot of families who didn't have that good fortune and whose sons or daughters or husbands didn't survive.
So my belief is that, (A), we have to enforce the laws we've already got, make sure that we're keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill. We've done a much better job in terms of background checks, but we've got more to do when it comes to enforcement.
But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don't belong on our streets. And so what I'm trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there's an awful lot of violence and they're not using AK-47s. They're using cheap hand guns.
And so what can we do to intervene, to make sure that young people have opportunity; that our schools are working; that if there's violence on the streets, that working with faith groups and law enforcement, we can catch it before it gets out of control.
And so what I want is a -- is a comprehensive strategy. Part of it is seeing if we can get automatic weapons that kill folks in amazing numbers out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. But part of it is also going deeper and seeing if we can get into these communities and making sure we catch violent impulses before they occur.
CROWLEY: Governor Romney, the question is about assault weapons, AK-47s.
ROMNEY: Yeah, I'm not in favor of new pieces of legislation on -- on guns and taking guns away or making certain guns illegal. We of course don't want to have automatic weapons, and that's already illegal in this country to have automatic weapons. What I believe is we have to do as the president mentioned towards the end of his remarks there, which is to make enormous efforts to enforce the gun laws that we have and to change the culture of violence we have. And you ask how are we going to do that? And there are a number of things.
He mentioned good schools. I totally agree. We were able to drive our schools to be number one in the nation in my state, and I believe if we do a better job in education, we'll, we'll give people the hope and opportunity they deserve, and perhaps less violence from that.
But let me mention another thing, and that is parents. We need moms and dads helping raise kids. Wherever possible, the - the benefit of having two parents in the home, and that's not always possible. A lot of great single moms, single dads. But gosh, to tell our kids that before they have babies, they ought to think about getting married to someone - that's a great idea because if there's a two-parent family, the prospect of living in poverty goes down dramatically. The opportunities that the child will, will be able to achieve increase dramatically.
So we can make changes in the way our culture works to help bring people away from violence and give them opportunity and bring them in the American system.
The, one of the greatest failure we've had with regards to gun violence, in some respects, is what is known as Fast and Furious, which was a program under this administration - and how it worked exactly, I think we don't know precisely - but where thousands of automatic and AK-47-type weapons were, were given to people that ultimately gave them to drug lords. They used those weapons against - against their own citizens and killed Americans with them.
And this was a, this was a program of the government. For what purpose it was put in place, I can't imagine. But it's one of the great tragedies related to violence in our society which has occurred during this administration which I think the American people would like to understand fully. It's been investigated to a degree, but the administration has, has carried out executive privilege to prevent all the information from coming out. I'd like to understand who it was that did this, what the idea was behind it, why it led to the violence - thousands of guns going to Mexican drug lords.
OBAMA: Candy.
CROWLEY: Governor, Governor, if I could, the question was about these assault weapons that once were banned and are no longer banned. I know that you signed an assault weapons ban when you were in Massachusetts. Obviously with this question, you no longer do support that. Why is that? Given the kind of violence that we see sometimes with these mass killings, why is it that you've changed your mind?
ROMNEY: Well, Candy, actually, in my state, the pro-gun folks and the anti-gun folks came together and put together a piece of legislation, and it's referred to as a, as an assault weapon ban, but it had at the signing of the bill both the pro-gun and the anti- gun people came together, because it provided opportunities for both that both wanted. There were hunting opportunities, for instance, that hadn't previously been available and so forth, so it was a mutually agreed upon piece of legislation.
That's what we need more of, Candy. What we have right now in Washington is a place that's, that's gridlocked. We haven't had -
CROWLEY: So if I could, if you could get people to agree to it, you'd be for it.
ROMNEY: We haven't had - we haven't had - we haven't had the leadership in Washington to work on a bipartisan basis. I was able to do that in my state and bring these two together.
OBAMA: Candy.
CROWLEY: Quickly, Mr. President.
OBAMA: The - first of all, I think Governor Romney was for an assault weapons ban before he was against it. And he said that the reason he changed his mind was in part because he was seeking the endorsement of the National Rifle Association.
Bordercop
10-18-2012, 13:29
The link: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/10/romney_trapped_obama_in_the_second_debate.html
Romney trapped Obama in the Second Debate
Sally Zelikovsky
Many in the punditry need to re-visit the section of the debate last night between Romney and Obama addressing the Libya question. Too many are saying Romney flubbed it, his answer was flustered and a lost opportunity to strike back. This was not my first impression watching the debate so I went back and watched it again. After reviewing the footage I think many in the punditry missed what really happened.
Obama finished his 2+ minute answer to the initial question with "You know that I mean what I say."
Romney then gave his 2+ minute response starting out saying many days passed before we knew if the Benghazi tragedy was a terror attack or resulted from a spontaneous demonstration. He asserted that we KNOW it was a terror attack but took a long time before the American People were told that and it was either misleading or they didn't know and, if the latter, we have to ask why. So far so good.
Romney then continued that after 5 days, the Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice went on TV and said the attack was because of the spontaneous demonstrations. Romney asked again: "How could we not know?"
He then recited how on the day following the death of Ambassador Stevens (which is the first time this has happened since 1979) when "apparently" we didn't know what happened, the President went to Vegas and the following day to Colorado for campaign events--which actions have symbolic and possibly material significance. He pointed out it was clear this was not a demonstration and called into question the President's Middle East policy. Romney then used this opportunity to go into some detail about Obama's failed Middle East policy.
Candy Crowley then asked the President about the buck stopping at his desk and he launched into his tirade about being offended by Romney calling him out the Sunday morning after the murders and said "The day after, I stood in the Rose Garden and told people this was an act of terror."
Bam! For a lawyer -- any lawyer--even one who never practiced like Romney -- this is the stuff movies are made of. This is the kind of admission we are always sniffing out and Obama, a lawyer himself who was obviously trying his hand at Clintonian hair splitting, offered it up knowing full well that's not what he said. And he got Candy to go along with him. Bad Candy.
But before the pundits continue to beat up on Romney for lost opportunities and a flubbed answer, Romney pounded Obama on his Rose Garden claims. With deadly seriousness he looked at Obama and said "I think it's interesting the President just said something which is that on the day after the attack, he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.'"
Obama interjected: "That's what I said." Bam!
Romney continued: "You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror; it was not a spontaneous demonstration. Is that what you are saying?"
Obama haughtily invited Romney: "Please proceed Governor." Bam!
Romney responded: "I wanna make sure we get that for the record because it took him 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror." Bam!
At which point Obama called for Candy to "Get the transcript" and she came to his rescue ruling that Obama did say it was an act of terror--applause--and that Romney was also correct that it took 14 days for clarification--applause.
Romney, with a bit of stuttering, says: "The administration indicated that this was a reaction to a video and was a spontaneous reaction....It took them a long time to say this was a terrrorist act by a terrorist group....On Sunday...the Ambassador to the United Nations went on the Sunday television shows and spoke about how this was a spontaneous reaction." Bam! Bam!
Obama--desperately wanting to change the subject--announced "I'm happy to have a longer conversation about foreign policy...." as Candy tells them that she wants to move on. And the President concedes "Ok, I'm happy to do that, too.... I just wanna make sure all these wonderful folks are gonna have a chance to get some of their questions answered."
While Romney might not have had 100% alpha male domination over the answer, what he did that seems to be overlooked by way too many, was to expose the President as a liar and not just a misspeaker on an issue everyone is talking about. And, this is not just conjecture or spin. We have the ironclad transcript and video of Obama asserting this was a spontaneous demonstration--directly contradicting his statement at the debate. Yet, he brazenly reaffirmed at the debate that he said it was an act of terror
While it is risky to ask such a question, Romney got him to repeat his admission several times--so he can't say he mispoke--and can therefore EASILY impeach his credibility with the actual transcript and video of the Rose Garden statement. Romney wasn't just phumphering around. He was onto something average folks (jurors, if you will) see because, well, it isn't hard to find--it's right there in the open and completely verifiable--this guy is lying!
Contrary to the punditry's possibly legitimate concerns that this wasn't the smoothest answer and that Romney muddled rather than clarified the issue, Romney did mention the 14 days, the repeated assertion by the President and Susan Rice that Benghazi was not a terrorist attack but the result of a spontaneous demonstration and drove home the fact that this President chose to "go on with the show" and continue with the campaign rather than give his full attention to the pressing matter of our Ambassador and 3 others being slaughtered.
If I'm Karl Rove or the Romney campaign, I'm running ad after ad of Obama at the debate declaring that he said in the Rose Garden it was an act of terror. Then, I'd show his actual Rose Garden statement and speckle it with all his other statements and those of Susan Rice and Hillary reiterating that it was the result of a spontaneous demonstration because of the video. Then I'd show Romney giving Obama a chance to retract the admission, while he reaffirms it instead saying "That's what I said."
Then, I'd finish with Obama saying: "You know that I mean what I say."
And, while this might not be the answer all the Monday morning quarterbacks would have liked and has experts like Daniel Pipes, Ben Stein and George Will -- among others -- shaking their heads, it's an answer that has very long legs and will reach and resonate with independents.
Romney trapped Obama in the Second Debate
Sally Zelikovsky
Many in the punditry need to re-visit the section of the debate last night between Romney and Obama addressing the Libya question. Too many are saying Romney flubbed it, his answer was flustered and a lost opportunity to strike back. This was not my first impression watching the debate so I went back and watched it again. After reviewing the footage I think many in the punditry missed what really happened.You just have to admire a blogger who dogs others (professional journalists and political commentators) for doing what she wishes she could do (shape political discourse on a national level). And WTF is it with inhabitants of the blogosphere using the imperial we?
Ms. Zelikovsky's brilliant analysis overlooks the fact that the one time some members of audience, composed of everyday people, broke their silence was when they cheered the president's response, and that at least two non-pundits on this BB understood that Romney mishandled his response badly. Moreover, Ms. Zelikosvsky seems not to realize that a televised presidential debate is not a movie but an act of political theater. And it isn't exactly a revelation that the current president lies like a cheap rug in the entry hall of a whorehouse in Peoria.
But other than that, it is a great piece. ("Let me root, root, root for the home team, / If they don't whine it's a shame. / For it's one, two, three strikes, you're out, / At the old blog game.")
a cheap rug in the entry hall of a whorehouse in Peoria.
Purely in the interest of research, do you have an address?
ZonieDiver
10-18-2012, 16:55
And it isn't exactly a revelation that the current president lies like a cheap rug in the entry hall of a whorehouse in Peoria.
Yes, but he does is SO well, and a great many people seem to eat it up with a fork and spoon as fast as he can dish it out.
Purely in the interest of research, do you have an address?
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest?:p
Friday October 19th, 2012