Obama recently declared that Egypt WASN'T an ally of the United States.

 

Do you think you can have a larger diplomatic gaffe than that? I mean honestly regardless of what Romney does, he does not yet have the staffing and intelligence info offered to the president of the United States.

 

Is that not breaking an diplomatic norm? Is that how a President should speak? Did the EU leaders and various leaders of Europe wander over and give him a nice slap down about how he doesn't know his head from his ass? Obama makes gaffes like this OFTEN. The press merely covers from him. Another example I can remember his noting how people in Austria speak...Austrian.

 

Do you see?

 

No. Didn't think so.

Aha! A learning opportunity.

No, the "leaders of Europe" Didn't march up-and-down complaining when Obama said that. Because that would've been a diplomatic mistake. Because the US is an ally of Europe, therefore you complain about things behind-the-scenes on matters that don't directly involve you.

Now, Egypt, that's a different thing. If Obama had been in Egypt, and had said that, the president of Egypt, and the Egyptian press would've been very upset. And could've said something, because it would've been very insulting.

In this instance, Romney was in GB, and made those comments, which concerns that country, therefore everybody got upset, and had a right to talk about it.

Whereas, when Obama says something about the Egyptians, because we're not Egyptian, and not in Egypt, we don't give a shit.

Get it?

No. I'm absolutely bloody certain you don't.

Oh, if Mittens is going bring out a video of Obama from 14 years ago, which I'm not against, then he should at least have the moral fiber to release his tax returns for the same period.

 

Sure I get it. It's called a justification and a rationalization. It doesn't excuse anything Obama did and it doesn't rationalize the attacks on Romney but it does make you feel better about your own bias so go for it!

 

Obama didn't have to be in Egypt. In fact diplomatic protocals declare that an embassy is literally like being on the soil of the country it represents. An attack on an American embassy is like an attack on American soil from a diplomatic perspective. Obama declared Egypt wasn't an ally and that statement had the full weight and power of the president behind it, regardless of where he said it. Claiming Obama has to be standing in a certain place for his words to matter is ridiculous nonsense. His statements matter because his is the president of the world's only superpower.

 

Get it?

 

No. I'm absolutely bloody certain you don't.

 ( wink if I could )

Here's something the conservatives here will just love.

 

I've always liked Ms. Noonan.

 

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/peggynoonan/2012/09/18/time-for-an-intervention/

The Argument

 

• The conservative narrative: Poor Mitt Romney gets excoriated by the press for telling the truth.

• The evidence: Untrue, as illustrated by the Olympics case, where I demonstrate he was excoriated for screwing up, thus falsifying the narrative above.

 

 

Here's my suggestion. I break down the facts, one-by-one. Where I start 'rationalising,' or where my facts are demonstrably untrue, you point out where you disagree. If we agree on all the facts, then Romney screwed up. If we don't, we can work out where the problem lies.

 

1) If a headmaster screws up in front of a class, a fellow teacher will not criticise her in front of the class, but wait until later. It the same way, when Obama made his comments about Egypt, no western leader said or did a thing in public. This is because you don't criticise the POTUS in public under normal circumstances, wether it's Obama, Bush or Romney. When you do, it's a very big deal.

 

1a) If Obama criticises Egypt this will not disturb the national pride of Great Britain. Hence the response to any gaffe will be limited to to back-stage diplomacy and not upset the sentiment of any European country or its leaders.

 

1b) Embassies are considered sovereign soil. Comments made by a foreign leader while that leader is in a country will be felt greater and have greater public impact, even if they have the exact same diplomatic weight. These two facts have absolutely nothing to do with each other however.

 

2) However, if the POTUS directly makes a comment about YOU which is offensive, no matter who you are, you will respond. The Egyptian Prime Minister and press would be well within their rights to comment robustly in this instance.

 

3) Now, the Olympics saw Great Britain at the most important event point since the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II, with all the stakes and nervousness that implies. Chinese-level national pride.

 

4) Romney is not the POTUS. He was a private individual, as the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, but a very public figure.

 

5) Romney criticised Great Britain, while inside Great Britain, on a subject of the very highest sensitivity to British national pride and nervousness.

 

[note, Jack Rogge may have been shitting himself, but had nothing whatsoever but effusive praise for London in public]

 

6) If you have any skin in the game, or influence, you use back-channels to make this influence count, especially in matters of national pride. If they don't concern you, you have no skin in the game, and no influence, you offer unqualified support to your ally and express confidence that everything will magically be OK. You just do.

 

7) Romney didn't do that. He made a great error of diplomacy, not "speaking the truth," and the response was visceral and public.

 

8) The upset wasn't because the whole of the UK is liberal, European or Romney-hating, but because someone on a quasi-diplomatic visit screwed up on an issue of enormous national pride and sensitivity.

 

7) The press reported the fact that the UK was very upset. Thus he was not excoriated for speaking the truth, but for a diplomatic mis-step.

 

I suspect you'll say 6) is wrong; that Romney had the right to open his mouth and comment on this because he was 'speaking the truth,' and that's what counts ... that he the right to do that because there's not enough truth speaking being done. It should be pretty simple, right?

 

 

This is just too good not to share.

 

Jon Stewart honors Fox News in its unwavering support of Mittens.

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-september-19-2012-pink

 

For those out there who will say it's Jon and therefore bad, it includes plenty of actual footage from Fox, in their own, kind, uplifting and inspiring style.

 

Oh, and his guest was PINK.

 

 

Fox:  Obama is the worst president in history.

Polls: Romney is trailing Obama.  (including a Fox poll!)

 

Logic: Romney is worse than the worst president in history.

 

Hahahahahahahaha!

Edited by Bergermeister - 9/20/12 at 10:44pm

Very quickly becoming one of my favorite shows Stephen Colbert dealing with the 47 % solution (  ) and an intro ( this show is very eclectic and that's one of the reasons I love it ) with Itzhak Pearlman!

 

http://www.colbertnation.com/

I love the clip of the woman saying her husband was on welfare after moving to the US and that the country gave him opportunities.... and it was Mittens' mother talking about his dad.  

 

Yep.  Mittens insulted his own dad.  And didn't learn about presenting tax info from him.

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/tue-september-18-2012-salman-rushdie

 

Guest: Salman Rushie

 

Jon makes some amazing good points, but of course will be dismissed by the Right. 

 

Oh, coming soon: Bill (you know, the Fox host who was educated at that evil elite liberal place called Harvard) and Jon are going to have a debate.  Could be quite entertaining because the Bill-O has already called Jon small.

 

Heh.

Edited by Bergermeister - 9/21/12 at 2:05am

This is more bullshit than anything with this campaign of both candidates doing tit for tat.
 

Hey look... more from the official Obama campaign website:

 

- Romney full tax history still a mystery

- Romney pays extra taxes

- Obama and Romney: Kinda vs. really rich

 

We don't even need to get into the various false analogies and other nonsense you've presented.

 

In both your statements above, Mitt was excoriated by the press for telling the truth. In the second example, you declare it wasn't REALLY for telling the truth because of unwritten diplomatic rules that magically don't apply to Obama and secondly because the politicians reacted to the press reacting to Romney.

 

In both cases though, Romney told the truth and too the hit for it. End of story.

1) I stepped you through it and asked you to point out where the facts were wrong. Go on, do it.

2) On Israel, Romney said: "You don't criticise your allies in public [...]. If there were places where we disagree, I would hold these disagreements in private conversations, not in public forums."

Even he agrees with me. So much for telling the truth when it interferes with diplomatic norms. That you choose not to, can't admit to yourself the tiniest possibility Romney may have screwed up or that the press reports a screw up, is ... sweet, I suppose. Must take some serious cognitive dissonance though.

 

1. You stepped me through your rationales about why you believe Mitt should have been excoriated in addition to telling the truth. That doesn't change a thing nor does it justify your rationales to me. They might still make sense to you from your hyper-partisan perspective. I gave reverse examples and you just wrote them off and rationalized them away as well. There's a saying for that. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. That will always be the case for a Republican with regard to your perspective.

 

2. I've never claimed that telling the truth cannot result in a screw up. I've simply said I'm not going to avoid voting for someone because they told the truth and a bunch of people who prefer pomp to the truth want to get their panties in a bunch.

 

His comments did cause some offense over there. They were undiplomatic at best and provoked a somewhat stinging response from the PM. They also proved unfounded, which robbed them of that route to legitimacy. Not a huge deal, but in the middle of a campaign, under the spotlight, when he is trying to convince everyone that he is the right person to lead the US at home and abroad, and when there was absolutely nothing to be gained from making those comments, it seems like a misstep.

 

He was being critical of a major government-funded program in the UK, and the UK is, presumably, still an ally, so technically, yes - he was criticizing an ally.

"LOL," as they say. You just called me hyperpartisan. You. Ha. I can't even vote in that election, think Obama is an asshole, but that the hyper-partisan right wing in the US just cannot bring themselves to even suggest their boy could go wrong.

I didn't say the press should have excoriated Romney. I said they DID report he screwed up, and not that they "excoriated him for telling the truth." Keep up, man. I repeated that simple thing over and over and over again.

Your reverse examples aren't analogous. You kept on comparing (for example) a third party's perspective on a first party's comments to the perspective of the subject of the comments. Syllogism, or logical fail. Not sure.

Your last sentence. Are you, are you, are you ... suggesting you think Romney may have screwed up? Go on, say it. Truth will win.


[edit: grammar]
Edited by Harald II - 9/23/12 at 1:43am

Romney's comments pissed off many people , including the PM and mayor of London, because they were diplomatically stupid, coming from a public figure at a time of great national emotion.

If The Leader of the Opposition was in NYC at a 9/11 commemoration and said, "The US is a bit shit at democracy sometimes, Guantanamo, eh?" that is the mechanism we are talking about (although not the level of insult).

We are talking about diplomatic norms and good common diplomatic sense, which Romney broke. Criticising an ally is another good example of how diplomatic language works, yes.

The point is: Romney fucked up. Not by telling the truth, but by saying something stupid that insulted a lot of people, who got annoyed. The press reported the screw up, and you reported he was being "excoriated for telling the truth," rather than bringing yourself to admit what any reasonable person would agree was a diplomatic ****-up.

This will not hinder Romney in winning the presidency from Obama. Read the 10 part article written in the Washington Examiner The truth about Obama  and after you read it tell me what your really think about this deceitful president of ours.
 

No, it won't.

That's not why I bring it up, and never was.

I bring it up to point out the pitiful bleating about how the press "Excoriates Romney for telling the truth" is just another weak victim-culture, poor-me meme that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Similarly, the 47% thing. People aren't shocked by his maths or figures, but the fact he considers veterans, the disabled and the elderly as "victims," the same as dole-spongers.

Exactly. He's already alienated ( and insulted ) those voters. I really think Mr. Romney is in trouble and when they get to the debates that won't help him either. Romney just has said too much ( revealing how out of touch he is with not only what the average person has to go through these days but out of touch with the mood of the country as well ).

 

Here's a little video that illustrates what I mean :

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/vp/49138589#49138589

 

There's a little time left and something could change but the big boost from the debates and questioning Mr. Obama on his record just isn't going to have the big effect that the conservatives hope for. Especially when you can bring up the nature of this recession and where it came from.

Edited by jimmac - 9/23/12 at 1:27pm

now just think who is  a "heartbeat" away from being president   biden vs ryan

 

the coverup and negligence of protecting our embassy is a tragedy, opens old wounds about the original 9/11 attack

 

are we SAFER from terrorists than 4 years ago ......NOT

 

obama....voters remorse

 

clueless

I would welcome a Romney victory over Obama - a Romney victory might finally light a fire under the ass of the left, where they are forced to wake up from the hypnotic trance that their faux "friend" Obama has induced in the last 4 years. Obama, on the world political spectrum is pretty far to the right, and further to the right than two relatively recent Republican presidents, Nixon and Reagan.

Well I wouldn't. This kind of thinking is what got us George W Bush for 8 years so no thank you! All it would do is damage the country as a whole. Things would get much worse than they are now. I think it would have the exact opposite effect that you want.

Uh huh. ( eyes roll )

 

Since when does one need to vote to be partisan?

 

I said they excoriated him for telling the truth both times. You rationalized the one and in a strange logical leap, used it as a claim the other couldn't be true. Repeat it all you want.

 

My last sentence simply tries to note that one doesn't follow the other as you keep suggesting. You can both tell the truth and have it screw up something. Try telling your wife you fucked her best friend. You will have both told the truth and screwed up. You have said people's reactions prove it was a diplomatic screw up and thus he wasn't slammed for telling the truth. You've rationalized it but the reasoning is convoluted and inconsistent. You declare the reverse examples to not be analogous but they've been brought by multiple people in multiple ways and you've not accepted any of them.

 

In other words, Obama can do no wrong. It doesn't matter if he falsely declares someone isn't an ally, doesn't protect embassies, ignores intelligence, can't remember geography or basic facts about the country or even if he breaches all manner of diplomatic protocals (I don't have to meet with your leader when they are in the U.S., I can ignore them and give them a phone call)

 

 

 

We understand your rationale. It's just no one buys it and it magically only applies one way.

You're right no one buys it. Romney's comments including the 47 % that is. It's not that Obama can do no wrong. It's that Romney can clearly do a lot more wrong. A lot more.

@Trumptman, you are bad at logic. Really bad at it. And you make shit up.

I didn't "rationalise" anything. I don't think that word means what you think it does. I pointed out some truths: that Romney pissed people off, what the mechanism of this FACT was, and why the press reported it. Dude, that isn't rationalisation.

I didn't link the Olympics gaffe to the 47% gaffe beyond saying the was a "similar" mechanism where what YOU see as the press story as one thing but the rest of the world — Bill Kristol, various republicans, included) isn't the story.

You say the press excoriates Romney for telling the truth.

But he made gaffes. And you just can't bring yourself to say it. You just can't even consider the possibility your guy is capable of making a mistake.

Now, my "one-way reasoning."

Can you show me an example where Obama's gaffe pissed off the people he was talking about, and this was reported as the story? Because then it would be the sort of thing I'm talking about. I have tried to explain the difference but you don't get it.

Specifically: give me an example of Obama talking about the UK and upsetting them, or talking about Egypt and causing widespread public upset. Not just making a diplomatic screw-up, because that isn't what we are talking about IN THE CONTEXT OF PRESS REPORTING. We are not actually talking about diplomacy apart from a mechanism to falsify the "press excoriation" whining.

Although: be warned, when you do, I will accept it as a gaffe. Because I know full well Obama is capable of fucking up, and when it happens, will point at him and say "You fucked up!". I note you are INCAPABLE of doing this to Romney because you are hyper-partisan.

Oh yeah, Romney mentioned the Obama didn't meet "Bibi" so I'm not surprised you bring that up (it's spelled "protocols" not "protocals," BTW, Teach). Probably because Israel isn't the boss of the US and the same reason he didn't meet with the UK PM in similar circumstances, or with the vast majority of leaders who were at that event.

I will repeat the central point: Obama may have fucked repeatedly diplomatically. Did anyone give a shit on the streets? Yes? Then we can compare press reports. No? Then the examples are different.

Please. Please. Please try and understand this.

 

Coming from you and your terrible reasoning, that is actually a compliment so thanks.

 

It is completely a rationalization because the truth, can in fact, piss people off. The press reported on it because stirring up a mob hostile to Republicans is what they do. They do it even if Republicans are diplomatic.

 

You label them both gaffes. The truth isn't a blunder. The truth isn't a mistake. The press in both countries would rather focus on and stir up reactions by the mob to the truth being told than focus on the truth because that fits their agenda better than reporting the truth. The U.S. government is bleeding a trillion dollars a year. Most EU countries and the UK are in similar situations. Japan is at over 200% of GDP in government borrowing and all these governments are counting on "the future" to pay off these debts when average reproduction rate is about 1.6 for every couple in all these countries aka we have a shrinking native population.

 

The math can't and won't add up in any of these scenarios but we can make everyone in the mob feel better if we kill the messenger, a very classic logical fallacy.

 

 

Feelings shouldn't have bearing on the truth. Telling the truth shouldn't be a mistake or a blunder. I can understand feelings and diplomacy. If your spouse asks if she is obese and she is in fact obese, you confirming it, even nicely will hurt her feelings. However hurt feelings don't change the health concerns. Hurt feelings doesn't prove you were an asshole for confirming her state of health. If she gossips to 10 of her friends and they soon have a mob of anger going on about you, that doesn't make what you did a gaffe.

 

Obama has has dozens of minor dust ups and outright gaffes. The press covers for him though because they are in agreement with him. Thus even if the remarks should garner criticism, they go unreported or are in fact rationalized away by them much as they are by you. I've mentioned a couple examples that haven't been addressed. Certainly the foreign press should love to knock down and show as a dumb or ugly American, anyone who portrays such traits. Obama was in France and declared that Austrians speak a language called Austrian instead of German. It is a huge GAFFE as in something that is not at all the truth and a major mistake. You are welcome to do the opposite, to show how they slapped down Obama for being so ignorant of the very continent he was in and visiting.

 

The press doesn't stir up the mob for Obama, instead they do the opposite. They distract the mob or pacify them for him. It's called bias.

 

 

Just to reiterate, the truth is never a gaffe. If Romney is fatigued and declares he has visited 57 states or some such thing, I accept it for what it is though, a gaffe. I'm not the one trying to use the gaffes to create a narrative, especially when they aren't gaffes in the first place. The press is trying to create a narrative that Romney is incapable on foreign policy. Thus they take his statements and even though they are true, they take offense and focus on reporting how offended they and "men on the street" are rather than the facts of the matter. The facts involve foreign embassies and people murdering ambassadors. That isn't the real story though, because that would harm Obama. The real story is... Mitt Romney using this for political gain and boy, weren't those statements insensitive in their timing and conclusions.....

 

 

Well when Iran is trying to go nuclear, when half the Middle East has had uprisings in the last year and we are seeing them torch embassies and murder ambassadors, I think it more important to meet leaders in that area than go on "The View." Thanks for the catching of the spelling error. If the UK were involved in a major event and the PM were here in the states, you are saying it wouldn't be considered a diplomatic **** up if the president completely ignored him but had time for David Letterman?

 

The press and mob reaction doesn't determine right or wrong. It doesn't determine the truth. You really should try to understand that, especially when complaining about logic, reason and understanding of the two.

Not a rationalisation?

 

Problem is, trooper, I'm not saying the truth can't piss people off.

 

Never have.

 

The opposite.

 

That would be ... a strange thing to say. Kind of proves you're not actually reading what I'm writing. And I've even stated why the thing that pissed people off wasn't the fact he was telling the truth ("Don't call our cunts, cunts).

 

And, dude, telling the truth in the wrong place can be a gaffe.

 

"The truth is never a gaffe" is wrong. Finally, we get there. If you piss off a whole nation when you needn't have done, and can achieve the same result in a different way (especially when it wasn't true), that's a gaffe. Breaking the norms of diplomacy and upsetting a lot of people is a gaffe. Just because something is true doesn't mean it's not a gaffe.

 

In this instance, it wasn't actually true. Does that make it a gaffe yet?

 

You really can't bring yourself to say Romney screwed up. You just can't do it! 

 

On the central issue: you do understand you're saying David Cameron and Boris Johnson were pissed off because the UK press keep stirring up shit about Romney, don't you? That that's the logic of your comments? 

 

Yeah, you're not getting it.

 

I'm trying to get you to compare apples with apples, not comment on what makes something right or wrong. For the purposes of this, press reaction to people's actions are what count; people's reactions to expressed sentiment, not the truth-or-otherwise of the cause of that sentiment. I've never said the press etc. determines right or wrong. I thought you may go all weak at the logic and actually specifically tried to ensure you wouldn't make that mistake, earlier.

 

I'm actually giving you opportunities to provide examples like the Romney in London comments so you can prove me wrong — good old fashioned logic and neo-Socratic debate, that kind of stuff — and you're coming up with non-sequiturs.

 

Would you like to prove me wrong and yourself right?

 

Give me examples that match the press treatment of Romney's London comments. I'm expecting to have to cut and paste examples of why they don't match (for example, Obama makes comments about Egypt, no-one in the UK gets upset, press gives Obama a pass QED).

 

Yeah, that would be the PM, the mayor of London, 80,000 in Hyde Park and absolutely everyone I spoke to. If you even deny THAT happened there's no point us continuing the discussion because you won't even accept basic facts that don't fit you world-view.

 

I wrote "conservative and Conservative." I will remember not to flatter your intelligence next time, but really thought you'd spot that. "Conservative" (with a small 'c') has the same meaning in English and English.

 

In the context of discussing the British PM, 'the leader of the opposition' means the leader of the British opposition. Jesus, I have to spell out everything, don't I?

 

Romney's concerns weren't new. Irrelevant. He wasn't on a diplomatic mission. Irrelevant. He was a former Olympic head. Irrelevant. Actually, relevant, because he should have known better to show such a lack of diplomacy (and please note, if I call you very fat wife "Very fucking fat," that shows a lack of diplomacy, even though I am not a diplomat as I cannot believe you are not aware).

 

Your Romney / truth thing is a syllogism (which means a 'logic fail,' look it up). Telling the truth is by default a good idea. There are ways of telling the truth. Sometimes you keep your mouth shut. Sometimes you do it in private. Telling the truth can be diplomatic. Telling the truth can be undiplomatic, because merely 'telling the truth' is not an explicit part of diplomacy. Thank Christ you're not a diplomat or that would spell the end of trade between China and the rest of the world as you call them a "Crypto-communist worker's hell-hole with no human rights, rampant with corruption and inveterate thieves of our intellectual property." You seem to think this kind of stuff doesn't apply to Romney, weirdly.

 

Romney referred to the 47% that don't pay income tax. That category includes disabled veterans who don't work.

 

Thanks for the information about Obama's poll rating, but I don't give a shit and didn't bring it up.

Romney is a much better debater than Obama.He communicates with authority and speech power. Obama speaks to low and he is hard to understand sometimes.
 

 

Well you were engaging my words for a while. They've clearly done you in and now we are down to sentence fragments with no quotes and some strange hope you can make everyone forget what you said in the earlier discussion. SDW gets it. I get it. We both read the same words from the same person. The only part worth addressing is the end. Politicians absolutely react to the press. You think Cameron was just strolling along and spoke into the air off the top of his head? The press asked directly for reaction to the Romney statement. That is indeed called stirring up shit.

 

 

There won't be apples to apples because the press isn't a neutral party that acts exactly the same with both parties.

 

Speaking of diplomacy. Obama just called the deaths of American ambassadors, "bumps in the road." How do you fvck up bigger than that?

 

The chattering class doesn't get upset at Obama because they consider him one of their own, someone who makes money doing little more than moving their mouth and not much else.

 

They've admitted as much.

 

CBS News political director John Dickerson on Sunday conceded the obvious, advising Mitt Romney to make Libya an issue in the campaign because the media "isn't necessarily going to make that case for him." Dickerson's admission proved true on CBS's Face the Nation, as well as NBC's Meet the Press and ABC's This Week. 

In one of the few mentions of Libya on CBS, Dickerson marveled, "...This administration first thought this uprising in Libya was...something that bubbled up from the ground. Well, now they are calling it a terrorist attack." This led him to suggest, "These are points...that Mitt Romney need[s] to make because he knows the press isn't necessarily going to make that case for him." [See video below. MP3 audio here.]

 

A terrorist attack on 9/11 that results in the death of Americans at American embassies. The president calls the deaths "bumps in the road" and completely mislead at maximum or misunderstood at a minimum the nature of the attacks. The attacks were warned about and the warnings, ignored.

 

The press.... they declare Romney's going to have to press the matter. They are busy watching Obama on the View.

 

If you want to find an analogy imagine the Olympic games actually having an attack that resulted in deaths of athletes and the PM shrugged it off, declared there are going to be a few bumps in the road and went on Loose Women. Meanwhile the press ignores all that and complains that Ed Miliband is an insensitive and opportunistic asshole for pressing the case that something is wrong and that Cameron should be responsible and do his job.

 

Can you even imagine trying to argue that such a thing would be correct? That is what you are arguing for Romney right now. People are being murdered on the watch of the American president and he had the reports of the rising violence and pending attacks. He is off on The View, an American lunchtime chat show instead of fixing this problem. Second if such a thing did happen, the last thing you would ever argue is that the press was fair and should determine or be an arbiter of anything. It's bias by omission.

 

EDIT: I'll just leave this here.

Edited by trumptman - 9/25/12 at 5:31am

 

You LOVE him. Man love. Just out and say it: "I love Mitt Romney. He is my man. He can do no wrong."

Mitt Romney can do no wrong, and Obama is an absolute ****-up every time he opens his mouth. The press is 100% united in ensuring that Romney is always made to look bad (because he never, ever, fucks up and only tells the truth) and Obama only looks good, even though he is a diplomatic blood-bath.

 

Romney can do no wrong, ever.

 

David Cameron was only annoyed because the press ensured he would be, and not because Romney made a mistake (see above, Romney does not make mistakes ever).

 

Jesus.

The liberal elite media (you know, the guys who went to Harvard - sorta like Mittens but the same claim isn't leveled in that direction) have a new one: they claim that Mittens said that airplanes should have windows that open.

 

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-beverly-hills-fundraiser-20120922,0,2317962.story

 

But he didn't say that.  What he actually said was...