When will the lies stop? Mitt's "Binders Full of Women" story not even true - Page 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

 

And then on September 13th...

 

 

Skip to 1:07.  "No act of terror will go unpunished."

 

Now, can you put this dumb fucking bullshit terrorgate nonsense to rest?

Well...  Is he referring to Benghazi as an "act of terror" or an "act of violence"?  Because right after he says "no act of terror", he uses the phrase "no act of violence".  You are outraged over the "apology tour" because if never actually said, "I apologize".  He said numerous things in various speeches that could be take as an apology but he never actually said the word apology or apologize.  Now, in this instance you are defending him by taking any reference to "act of terror" to mean he called Lybia an act of terror though he never says anything close to "Lybia was an act of terror".  You obviously want to have it both ways.

The President in this speech was either speaking in generalities at the end of his speech when he mentions "act of terror", or he was practicing political double speak to give himself cover.  You are assuming the later, but that really makes no sense.  He repeatedly denied Lybia as being an "act of terror" after this.  If this was a Republican Presidency, you would be screaming from the rooftops for impeachment because he intentionally misled and lied to the American people.  There is now a paper trail to prove that the White House KNEW within hours that this was indeed an act of terror and yet the White House and State Dept spent weeks either denying it or claiming that they were still investigating.

How about a little consistency of logic here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

 

Well...  Is he referring to Benghazi as an "act of terror" or an "act of violence"?  Because right after he says "no act of terror", he uses the phrase "no act of violence".  You are outraged over the "apology tour" because if never actually said, "I apologize".  He said numerous things in various speeches that could be take as an apology but he never actually said the word apology or apologize.  Now, in this instance you are defending him by taking any reference to "act of terror" to mean he called Lybia an act of terror though he never says anything close to "Lybia was an act of terror".  You obviously want to have it both ways.

 

The President in this speech was either speaking in generalities at the end of his speech when he mentions "act of terror", or he was practicing political double speak to give himself cover.  You are assuming the later, but that really makes no sense.  He repeatedly denied Lybia as being an "act of terror" after this.  If this was a Republican Presidency, you would be screaming from the rooftops for impeachment because he intentionally misled and lied to the American people.  There is now a paper trail to prove that the White House KNEW within hours that this was indeed an act of terror and yet the White House and State Dept spent weeks either denying it or claiming that they were still investigating.

 

How about a little consistency of logic here.

Good luck with that one.  Logic?  Consistency?  LOL.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

 

Well...  Is he referring to Benghazi as an "act of terror" or an "act of violence"?  Because right after he says "no act of terror", he uses the phrase "no act of violence".  You are outraged over the "apology tour" because if never actually said, "I apologize".  He said numerous things in various speeches that could be take as an apology but he never actually said the word apology or apologize.  Now, in this instance you are defending him by taking any reference to "act of terror" to mean he called Lybia an act of terror though he never says anything close to "Lybia was an act of terror".  You obviously want to have it both ways.

 

The President in this speech was either speaking in generalities at the end of his speech when he mentions "act of terror", or he was practicing political double speak to give himself cover.  You are assuming the later, but that really makes no sense.  He repeatedly denied Lybia as being an "act of terror" after this.  If this was a Republican Presidency, you would be screaming from the rooftops for impeachment because he intentionally misled and lied to the American people.  There is now a paper trail to prove that the White House KNEW within hours that this was indeed an act of terror and yet the White House and State Dept spent weeks either denying it or claiming that they were still investigating.

 

How about a little consistency of logic here.

 

Good luck with that one.  Logic?  Consistency?  LOL.  

I'd have to argue that it is you two who are misapplying logic. He made a speech about an event that we know was a terrorist attack, and he referred to "acts of terror". There is no good reason, other than that you would like it to be so, to argue that he was talking about something else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

This is almost birther dumb.  You don't get to write "still talking about 9/11/01" after a convenient editing out of a paragraph and a half of his speech that circled it back to the Benghazi attack and magically make it so.  Here's the actual transcript, Noah Birther 2.0.  

 

 

 

Noah, you have reached a new low.  In your absence, you appear to have honed your partisan hackery.

If you think he did label it an act of terror, then why did he refuse to do so for two weeks afterwards?  Why blame it on a video?  The Rose Garden speech is really not the issue.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Move those goalposts.

Let me be clear:  I do not think his speech in the rose garden referred to the attack being an act of terror.  What I'm saying is this is the least of the issues.  I frankly wouldn't have cared if he never used the word terror in that speech.  What I do care about is the POTUS, SecState, PressSec and UN Ambassador going to the U.N, talk shows, The View and every other media outlet in the world--blaming a video and a non-existent mob.  You see, BR, if I concede that he did call it a terrorist attack, that makes things that much worse.  That means he unequivocally knew it was so and presented it as something else.  That's called lying.  

Something your boys Ryan and Romney do a lot.Everything you denounce Obama does and it is getting to be disgusting already.Nothing right you give this man credit for why?
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvfox 

Something your boys Ryan and Romney do a lot.Everything you denounce Obama does and it is getting to be disgusting already.Nothing right you give this man credit for why?
 

Show me one lie that Paul Ryan and/or Mitt Romney told.  And I will give credit where credit is due.  Unfortunately, there isn't much of it due---not to this man. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

This is almost birther dumb.  You don't get to write "still talking about 9/11/01" after a convenient editing out of a paragraph and a half of his speech that circled it back to the Benghazi attack and magically make it so.  Here's the actual transcript, Noah Birther 2.0.  

 

 

 

Noah, you have reached a new low.  In your absence, you appear to have honed your partisan hackery.

OK...  I'll concede that Obama called the Benghazi attack on 9/11/2012 an "act of terror".  Now, on this concession, can we move the discussion along to the next days and weeks?  Obama called the Benghazi attack on 9/11 an "act of terror".  There should be no denial of this fact, and the President showed great leadership in acknowledging this and stating that the US will hunt down the perpetrators.

Now, why did Hillary Clinton that same day link this attack to a anti-Muslim YouTube video?  On Sept. 14th the White House press secretary also referred to this attack as being related to this same video.  Secretary Clinton again on Sept 14th stated, "We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with."  On September 16 the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. did the Sunday show tour (5 shows in all), stating that the attacks began as a "spontaneous reaction" to "a hateful and offensive video that was widely disseminated throughout the Arab and Muslim world."  On Sept 18th Jay Carney (WH press sec) again stated this was about the video and not a terrorist attack by saying, "we saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack; that we saw evidence that it was sparked by the reaction to this video."  Why did President Obama state on Univision on Sept. 20th, "What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests."  President Obama again in his speech at the UN on Sept 25th said, "There is no video that justifies an attack on an Embassy."

Why in the world did virtually everyone associated with the administration say either directly or obliquely that this attack was associated with a YouTube video for the next two weeks?  Why since President Obama called it an "act of terror" on Sept 12th did he not even mention the word terrorist in relation to the attack until a week later on Letterman?  Why the entire narrative of the video and protests for two solid weeks when there appears to be zero evidence that there was even a protest going on in Benghazi?  Why is the first CLEAR statement from the Obama administration on the President's position not until Sept 27th when Jay Carney answers a question with, “The president’s position [is] that this was a terrorist attack”?

Weren't the chicks in the White House complaining that old boys network was alive and well on the Obama golf course and basketball court? Where are the carts and benches full of women?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoahJ 

The question has been asked multiple times. Answer it.
If you think he did label it an act of terror, then why did he refuse to do so for two weeks afterwards? Why blame it on a video?
Romney has nothing to do with Obama's Actions on this, he made a statement based on what he and the rest of the nation saw. Stop evading, answer the question.

Give him a break.  BR knows that he can't answer the question because there is no excuse for the way that the administration is playing politics with this.  Obama knows that the bulk of the press is going to simply eat up whatever he is serving without question.  That means that he can simply blame the video rather than owning up to the fact that this was a planned terrorist attack because that flies in the face of his narrative on terrorism that the US has dealt it a major blow and terrorism is a bad memory in our rear view now.  The various sources that are making it obvious that the administration knew within hours that this had nothing at all to do with a protest is irrelevant to Obama and BR.

Just asking: You guys are aware there's a storm of historic proportions approaching the continent, right?

Because I can't seem to find a thread on it in the forum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank777 

Just asking: You guys are aware there's a storm of historic proportions approaching the continent, right?

 

Because I can't seem to find a thread on it in the forum.

I sure hope that this storm doesn't end up here in the political forums.  Unfortunately, it very well may.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoahJ 

Shall we add another lie to this thread?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/29/obama-jeep-ad_n_2040851.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012

Quote:

"And now, after Romney's false claim of Jeep outsourcing to China, Chrysler itself has refuted Romney's lie," he continues. "The truth? Jeep is adding jobs in Ohio."

Or are they?

http://nlpc.org/cached/fiat-says-chrysler-jeep-production-may-move-italy.html?q=stories/2012/10/29/fiat-says-chrysler-jeep-production-may-move-italy

Quote:

Coming hot on the heels of speculation that some Jeep production may be moved to China comes a bombshell from a Bloomberg report. Fiat is now considering moving Chrysler and Jeep production to Italy.

According to the piece, "To counter the severe slump in European sales, (Fiat CEO Sergio) Marchionne is considering building Chrysler models in Italy, including Jeeps, for export to North America. The Italian government is evaluating tax rebates on export goods to help Fiat. Marchionne may announce details of his plan as soon as Oct. 30, the people said."

Sweet, it really was not China, it was Italy. So much better...

Are you referring to this plan?  If so it's explained a little better than in the link that you gave.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

You didn't ask a question.  You just frothed a bit about the president because the administration didn't know everything that happened instantaneously.  With regard to the extra security forces that were requested, from what I just read over at Politifact, those security forces would have been stationed in Tripoli--400 miles away from Benghazi.  Seems rather disingenuous to bring up the denial of the request for extra security in Tripoli when discussing an attack about Benghazi.

 

This is why I have trouble speaking with you and your likeminded brethren.  I have to parse through so many lies and irrelevant details to get to the meat of the issue that it wastes an enormous amount of my time.  Stop wasting your time and give Romney the same scrutiny you are currently giving Obama.

1.  They didn't know everything, true.  But they knew it wasn't due to a video, nor was there a mob.  

2.  OMG!  400 miles?  You of all people should know "we have these ships called aircraft carriers...that planes land on."   We had forced that could have gotten there.  And you damn well know it.

3.  You give Obama zero scrutiny while assailing Romney, even though Obama is currently in charge.  #PotKettleBlack 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

2.  OMG!  400 miles?  You of all people should know "we have these ships called aircraft carriers...that planes land on."   We had forced that could have gotten there.  And you damn well know it.

Touché. Nicely done.

Air support was requested numerous times and never came. And the President was watching in real time. End of story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

Touché. Nicely done.

Bullshit.  Yes, let's bring air support and bomb the embassy to protect the embassy.  SDW's allusion is bad and he should feel bad.

It was not totally off base though. Bombing the consulate would not have been a good idea, but they could perhaps have flown in some ground support and/or attack helicopters - that is a reasonable suggestion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Perhaps I should dig around the archives just after 9/11/01 to see how I should respond to using a national tragedy for political gain.  I'm sure I'll see nothing hypocritical.  But, don't have the time or the desire, really.  I'll just wait and see if there's any independent confirmation of this "Fox News Exclusive" and see what the official investigation digs up--rather than being impatient, slinging mud, and drawing up ridiculous conspiracy theories (like the one I just read about a right-wing nutter thinking President Obama ordered the kidnapping of the Ambassador--just fucking wow).

 

Stop playing Armchair Monday-morning General and let's see what the official investigation comes up with.

I would not get too worked up over this. The mudslinging has definitely got worse since 2001, and the conspiracy theories don't really deserve to be dignified with responses. It looks like mistakes may have been made on both the response to and the information management of this event; nothing terribly unusual about either of those, and unless something really serious turns up this is likely to have been mostly just political hot air. If this were not an election year I doubt that we would be seeing nearly this level of mock outrage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Romney did, however, admit that he would take advantage of a national security crisis for political gain at the fundraiser that was secretly taped.  Hey, he didn't lie about something.  Color me impressed.  The video title, by the way, is incorrect.  Romney doesn't want another crisis, but he will certainly take advantage of one if it comes up.  The most damning part of the video is in the last 5 seconds.

 

 

Worse than any foreign attack.

Didn't someone in the Bush WH say something along the lines of "We need another Pearl Harbor"?  Aren't many of the same people now advisors to Mittens?

Frightening that they would want anything to happen to Americans just for political gain. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Romney did, however, admit that he would take advantage of a national security crisis for political gain at the fundraiser that was secretly taped.  Hey, he didn't lie about something.  Color me impressed.  The video title, by the way, is incorrect.  Romney doesn't want another crisis, but he will certainly take advantage of one if it comes up.  The most damning part of the video is in the last 5 seconds.

 

I wonder what is said in the next 5 seconds?  Could it be something along the lines of, "I'll take advantage of the opportunity to further solidify the support against Iran in the UN in order to finally help the Iranian people get a leadership that is actually worthy of them thru supporting real democratic elections rather than the farce that put Ahmedinejad in control."  Maybe taking advantage of the opportunity was referring to finally convincing China and Russia to take an active roll in completely isolating Iran such that they are finally brought to the point of reason on the nuclear weapons issue?

Haven't both sides done enough to take things out of context?  Your "most damning" part has absolutely no context since it is cutoff in mid-sentence.  If he were to go on to say something like, "I'll take advantage of the opportunity to invade Iran and establish a puppet state of the US such that we can rape the country of all it's natural resources and ensalve the population." then I would agree that would be damning.  Somehow though I imagine that if that were the case the video wouldn't have been editted to end at the point at which it did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Romney did, however, admit that he would take advantage of a national security crisis for political gain at the fundraiser that was secretly taped.  Hey, he didn't lie about something.  Color me impressed.  The video title, by the way, is incorrect.  Romney doesn't want another crisis, but he will certainly take advantage of one if it comes up.  The most damning part of the video is in the last 5 seconds.

 

Oh, come on.  "Work to take advantage of the opportunity?"  You have no idea what that means. Out of context, cut off mid-thought.  You are clearly desperate.    

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoahJ 

BR, you are the worst type of Hypocrite.

The worst hypocrites, and there are tens of millions of them in the US, are those people who label themselves "Christian" ie "follow" the teachings of Jesus, while at the same time, fully embracing Ayn Rand type sociopathy, the excesses of capitalism, privilege, nepotism and materialism, the wholesale killing of people overseas for profit - account of baldfaced lies, state sponsored killing, general hatred/intolerance for minority groups, and the rest of the rightwing canon. 

Being a true Christian is a very tough call (I could never be one myself, for many reasons, including such). I have met very few genuine ones, and more fakes - or "Convenience Christians" than I can count... and that is probably the same for anyone. It is so easy to talk the talk, while walking a different, but diametrically opposing walk.. especially when your peers are doing the same thing and will never call you on it.

The Truth can be tough.