These weren't just "Obama administration" in some vague sense. This wasn't the Sec of Ag or a random IRS employee or whatever. These were specific humans trapped in a dangerous situation and who Romney called sympathizers -- no I won't stop using the word -- to the people mobbing the embassy. Romney is a coward and a sad little man to use them in that manner to score political points.
Despite your repeated attempts to say "but... but... Obama...", the president never once accused those people of sympathizing with the mob nor called their remarks disgraceful. Romney did because some shoot from the hip political rhetoric means more to him than respect or understanding for the workers who made the statement. To him (and to you) they are nothing but faceless "Obama administration" to be insulted if it means he can try and make the president look bad.
It's craven, petty politics but it's apparently all that man knows. Feel free to keep defending him though. Maybe say "wtf?" Some more. That should help.
Edited, Sep 13th 2012 8:03pm by Jophiel
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- # RomneyShambles
# RomneyShamblesFollow
#202gbaji,
Posted: Sep 13 2012 at 6:29 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Huh? What question? When did I say it wasn't about "real people". Those "real people" are members of "the Obama administration", right? You're really just flailing around in circles at this point. How about you stop, breathe for a bit, collect your thoughts, and try to explain in intelligible words what the hell problem you have with Romney's statement, keeping in mind that the same statement was disavowed by the White House.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
No, that's not how English works.
Um... Yes, is it.
No, it's not. I understand that you want it to be that way. It would marginally help your argument. Unfortunately, that isn't how the English language works.
Sorry.
"Just because I said your first response was to sympathize with someone, I never once said you sympathized with them or were a sympathizer!!"
Nice argument
Nice argument
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I show sympathy for Joph having some sick passion to reply to Gbaji.
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
Those +1's gotta come somehow
gbaji quoting Romney wrote:
"It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."
Forgive me if I am wrong, but didn't the first statement from "The Obama Administration", which is being referenced by Mr. Romney above, happened BEFORE the attacks, and have nothing to do with anything except to understand that some certain Muslims were understandably upset? How were they supposed to condemn attacks BEFORE they happened?
Curse you, Obama Administration, for not assuming that those damn Muslims would attack! Of course they will attack, every Muslim is a dirty Terrorist, there is do gradation at all!!!!
ETA: Now if you will excuse me, I must drink beer and watch John Stewart, so I can laugh again
Edited, Sep 13th 2012 9:40pm by stupidmonkey
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
gbaji wrote:
Secondly, let's stop playing games with tense. Since all the events at the time were past tense, Romney's statement is past tense. But two things which both occurred in the past did not necessarily happen at the same time. You (and a lot of other people apparently) are interpreting Romney's statement that "It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.†as though the administration sympathized with the attacks themselves. But his statement doesn't say that. It simply says that they sympathized (past tense) with those who waged the attacks (also past tense).
Is it painful to willfully twist the truth around so much? Because it's hilarious to watch you try.
Gbaji's now demonstrated (as he's done in the past) that he'll willfully misunderstand the very tenets of English in order to serve his Republican overlords. I think, had he the power, he'd try to bend the fabric of space and time to do so, too. I really don't think that there's a line at which he stops and acknowledges their failings, however trivial.
It's fucking scary.
Edited, Sep 14th 2012 1:24am by Eske
It's fucking scary.
Edited, Sep 14th 2012 1:24am by Eske
Technogeek wrote:
Those +1's gotta come somehow
Im not sure I follow....
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
I know this isn't Romney and all that but Replublicans are Replublicans when you north of 40.
http://news.yahoo.com/sen-jon-kyl-us-embassy-response-blaming-rape-031347151--abc-news-politics.html
I only have one question though, are we talking a legitimate rape victim here?
http://news.yahoo.com/sen-jon-kyl-us-embassy-response-blaming-rape-031347151--abc-news-politics.html
Quote:
Speaking to reporters on Capitol Hill, the 70-year old, retiring senator said:
"It's like the judge telling the woman who got raped, 'You asked for it because of the way you dressed.' OK? That's the same thing. 'Well, America, you should be the ones to apologize, you should have known this would happen, you should have done - what I don't know - but it's your fault that it happened.' You know, for a member of our State Department to put out a statement like that, it had to be cleared by somebody. They don't just do that in the spur of the moment."
Kyl likely referred to criticism by U.S. diplomats in Egypt of a U.S.-produced film that reportedly features a negative depiction of Islam's prophet, Muhammed. The film was cited later during the attack on the U.S. embassy in Egypt.
"It's like the judge telling the woman who got raped, 'You asked for it because of the way you dressed.' OK? That's the same thing. 'Well, America, you should be the ones to apologize, you should have known this would happen, you should have done - what I don't know - but it's your fault that it happened.' You know, for a member of our State Department to put out a statement like that, it had to be cleared by somebody. They don't just do that in the spur of the moment."
Kyl likely referred to criticism by U.S. diplomats in Egypt of a U.S.-produced film that reportedly features a negative depiction of Islam's prophet, Muhammed. The film was cited later during the attack on the U.S. embassy in Egypt.
I only have one question though, are we talking a legitimate rape victim here?
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
rdmcandie wrote:
I know this isn't Romney and all that but Replublicans are Replublicans when you north of 40.
http://news.yahoo.com/sen-jon-kyl-us-embassy-response-blaming-rape-031347151--abc-news-politics.html
I only have one question though, are we talking a legitimate rape victim here?
http://news.yahoo.com/sen-jon-kyl-us-embassy-response-blaming-rape-031347151--abc-news-politics.html
Quote:
Speaking to reporters on Capitol Hill, the 70-year old, retiring senator said:
"It's like the judge telling the woman who got raped, 'You asked for it because of the way you dressed.' OK? That's the same thing. 'Well, America, you should be the ones to apologize, you should have known this would happen, you should have done - what I don't know - but it's your fault that it happened.' You know, for a member of our State Department to put out a statement like that, it had to be cleared by somebody. They don't just do that in the spur of the moment."
Kyl likely referred to criticism by U.S. diplomats in Egypt of a U.S.-produced film that reportedly features a negative depiction of Islam's prophet, Muhammed. The film was cited later during the attack on the U.S. embassy in Egypt.
"It's like the judge telling the woman who got raped, 'You asked for it because of the way you dressed.' OK? That's the same thing. 'Well, America, you should be the ones to apologize, you should have known this would happen, you should have done - what I don't know - but it's your fault that it happened.' You know, for a member of our State Department to put out a statement like that, it had to be cleared by somebody. They don't just do that in the spur of the moment."
Kyl likely referred to criticism by U.S. diplomats in Egypt of a U.S.-produced film that reportedly features a negative depiction of Islam's prophet, Muhammed. The film was cited later during the attack on the U.S. embassy in Egypt.
I only have one question though, are we talking a legitimate rape victim here?
Cant' be, or we would have had ways to shut down the attack before it happened.
I only have one question though, are we talking a legitimate rape victim here?
Bruises?
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
America asked for it because we're so gosh darn awesome.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Looks like we've picked up Montreal and Toronto in meatamerica.
Just as Planned.
http://news.yahoo.com/gop-elector-wont-vote-romney-resigns-074113894--election.html
Does this happen often?
Quote:
AMES, Iowa (AP) — A Republican appointed to the Electoral College, Melinda Wadsley was expected to cast her vote for Mitt Romney if he won the state of Iowa in the presidential election.
Wadsley decided Thursday she couldn't in good conscience vote for Romney — she had backed Ron Paul during the GOP primary — and resigned to allow the Iowa GOP to choose someone else for that duty.
Wadsley decided Thursday she couldn't in good conscience vote for Romney — she had backed Ron Paul during the GOP primary — and resigned to allow the Iowa GOP to choose someone else for that duty.
Does this happen often?
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
Well, she dropped out so they'll replace her with someone loyal to Romney.
A few have given hints that they'd be "Faithless electors" -- people who cast a vote for someone besides their party's nominee -- to protest Republican party mechanizations against Ron Paul. It wouldn't be unprecedented although I wouldn't expect it to turn an election either [read: zero chance]. Party discipline is tighter than that and you don't typically get to be an elector unless you're a proven loyalist.
Looking at Wiki, the last faithless elector vote that doesn't look like an error was a DC elector casting "no vote" in 2000 as a protest regarding DC's status and the last time someone intentionally cast a faithless ballot for an actual candidate was 1976 when someone voted for Reagan over Ford.
Edited, Sep 14th 2012 10:52am by Jophiel
A few have given hints that they'd be "Faithless electors" -- people who cast a vote for someone besides their party's nominee -- to protest Republican party mechanizations against Ron Paul. It wouldn't be unprecedented although I wouldn't expect it to turn an election either [read: zero chance]. Party discipline is tighter than that and you don't typically get to be an elector unless you're a proven loyalist.
Looking at Wiki, the last faithless elector vote that doesn't look like an error was a DC elector casting "no vote" in 2000 as a protest regarding DC's status and the last time someone intentionally cast a faithless ballot for an actual candidate was 1976 when someone voted for Reagan over Ford.
Edited, Sep 14th 2012 10:52am by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Back to #RomneyShambles, I went back to Jim Wright's Stonekettle Station Blog to see what he had to say about how Romney dropped the ball on the Embassy attacks. Please read and then share if you're on Facebook. war-by-other-means
If you still believe Romney's narrative after Jim's clearly written essay, try taking off the blinders and read again.
If you still believe Romney's narrative after Jim's clearly written essay, try taking off the blinders and read again.
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare
This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
So, this happened.
PS: Before gbaji comes in here and says "well, see, he said '$250,000 and less', so it's correct", the actual exchange is:
GS: Is $100,000 middle income?
MR: Well, no, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less.
Edited, Sep 14th 2012 12:58pm by Eske
Quote:
10:40 AM EDT: In an interview with “Good Morning America’s†George Stephanopoulos, Mitt Romney was asked: “Is $100,000 middle income?†“Middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less,†Romney replied.
PS: Before gbaji comes in here and says "well, see, he said '$250,000 and less', so it's correct", the actual exchange is:
GS: Is $100,000 middle income?
MR: Well, no, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less.
Edited, Sep 14th 2012 12:58pm by Eske
To be fair, Democratic legislation has targetted that $250k number as well. Obama targetted it as the cut-off for something in 2008 (can't remember what), and it's the targetted cut-off for where they want the Bush tax cuts extended/expired. Not this means that the Democrats think $250k is middle class, but they apparently feel it includes too many voters to alienate.
trickybeck wrote:
To be fair, Democratic legislation has targetted that $250k number as well. Obama targetted it as the cut-off for something in 2008 (can't remember what), and it's the targetted cut-off for where they want the Bush tax cuts extended/expired. Not this means that the Democrats think $250k is middle class, but they apparently feel it includes too many voters to alienate.
That's fine by me. I've got much less of a bone to pick with saying that 250k is middle class than with saying that 100k isn't, myself.
Eske Esquire wrote:
trickybeck wrote:
To be fair, Democratic legislation has targetted that $250k number as well. Obama targetted it as the cut-off for something in 2008 (can't remember what), and it's the targetted cut-off for where they want the Bush tax cuts extended/expired. Not this means that the Democrats think $250k is middle class, but they apparently feel it includes too many voters to alienate.
That's fine by me. I've got much less of a bone to pick with saying that 250k is middle class than with saying that 100k isn't, myself.
The way I understood the dems position is that anyone above the poverty line and below the 250K mark was considered middle class earners. 250K seems like an arbitrary number, but it is essentially the mid-point for the second highest tax level, and is the last tax level that has an upper cap.
I don't think I have ever heard any politician strictly define the middle class into such a number. This is a very narrow minded approach, and considering that the average earnings in the US are someplace around 80K id wager that middle class starts there and tapers off in either direction.
I don't know who Romney has feeding him lines but it almost seems as if they want him to alienate the majority of the nation. I make about 45K/yr in Canada and I am considered middle class, if I were to be making 200K+ id be one of those poor rich people.
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
According to the table on wikipedia (based on 2004 data), I'm somwhere near the 80th percentile. Those in the 95th percentile make nearly double that, but still ~$50k short of $200k a year. I'd be hard pressed to agree that any household making $200k is middle class.
Edited, Sep 14th 2012 12:44pm by BrownDuck
Edited, Sep 14th 2012 12:44pm by BrownDuck
Eske Esquire wrote:
trickybeck wrote:
To be fair, Democratic legislation has targetted that $250k number as well. Obama targetted it as the cut-off for something in 2008 (can't remember what), and it's the targetted cut-off for where they want the Bush tax cuts extended/expired. Not this means that the Democrats think $250k is middle class, but they apparently feel it includes too many voters to alienate.
That's fine by me. I've got much less of a bone to pick with saying that 250k is middle class than with saying that 100k isn't, myself.
I don't think that's what Romney was saying. Romney's answer about the cut-off obviously doesn't quite match what the question was, but I'm sure he thinks $100k (household I assume?) is middle class.
trickybeck wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
trickybeck wrote:
To be fair, Democratic legislation has targetted that $250k number as well. Obama targetted it as the cut-off for something in 2008 (can't remember what), and it's the targetted cut-off for where they want the Bush tax cuts extended/expired. Not this means that the Democrats think $250k is middle class, but they apparently feel it includes too many voters to alienate.
That's fine by me. I've got much less of a bone to pick with saying that 250k is middle class than with saying that 100k isn't, myself.
I don't think that's what Romney was saying. Romney's answer about the cut-off obviously doesn't quite match what the question was, but I'm sure he thinks $100k (household I assume?) is middle class.
I don't quite follow. He very literally said that 100k isn't middle class.
I mean, does he actually believe that? Probably not. But it's just one of those gaffes that I couldn't see a person of more modest means making, for whatever reason.
Recent Visitors: 226
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (226)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- # RomneyShambles
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC