• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

2012 Debates

RandFan said:
Al, why did the president bring up an unrelated issue during such an important moment? Would you please explain that?
Click to expand...

Biscuit said:
Because it fits the narrative that best suits albell's preconceived notions?
Click to expand...
Yeah, odd narrative in which a president covers up a terrorist attack by taking about terrorism immediately following the attack.
 
RandFan said:
Yeah, odd narrative in which a president covers up a terrorist attack by taking about terrorism immediately following the attack.
Click to expand...

He's the devil that Obama! Try to make us think the one sentence relates the next when giving a speech.
 
I submit that our nation -- by adopting the stance that rights of free expression, association, and assembly are universal -- is obligated to regard peaceful demonstrations outside any of its embassies as a legitimate means by which the people of a host nation may express their grievances. I submit that our President would agree, as expressed by the spirit of statements such as these:

“I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so.”

“we have seen largely peaceful protests bring more change to Muslim-majority countries than a decade of violence.”

“To be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”

“people are making their voices heard, insisting on their innate dignity and the right to determine their future”

But, I believe that the President also holds that in the instant that those protests turn to deadly violence against one of our diplomatic missions, regardless of whether that violence is fully spontaneous or carefully orchestrated (or any combination of the two) they become -- prima facie -- acts of terror. I further submit that his choice of words in the Rose Garden was intended to subsume the full range of that, and did so -- despite the lack of complete information at the time -- and that they are still just as valid now that we have more complete information.
 
Other than his huge crash (which was saved by the first debate) he's hovered around there since May, so not much unusual to see here in the long-term trendline.
 
Morrigan said:
I LOLed at this one.

Btw, youtube isn't loading for me (!?), but I'm seeing that Romney managed to derail a gun control question by talking about single moms or something? Is that true?
Click to expand...

Yea they both derailed that one. It was dumb question and should not have been asked because I don't think gun control is on anyones mind really.

Mitt also used it as an opportunity to fain ignorance about the purpose of fast and furious.
 
Biscuit said:
Yea they both derailed that one. It was dumb question and should not have been asked because I don't think gun control is on anyones mind really.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'll be you could count the undecided NRA members on one hand. It's not a vote getter and only bad news for either of them could come out of the discussion.
 
SezMe said:
Yeah, I'll be you could count the undecided NRA members on one hand. It's not a vote getter and only bad news for either of them could come out of the discussion.
Click to expand...

There's quite a few 2A folks sitting the election out entirely (or voting for Johnson) and frankly I don't blame them. Nobody trusts Romney. However Obama certainly made no effort to attract them with his talk of a renewed assault weapons ban, and lack of understanding of what that means.

Not that Romney appears to have a much better grasp of the Second Amendment, choosing instead to go after unwed mothers?? Straight out of the Sarah Palin grab-bag technique, I thought...
 
Last edited:
Am I the only one that sees the contradiction in Romney attacking the President over the unemployment statistics and then insisting that the government doesn't create jobs?
 
Alareth said:
Am I the only one that sees the contradiction in Romney attacking the President over the unemployment statistics and then insisting that the government doesn't create jobs?
Click to expand...

You're probably not the only person who thinks it's a contradiction, but it isn't. If the government isn't a job creator, that doesn't mean it can't be a job destroyer.
 
Ziggurat said:
You're probably not the only person who thinks it's a contradiction, but it isn't. If the government isn't a job creator, that doesn't mean it can't be a job destroyer.
Click to expand...

its wrong though. the government creates plenty of jobs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom