Bloody Hell Romney: Show Some Patriotism During This Awful Crisis! - Page 5

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

What a pointless and fallacious response.

Not fallacious at all. But OK.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Just because one cannot define what an event might look like, if it were to occur, does not mean that one cannot characterize it if one sees it.

Interesting. How is that? If you cannot "define" it how can you "characterize" it?!

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

I could not have predicted what evidence of sophistry on your part would look like, but I can tell you that I have now seen it - an intentional false conclusion.

Cute.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

And you avoided my question, which tells me that you were more interested in scoring points than exploring the issue.

Not at all.

You've claimed there is no evidence of panic. I'm not claiming anything either way. But you've made this claim while also saying you cannot define what evidence of it would look like. Perhaps the actions to date are evidence of it, but since you claim you cannot define what that evidence would look like you don't see it as such, but still confidently and affirmatively claim there is none and then declare is fallacious when I point this out.

I find that rather curious.

It's as if you wish to rest in the assurance and confidence that you're right that there is no panic (because you see no evidence of it) while being unburdened with having to define what such evidence might look like.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

And often by changing the subject and ignoring any other posts you've made. Gets annoying pretty quick.

Wow. Cat. Kettle. Black. Just wow.

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Just because one cannot define what an event might look like, if it were to occur, does not mean that one cannot characterize it if one sees it.

 

Interesting. How is that? If you cannot "define" it how can you "characterize" it?!

Well see below for an example. The old saying about pornography springs to mind as well. We are very adept at describing events that we have not previously experienced in terms of our previous experience.

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

I could not have predicted what evidence of sophistry on your part would look like, but I can tell you that I have now seen it - an intentional false conclusion.

 

Cute.

Well sorry - but it seemed an irresistibly apt example at the time. And I retract that accusation, because on reflection I don't think it was intentional.

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

And you avoided my question, which tells me that you were more interested in scoring points than exploring the issue.

 

Not at all.

 

You've claimed there is no evidence of panic. I'm not claiming anything either way. But you've made this claim while also saying you cannot define what evidence of it would look like. Perhaps the actions to date are evidence of it, but since you claim you cannot define what that evidence would look like you don't see it as such, but still confidently and affirmatively claim there is none and then declare is fallacious when I point this out.

 

I find that rather curious.

 

It's as if you wish to rest in the assurance and confidence that you're right that there is no panic (because you see no evidence of it) while being unburdened with having to define what such evidence might look like.

No - I said I had seen no evidence of it, and further that I could not figure out how panic would manifest itself in an organizational structure of this kind. I'm not denying the possibility of its existence. 

I thought, mistakenly, that you were implying you had seen some such evidence, so the simple way to further the discussion would have been to share it rather than ask me to guess what it might look like.

But if you have seen no evidence either, and thus, effectively, all you are saying is that there exists, in the set of all possibilities, the possibility that the administration is suffering from symptoms that, if we could see them, we might characterize as panic, then yes, I agree with you, but since that is trivially correct, what's the point?

Edit: Cannot figure out how I screwed up the quote formatting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

And often by changing the subject and ignoring any other posts you've made. Gets annoying pretty quick.

 

Wow. Cat. Kettle. Black. Just wow.

Pot?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moe Luby 

RINO Mit wouldn't do any better.  We need a President with the guts to clean house over there and run the Muslim Brotherhood out of our own government.

Ron Paul seems to be out of the race and as to running "the Muslim Brotherhood out of our own government" I think that you are addressing the wrong people but you are close to the problem as it is indeed from the Middle East. On Youtube look for " AIPAC stooge smacks down CIA patriots exposing spies" and "Chertoff and the Underwear Bomber Cover Up- The Body Scanner Scam". Better watch and download them quick because the "Establishment" keeps forcing Google to take them down using various technicalities. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moe Luby 

RINO Mit wouldn't do any better.  We need a President with the guts to clean house over there and run the Muslim Brotherhood out of our own government.

Yes, absolutely, let's return to the McCarthy years were we conduct witch hunts and blacklist people for being "un-American". Those were proud moments in American history, weren't they?

Anytime you start a thread and sight Salon as a source you have thrown out any chance for intelligent discussion.

Since you want to start such silly threads...  When Obama shows everyone his birth certificate, Romney will drop out of the race for questioning the POTUS about his foreign policy.

So is the USA supposed to be like China, Russia, or Syria where questioning the actions of the political leaders is considered a crime?

If the Libya incident had happened when Bush was still president, every Democrat and all the mainstream media would be attacking him.  But Obama gets a free pass?

You really live in a dream world.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

Don't know why. Has the film actually been identified yet? Early reports were unsure what film was causing the issue. Regardless though, would this justify these violent attacks?

Nothing justifies these attacks on innocent lives.  These people should be dealt with swiftly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

I frankly don't care.  He was absolutely right.  What's unpatriotic is apologizing in the manner "we" did.  It was pathetic, and dangerous.  Oh, and you've got to love this from Obama:  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-12/romney-criticizing-obama-s-handling-of-protests-in-egypt.html

 

 

 

   Really, Mr. Obama?  Is that like the time when you said police "acted stupidly?"  Is that like the time (uh, yesterday) where you denied a meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu because your schedule was too busy?  That wasn't hasty?  I think it's time for you to criticize Mitt Romney's "lack of experience." 

It is funny how those statements get swept under the rug isn't it?   I think all of those interviews on the Tonight Show, Jimmy Fallon, the View, Oprah, Ellen... have earned him a pass.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by msimpson 

Anytime you start a thread and sight Salon as a source you have thrown out any chance for intelligent discussion.

 

Since you want to start such silly threads...  When Obama shows everyone his birth certificate, Romney will drop out of the race for questioning the POTUS about his foreign policy.

 

So is the USA supposed to be like China, Russia, or Syria where questioning the actions of the political leaders is considered a crime?

 

If the Libya incident had happened when Bush was still president, every Democrat and all the mainstream media would be attacking him.  But Obama gets a free pass?

 

You really live in a dream world.  

If you disagree with Obama you are a racist, bigoted, homophobic, bible-thumping Neanderthal who wants only to stockpile guns and hang out at NASCAR events.  Oh and don't forget about being a blind hero-worshipper to the all mighty Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.  Liberals never leave those two out.  And this from the party that preaches "tolerance".  

I lean more towards Conservative principles, but I believe both parties are worthless.  The politicians are in it for themselves, to stay in power.  They vote themselves raises, make shady back-room deals, take kick-backs, and sell their influence to the highest bidder.  They out-and-out lie to the American public about everything and pit American vs. American using something like gay marriage to take the focus off of their ineffectiveness .   They do not care about the citizens, only about their lobbyist friends and campaign contributors.  I wonder if they are going to be on the new healthcare plan?  I bet not, as they have already been granting exemptions left and right.  If it is so good, why are they not on it?  I bet their retirement plans have not been cut like everyone else's, yet we all need to pay more taxes though.  

The government has been broken since being a politician went from being a civic duty to being a career.  If Congress votes themselves term limits, then perhaps I will have more faith in government, but for now, they are all the same in the end.  For all of you who worship Obama, and condemn any who oppose, what has he ever done that has helped the middle class, ever?

Quote:

Originally Posted by iSteelers 

Quote:

Originally Posted by msimpson 

Anytime you start a thread and sight Salon as a source you have thrown out any chance for intelligent discussion.

 

Since you want to start such silly threads...  When Obama shows everyone his birth certificate, Romney will drop out of the race for questioning the POTUS about his foreign policy.

 

So is the USA supposed to be like China, Russia, or Syria where questioning the actions of the political leaders is considered a crime?

 

If the Libya incident had happened when Bush was still president, every Democrat and all the mainstream media would be attacking him.  But Obama gets a free pass?

 

You really live in a dream world.  

 

If you disagree with Obama you are a racist, bigoted, homophobic, bible-thumping Neanderthal who wants only to stockpile guns and hang out at NASCAR events.  Oh and don't forget about being a blind hero-worshipper to the all mighty Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.  Liberals never leave those two out.  And this from the party that preaches "tolerance".  

 

I lean more towards Conservative principles, but I believe both parties are worthless.  The politicians are in it for themselves, to stay in power.  They vote themselves raises, make shady back-room deals, take kick-backs, and sell their influence to the highest bidder.  They out-and-out lie to the American public about everything and pit American vs. American using something like gay marriage to take the focus off of their ineffectiveness .   They do not care about the citizens, only about their lobbyist friends and campaign contributors.  I wonder if they are going to be on the new healthcare plan?  I bet not, as they have already been granting exemptions left and right.  If it is so good, why are they not on it?  I bet their retirement plans have not been cut like everyone else's, yet we all need to pay more taxes though.  

 

The government has been broken since being a politician went from being a civic duty to being a career.  If Congress votes themselves term limits, then perhaps I will have more faith in government, but for now, they are all the same in the end.  For all of you who worship Obama, and condemn any who oppose, what has he ever done that has helped the middle class, ever?

Hey I think Mr. Romney already said it best. If you're not with the other percentage and are part of the 47 % he doesn't care about you. That alone in my book makes Obama and the Democrats look better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Hey I think Mr. Romney already said it best. If you're not with the other percentage and are part of the 47 % he doesn't care about you. That alone in my book makes Obama and the Democrats look better.

I find it hard to believe you actually think that's what Romney was saying.  

It looks like Sammi got the False Flag operation she was looking for.

The U.S. State Department is now saying that they were no protests in Benghazi prior to the attack and they never concluded that the video was the cause.

Which means the Administration's go-to-excuse for the attack has now been shown to be a lie, and that the U.S. President probably stoked the fires that culminated in U.S. Embassy attacks across the Middle East.

Who's going to take the fall for this colossal intelligence failure?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank777 

The U.S. State Department is now saying that they were no protests in Benghazi prior to the attack and they never concluded that the video was the cause.

 

Which means the Administration's go-to-excuse for the attack has now been shown to be a lie, and that the U.S. President probably stoked the fires that culminated in U.S. Embassy attacks across the Middle East.

 

Who's going to take the fall for this colossal intelligence failure?

The real question is:  Why didn't Mitt Romney show more patriotism when this was announced?   Why didn't say anything before the attack happened?  

</hands>

Obama is in deep shit.

His administration's total incompetence has now directly led to dead Americans. And it's not just incompetence that they're guilty of, but lying directly to the American people about the terrorist attack, and they've been caught red-handed!

No wonder that the democrat fools are out and talking non-stop about Big Bird instead of Libya. Big Bird is a one-percenter by the way. The CEO makes $684,144 a year and they have a third of a billion dollars in assets! 

It seems that Obama/Clinton left security lax at the compound to set the right tone or something. Despite begging for increased security these state department employees were hung out to dry because Obama/Clinton didn't want the compound to look militarized.

Nice to see you're still around Hands. When you get a chance, please answer my question above: Who should be held responsible for the intelligence failure?

After all, you started the thread based on the idea that Romney's criticism of Obama's response was unpatriotic.

Now that it's been shown that Obama lied to the entire country (again), I'm wondering if you still think Romney was unpatriotic for not going along with the lie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

"Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney will no longer bring up Glen Doherty, a former Navy SEAL killed in the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya, the campaign said Wednesday in response to a complaint from Doherty's mother."

 

 

 

According to Ellefsen, Doherty found his exchange with Romney to be "insincere and stale."

"Mitt Romney approached him ultimately four times, using this private gathering as a political venture to further his image," Ellefsen told KIRO. "He kept introducing himself as Mitt Romney, a political figure. The same introduction, the same opening line ... [Doherty] said it was pathetic and comical to have the same person come up to you within only a half hour, have this person reintroduce himself to you, having absolutely no idea whatsoever that he just did this 20 minutes ago, and did not even recognize Glen's face."

"Governor Romney was inspired by the memory of meeting Glen Doherty and shared his story and that memory. We respect the wishes of Mrs. Doherty though," campaign aide Kevin Madden told BuzzFeed.

~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/mitt-romney-glen-doherty_n_1954925.html

I'm not sure how the above is news.   His mother doesn't like Romney and has a different account of his meeting with her son.  It's fourth hand information at best.  And I notice you don't exactly highlight this part:

"Governor Romney was inspired by the memory of meeting Glen Doherty and shared his story and that memory. We respect the wishes of Mrs. Doherty though," campaign aide Kevin Madden told BuzzFeed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

"Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney will no longer bring up Glen Doherty, a former Navy SEAL killed in the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya, the campaign said Wednesday in response to a complaint from Doherty's mother."

 

Here's a Navy Seal wife and here's what her dead husband requested before he died. I hope that he gets his wish.

"One of the last things my husband said to me before he was killed, when I would ask him, 'Chris, what do you need over there? What can I send you?' he said, 'I need a new president,'" Horton recalled.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/grieving-widow-romneys-personal-story/story?id=17434211#.UHX2t46e0-D

And what about those standard form letters that Obama sends out to fallen soldiers? Obama obviously doesn't have time for any personal letters, he's too busy campaigning, playing golf, talking to pimps with limps and chatting with grotesque women on the View.

Obama does have time to send personal letters to dead, overweight rappers though, just not dead US soldiers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

"Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney will no longer bring up Glen Doherty, a former Navy SEAL killed in the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya, the campaign said Wednesday in response to a complaint from Doherty's mother."

 

 

 

According to Ellefsen, Doherty found his exchange with Romney to be "insincere and stale."

"Mitt Romney approached him ultimately four times, using this private gathering as a political venture to further his image," Ellefsen told KIRO. "He kept introducing himself as Mitt Romney, a political figure. The same introduction, the same opening line ... [Doherty] said it was pathetic and comical to have the same person come up to you within only a half hour, have this person reintroduce himself to you, having absolutely no idea whatsoever that he just did this 20 minutes ago, and did not even recognize Glen's face."

"Governor Romney was inspired by the memory of meeting Glen Doherty and shared his story and that memory. We respect the wishes of Mrs. Doherty though," campaign aide Kevin Madden told BuzzFeed.

~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/mitt-romney-glen-doherty_n_1954925.html

If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things. - Obama acceptance speech 2008

It's sort of funny what Hands and BR have been reduced to doing. They can't engage or discuss anything with anyone on here. There's simply no way to defend Obama. So they dutifully drop off the latest propaganda missives from DailyKos or Talking Points Memo which of course have been cobbled together with a friendly columnist or two (Erza calling in from Journolist) and of course finally there's the "analysis" from the View, The Today Show, or George on ABC all trying to push a string that Obama is still viable.

Engage a counterpoint to their claim? Why they can't...because it doesn't exist......at least it doesn't outside the media bubble.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

Chilling example of how far Republican's will go in their quest for power- http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-letting-us-in-on-a-secret/2012/10/10/ba3136ca-132b-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_story.html

As if Democrats wouldn't have done exactly the same thing had the shoe been on the other foot.  The last couple lines of the article in my opinion reach at least one correct conclusion, and that is the fact that the committee should have had a classified security brief prior to the public inquiry.  Now whether this was the fault of the State department for not ensuring that the committee knew about the sensitive nature of some of what would be discussed or stupidity on the part of the committee iteself remains open for debate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

 

As if Democrats wouldn't have done exactly the same thing had the shoe been on the other foot.  The last couple lines of the article in my opinion reach at least one correct conclusion, and that is the fact that the committee should have had a classified security brief prior to the public inquiry.  Now whether this was the fault of the State department for not ensuring that the committee knew about the sensitive nature of some of what would be discussed or stupidity on the part of the committee iteself remains open for debate.

The repubs deliberately had an open hearing, aired on c-span, so they could try and embarrass Obama, but this has seriously backfired and shows just how wreckless it is to play with these issues when lives are at stake. It's beyond disgusting of them, and I bet Romney pushed for it to take place. Let's hope he's held accountable. This is too serious to ignore.

You can't embarrass someone after the fact on these matters. The embarrassing point is the needless deaths and the attacks themselves. Of course hacks want to make it about people asking HOW this could happen rather than the actual events themselves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

The repubs deliberately had an open hearing, aired on c-span, so they could try and embarrass Obama, but this has seriously backfired and shows just how wreckless it is to play with these issues when lives are at stake. It's beyond disgusting of them, and I bet Romney pushed for it to take place. Let's hope he's held accountable. This is too serious to ignore.

LOL.  They deliberately held an open hearing?    Yes, what an offense.  As if the public has some right to know why and how they were lied to.   And let me tell you what's disgusting:  The fact that the President and his Administration clearly LIED to the American people, manipulated data, played dumb and more...all because a terrorist attack would look bad before the election.  That's what's disgusting.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank777 

Nice to see you're still around Hands. When you get a chance, please answer my question above: Who should be held responsible for the intelligence failure?

 

After all, you started the thread based on the idea that Romney's criticism of Obama's response was unpatriotic.

 

Now that it's been shown that Obama lied to the entire country (again), I'm wondering if you still think Romney was unpatriotic for not going along with the lie.

Anytime you're ready Hands.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

 

As if Democrats wouldn't have done exactly the same thing had the shoe been on the other foot.  The last couple lines of the article in my opinion reach at least one correct conclusion, and that is the fact that the committee should have had a classified security brief prior to the public inquiry.  Now whether this was the fault of the State department for not ensuring that the committee knew about the sensitive nature of some of what would be discussed or stupidity on the part of the committee iteself remains open for debate.

The repubs deliberately had an open hearing, aired on c-span, so they could try and embarrass Obama, but this has seriously backfired and shows just how wreckless it is to play with these issues when lives are at stake. It's beyond disgusting of them, and I bet Romney pushed for it to take place. Let's hope he's held accountable. This is too serious to ignore.

Unfortunately these occasional lapses are an inevitable consequence of the requirement for congressional oversight of intelligence operations. In most cases it gets dealt with, albeit clumsily, behind the scenes, but many politicians seem to be complete amateurs when it comes to understanding the reasons and mechanisms for protecting classified matter. When they are hot on the scent of an election victory I don't think it is uppermost in their minds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

Unfortunately these occasional lapses are an inevitable consequence of the requirement for congressional oversight of intelligence operations. In most cases it gets dealt with, albeit clumsily, behind the scenes, but many politicians seem to be complete amateurs when it comes to understanding the reasons and mechanisms for protecting classified matter. When they are hot on the scent of an election victory I don't think it is uppermost in their minds.

Of course it's not nearly as bad as the Obama's Admins intentional release of classified information to puff him up and make him look tough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

Do you really not think that Romney's initial sick attack on Obama supposedly sympathising more with the attackers than Americans, was politically motivated? I find it hard to believe that any rational person wouldn't. If Romney was willing to sink that disgracefully low then, you can guarantee he is now too.

 

Here's The Hill-

 

Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter is coming under intense criticism from Republicans for saying the "entire reason" the attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, had become a political topic was "because of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan."

 

Cutter was responding to a question about the continuing investigation into the terrorist attack on the consulate in Libya that left four Americans dead, and arguing that the administration was working to get "to the bottom of that attack to figure out what happened and bringing the people to justice."

But Cutter then accused Republicans of playing politics with the issue, and said pressure from the Romney campaign was the "entire reason" the issue had persisted.

"We would have told the American people what we knew and, you know, in terms of the politicization of this — we're here at a debate, and I hope we get to talk about the debate — but the entire reason that this has become the, you know, political topic it is, is because of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. It's a big part of their stump speech and it's reckless and irresponsible," Cutter said during her interview with CNN.

 

“From the time of the attack in Libya, Mitt Romney has stopped at nothing to politicize these events," Cutter said in a statement.

"While Mitt Romney, Congressman Ryan, and their Republican allies in Congress have turned a national tragedy into a political circus, the President has been focused on getting the facts, finding the terrorists responsible, and bringing them to justice. Our nation’s security and how we handle the transitions in the Middle East and North Africa are critical issues in this campaign, and just 26 days before an election, the American people deserve real ideas and specifics from Mitt Romney.” 

~ http://thehill.com/video/campaign/261539-cutter-libya-attacks-have-become-of-political-issue-because-of-romney-and-ryan

 

This shows your complete delusion.  The President's campaign spokesperson just said the "only reason" Libya has become an issue is because of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.  And you think this helps your argument.   Wow. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

Sorry, I don't follow you here. Can you explain further?

You posted Cutter's comments, presumably in support of your anti-Romney narrative.  You actually think her comments support the narrative.  That's delusional.