• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Romney campaign blunders again

I thought you caught on to your mistake. I thought you edited it to 'fix' it. You were right about the date but then INSIST they arrived AFTER Bush's inauguration.

So...who did your parents vote for in that all important presidential election of November 1999?

In spring 2001, the secondary hijackers began arriving in the United States.[155]

Bush wasn't President in spring of 2001?
 
It is sickening and disgusting to watch Romney trying to use a terrible event like this to score political points since he is falling farther behind in the polls.


Kind of like Obama did in 2008?


Justice says this will continue to blow up in his face as independent voters throw up at his self serving shameless antics.

Romney is hardly down and out in any poll -- and in some he is leading. The race is hardly decided. The story will change quickly enough on Romney's handling of the event, and will ultimately boil down to the diaster that our foreign policy has been over the last four years -- something that will hurt the President.
 
In spring 2001, the secondary hijackers began arriving in the United States.[155]

Bush wasn't President in spring of 2001?

This is an idiotic line of thinking....yes Bush was President in 2001, but let's go back further, what made these people so mad to begin with as to even want to do something like this? We can take it all the way back to the Revolution, ultimately ending in the moronic conclusion that if we had just lost the revolution, we would not have to deal with this -- therefore if is all the fault of the founding fathers.
 
In spring 2001, the secondary hijackers began arriving in the United States.[155]

Bush wasn't President in spring of 2001?
Go back to the initial question. When did the hijackers first arrive. Who was president? When did they begin terrorist school training? Who ignored intel reports? They arrived in January of 2000...but you just HAD to make that on Bush's watch...right? So you stuck to the Bush inauguration...of 2000...no matter HOW hard I tried to help you you just kept on with the foolishness...because...well...you couldnt help yourself...right? So...now...well...the SECONDARY hijackers...the muscle guys...yeah...yeah...THATS what you meant.

:doh
 
This is an idiotic line of thinking....yes Bush was President in 2001, but let's go back further, what made these people so mad to begin with as to even want to do something like this? We can take it all the way back to the Revolution, ultimately ending in the moronic conclusion that if we had just lost the revolution, we would not have to deal with this -- therefore if is all the fault of the founding fathers.

I was simply responding to VanceMack's idiotic notion that somehow we need to blame Clinton, where Bush ought to get off scot-free.

I'm not a Clinton partisan; I have no problem blaming him for some security lapses. Bush should shoulder at least an equal share of the blame, however.
 
Romney is running on the important issues, like economics and jobs.
If he wins, first thing he should do is pull all "aid" to the middle east except weapons for Israel....
and then say nothing at all.
Let the Arab world stew in its own juices for 4 yeas.
 
Kind of like Obama did in 2008?




Romney is hardly down and out in any poll -- and in some he is leading. The race is hardly decided. The story will change quickly enough on Romney's handling of the event, and will ultimately boil down to the diaster that our foreign policy has been over the last four years -- something that will hurt the President.
Sandy Berger was on a show this mornign talking about this...how...yes...Clinton did it...and Bush did it...and of course Obama did it when he was campaigning...but really guys...this has to stop today. Because...its not fair...
 
I was simply responding to VanceMack's idiotic notion that somehow we need to blame Clinton, where Bush ought to get off scot-free.

I'm not a Clinton partisan; I have no problem blaming him for some security lapses. Bush should shoulder at least an equal share of the blame, however.

Then we agree -- the whole argument over who is responsible for what is pointless in my view.
 
I was simply responding to VanceMack's idiotic notion that somehow we need to blame Clinton, where Bush ought to get off scot-free.

I'm not a Clinton partisan; I have no problem blaming him for some security lapses. Bush should shoulder at least an equal share of the blame, however.
Obviously you didnt follow the conversation very well and then in the process exposed yourself as an idiot no matter how many times I tried to help you.
 
Romney, of course, got it right the first time. What's the Administration saying now, after a few days of reflection?

Pretty much exactly what Romney said they were saying.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton took strong steps Thursday to distance the U.S. government from the movie, calling the film “disgusting and reprehensible” but also condemning the violence in response to it.

The U.S. government has absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and messages,” Clinton said. “But there is no justification — none at all — for responding to this video with violence.

And:

Now, I know it is hard for some people to understand why the United States cannot or does not just prevent these kinds of reprehensible videos from ever seeing the light of day,” Clinton said. “Even if it were possible, our country does have a long tradition of free expression, which is enshrined in our Constitution and our law. And we do not stop individual citizens from expressing their views, no matter how distasteful they may be.”

If this is not apology and sympathy, nothing is.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...65ce7e-fd9b-11e1-a31e-804fccb658f9_story.html
 
Sandy Berger was on a show this mornign talking about this...how...yes...Clinton did it...and Bush did it...and of course Obama did it when he was campaigning...but really guys...this has to stop today. Because...its not fair...

It is of course only some horrible thing when your opponent is doing it. ;)

Partisan hacks will scream about this -- but this will not be a big issue in a few days. The issue will ultimately be the disaster that our foreign policy has been the last 4 years.
 
When you have PEGGY NOONAN saying Romney "didn't do himself any favors" and that he "looked weak", one ought to reconsider defending Romney on this gaff.

More of your self-reinforcing narrative. No one who was going to vote for Romney will now refuse to because he called Obama on his weak-kneed stance to a foreign policy disaster. And every one of those so-called republican strategists has said that the content was absolutely correct, just that he should have waited 12-24 hours to say it.

It's not a "gaff" in any sense, what Romney said was correct. When Obama addresses other nations he goes weak in the knees and amatuerish.
 
More of your self-reinforcing narrative. No one who was going to vote for Romney will now refuse to because he called Obama on his weak-kneed stance to a foreign policy disaster. And every one of those so-called republican strategists has said that the content was absolutely correct, just that he should have waited 12-24 hours to say it.

It's not a "gaff" in any sense, what Romney said was correct. When Obama addresses other nations he goes weak in the knees and amatuerish.

So you know more about it than Peggy Noonan, the most famous neo-conservative hawk in the Reagan Administration?

Impressive.

And, actually, there are lots of libertarian-leaning Republicans who just might not vote for Romney if he keeps up this level of bellicosity.
 
So you know more about it than Peggy Noonan, the most famous neo-conservative hawk in the Reagan Administration?

Impressive.

And, actually, there are lots of libertarian-leaning Republicans who just might not vote for Romney if he keeps up this level of bellicosity.

The answer is yes. Noonan sold her soul long ago and anything that has come out of her mouth since has been bought and paid for. She's not a "neo-conservative", she a paid pundit and will occupy any political space she thinks she can command attention in.

But that's moot. The absurd original point, that this would cost Romney voters that were already Romney voters is what I was addressing.
 
The answer is yes. Noonan sold her soul long ago and anything that has come out of her mouth since has been bought and paid for. She's not a "neo-conservative", she a paid pundit and will occupy any political space she thinks she can command attention in.

Ah, I see. She's "bought" because she doesn't agree with your perception of the situation.

But that's moot. The absurd original point, that this would cost Romney voters that were already Romney voters is what I was addressing.

I know of a few libertarian Republicans who aren't going to vote for Romney because of his promise to escalate the militarism of the last two Administrations.
 
Ah, I see. She's "bought" because she doesn't agree with your perception of the situation.

No, not what I said, Noonan has always been a shill. And I'm not here saying the pundits are wrong about saying that Romney should've have waited. I'm disputing that Romney will lose a single voter over this AND I'm saying even the pundits aren't saying Romney was wrong, just that he should have waited a day to say it.

I know of a few libertarian Republicans who aren't going to vote for Romney because of his promise to escalate the militarism of the last two Administrations.

And again, has nothing to do with this or my statements. They weren't going to vote for Romney in the first place.
 
Romney is hardly down and out in any poll -- and in some he is leading. The race is hardly decided. The story will change quickly enough on Romney's handling of the event, and will ultimately boil down to the diaster that our foreign policy has been over the last four years -- something that will hurt the President.

Look at tonight's NBC NEWS/MARIST polls - Obama with big leads in Ohio, Virginia and Florida.

I read your post and it is simply proof how out of touch with the American people the right is.
 
I posted this on another thread, but it really needs to be watched and listened to:





How predictable. You think it is the medias fault that even many Republicans are dissing Romney's actions concerning the Embassy attack.
Next you will be saying all the polls are lies like Rushbo. Yawn
 
Sorry libs you're not going to be able to shift the narrative with projection

Obama apologized as our flag burned, our citizens were murdered, and a black al qaeda flag was was raised in it's place

This was a coordinated attack on 9/11. Obama is a disgrace not fit to be president

Since obama never did this i guess you are imagining invisible fantasy obama again. that is the problem with the Romtards, they make **** up and people are starting to catch on that it just simply is not true. The difference between obama and romney is that you don't have to make up Romney mistakes, he pretty much makes sure we all hear them straight from rafalka's ass.
 
Ten pages into this and the Romney supporters still haven't figured out the truth.

1. Obama did not endorse the message posted by the embassy in Cairo, he actually rebuked it.

2. The criticism of Romney is about two things, his portrayal of Obama apologizing and his willingness to attack Obama in a time of crisis.
 
Romney's handling of this scenario was somewhat poor -- but what he said has plently of validity, and no one seems to want to talk about that.

Let's be real -- why was the embassy commenting on the video at all? The role of an embassy is to be a voice for our interests abroad. The US government (which includes embassies) should never comment on a video like this. Period. It makes no sense. There are plently of examples of horrible affronts to Christianity, but it would be idiotic to expect the government to come out and make a statement about freedom of religion. The only scenario when they should is if the government made the video -- which they obviously did not.

The last four years have been a disaster in the Middle East (and frankly Europe, and Asia) for the United States. The foreign policy trajectory we are on is pathetic -- and that all gets glossed over because Gov. Romney made his statement in a poor fashion....fine...but the real issues are still there -- and still being ignored, to our own detriment.

The only validity in what Romney said is the same thing Obama said, see my above post about what the problem with Romney was.

Why did the embassy post that? I don't know maybe because they knew things were about to get out of hand? I don't see the point in raking people over the coals whose lives were possibly in danger at the moment they made that post. It's easy to play American badass over here in the comfort of the U.S., not so easy when there are people outside screaming "death to America" while holding rpg's.
 
Look at tonight's NBC NEWS/MARIST polls - Obama with big leads in Ohio, Virginia and Florida.

They do indeed show the President with a lead in those states -- but they do not show Gov Romney as a lost cause or in an unwinnable scenario -- it is after all still early -- and the debates will have an impact.

I read your post and it is simply proof how out of touch with the American people the right is.

Care to elaborate?
 
They do indeed show the President with a lead in those states -- but they do not show Gov Romney as a lost cause or in an unwinnable scenario -- it is after all still early -- and the debates will have an impact.



Care to elaborate?

Sure - I suspect the average American is NOT willing to attack the President of the USA over this issue the way Romney and his supporters are so willing to do. That is you out of touch misjudgment.
 
The only validity in what Romney said is the same thing Obama said, see my above post about what the problem with Romney was.

Why did the embassy post that? I don't know maybe because they knew things were about to get out of hand?

Great job they did cooling things down.

I don't see the point in raking people over the coals whose lives were possibly in danger at the moment they made that post.

It was an idiotic post. Being in roles like this means accepting the danger that you might face. Regardless of the situation they were in, their words have consequences. We need people in such posts who make good judgement calls in pressure situations -- the staff at the embassy in Egypt so far has come up short in that regard.

It's easy to play American badass over here in the comfort of the U.S., not so easy when there are people outside screaming "death to America" while holding rpg's.

I was in the Army in Iraq and later Afghanistan, and dealt with situations not exactly like this -- but arguablely quite similiar. I think the staffers there used poor judgement in how they handled the situation. Were they under stress? Of course, but tough luck -- that is part of the job they signed up for.
 
Sure - I suspect the average American is NOT willing to attack the President of the USA over this issue the way Romney and his supporters are so willing to do. That is you out of touch misjudgment.

My point is that the issue will ultimately boil down to the horrible foreign policy we have pursued over the last four years. Four years ago Obama pledged to seek conciliation with the Muslim world -- today, that is a disaster.

It is my view that we chose poorly in our support of various groups in various countries during the last four years and we are now seeing the result.

I hope the President makes better choices from here on in (and I am not sure Romney would have made any better choices) -- but the fact remains, the last four years we have seen a major decline in our influence around the world.
 
Back
Top Bottom