05 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by vivifySee? You're reasonable. We can talk.
Yes. However, it would be a lie that Obama has nothing to gain from. There's no benefit for Obama; this must mean there was an honest mix-up somewhere.
Romney lied for personal gain, in the form of votes. This wasn't a mix-up, but a lie; the difference in these scenerios, is that one is obviously using deception to further his own goals, the other is not.
I contend that Obama had a great deal to gain from misrepresenting the attacks. Not being seen as weak on national security, for one. In a very real way, that translates to votes. I don't understand how it could have been a miscommunication. There were warnings for months.
Why haven't they explained what happened? Forget about righ-wing nutjobs like me; what about the sober concerns of conscientious Americans? Why let Fox lambast them, if the truth isn't actually worse?
06 Nov 12
Originally posted by vivifyAt 3:28 of the video, Maddow quotes the Vindicator, which stated, "Good news would be welcomed at the plant, where recent days have seen rumors of production cuts, and people worried about losing the third shift/"
Yes. However, it would be a lie that Obama has nothing to gain from. There's no benefit for Obama; this must mean there was an honest mix-up somewhere.
Romney lied for personal gain, in the form of votes. This wasn't a mix-up, but a lie; the difference in these scenerios, is that one is obviously using deception to further his own goals, the other is not.
I'm not explaining this away. It was, at a minimum, very clumsy and ham-handed campaigning. I don't know why he would say something like that. Very dumb mistake. Cynical, even.
The only potential explanation that would have me looking at him sideways, instead of shaking him and yelling, "What the hell is wrong with you", would be that the quote I referenced somehow related to the loss of the Jeep manufacturing jobs. But even that's pretty thin. Yeah, in a private moment, I'd want an explanation for that.
06 Nov 12
Originally posted by sasquatch672Seeing how the attacks happened on foreign soil, this wouldn't be a "national security" issue. Yes, U.S. embassies are considered American soil, but that's only a technicallity. Actual U.S. soil wasn't touched.
See? You're reasonable. We can talk.
I contend that Obama had a great deal to gain from misrepresenting the attacks. Not being seen as weak on national security, for one. In a very real way, that translates to votes. I don't understand how it could have been a miscommunication. There were warnings for months.
Why haven't they explained ...[text shortened]... ns of conscientious Americans? Why let Fox lambast them, if the truth isn't actually worse?
Furthermore, the day after the attacks, Obama called it an "act of terror", in the Rose Garden. So the first thing Obama did, was speak the truth. This is a far cry from Romney, who's deliberately trying to deceive peoplefhis own gor the sake of his own goals.
06 Nov 12
But Squatch, even you have to admit that there's a world of difference here. Obama's "lie" (even though he truthfully called it an act of terror first) is completely different from Romney.
Romney's lie was a premeditated deception, that he held on to even after it was clear the info was false, and kept using. Obama's "lie" is more like a tactical gaffe. He said on the CBS interview that it was "too early to tell" if was a terrorist attack. It looks like Obama erred on the side of caution, not that he had plans to deceive. Romney: blatant lie.
But I have yet to see you hold you acknowldege that Romney just flat out lied, for no reason other to deceive.
06 Nov 12
Originally posted by vivifyOk so the CIA had a large station there. You can believe that they were developing intelligence about what Ansar-Al-Sharia was planning, what Al Qaeda was planning. An attack on any American asset anywhere damages national security. An attack on an embassy, where names of sources are stored, can and in this case did, have a grave impact on national security.
Seeing how the attacks happened on foreign soil, this wouldn't be a "national security" issue. Yes, U.S. embassies are considered American soil, but that's only a technicallity. Actual U.S. soil wasn't touched.
Furthermore, the day after the attacks, Obama called it an "act of terror", in the Rose Garden. So the first thing Obama did, was speak the tru ...[text shortened]... mney, who's deliberately trying to deceive peoplefhis own gor the sake of his own goals.
06 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by vivifyI agree, there's a world of difference. Romney, even if he lied in the most cynical manner possible, is just another scumbag politician on the stump saying what he believes will get him elected. At a minimum, not very smooth. Dishonest? Sounds like it.
But Squatch, even you have to admit that there's a world of difference here. Obama's "lie" (even though he truthfully called it an act of terror first) is completely different from Romney.
Romney's lie was a premeditated deception, that he held on to even after it was clear the info was false, and kept using. Obama's "lie" is more like a tactical gaffe u hold you acknowldege that Romney just flat out lied, for no reason other to deceive.
Obama, on the other hand, is our nation's chief executive and Commander-In-Chief. He failed to safeguard American lives. He ignored a terrorist attack on our diplomatic mission in Benghazi. He blatantly refused to provide those men help when they needed it. Then he lied about the nature of the attack.
I'm not sure how you draw an equivalency between a candidate making a false statement and a Commander In Chief knowingly failing to protect American lives.
EDIT: how do you reconcile the months and hundreds of reports describing the increasingly dangerous security situation with UN Ambassador Susan Rice going on the Sunday morning talk shows and blaming the attacks on a video? Or - that's a lot less important than this question. How do you explain Obama's failure to protect American lives? And again - how can you draw a moral equivalency between a politician's false statement and a President's failure to defend American interests and protect American lives?
06 Nov 12
Originally posted by sasquatch672EDIT: how do you reconcile the months and hundreds of reports describing the increasingly dangerous security situation with UN Ambassador Susan Rice going on the Sunday morning talk shows and blaming the attacks on a video? Or - that's a lot less important than this question. How do you explain Obama's failure to protect American lives? And again - how c ...[text shortened]... statement and a President's failure to defend American interests and protect American lives?[/b]What happened was that Obama had a serious failure as a president. He should be held accountable for that, and there's no excuse for it.
But with Romney, we simply can't trust him; if he's lying this much just running for president, how can we trust him in office? A liar is a matter of character. A person like Romney, is liable to do something much worse than Obama's inaction. Along with his runningmate, who was not only caught lying about stimulus money, but also "forgot" to include the single largest source of income on one of his tax returns...you have a bad situation for the country, should they be in charge.
Obama messed up badly, but at least we can trust his intentions. We can't with Romney.
06 Nov 12
Originally posted by vivifyWell, I appreciate your ability to appreciate the gravity of Obama's situation. I would reverse the seriousness of the two as you see them. I contend that Obama lied about Benghazi. He said that he gave three orders; the first was to 'secure our personnel'. He never gave that order.
What happened was that Obama had a serious failure as a president. He should be held accountable for that, and there's no excuse for it.
But with Romney, we simply can't trust him; if he's lying this much just running for president, how can we trust him in office? A liar is a matter of character. A person like Romney, is liable to do something ...[text shortened]...
Obama messed up badly, but at least we can trust his intentions. We can't with Romney.
You have your reasons for prioritizing those two situations the way you do; I take loss of life more seriously, and I believe he lied about it.
06 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by sasquatch672Okay. But knowing Romney's history of lying, why wouldn't he lie about something just as serious, should he ever be in that situation? Also, does Obama have a history of lying about anything else? Think about that.
Well, I appreciate your ability to appreciate the gravity of Obama's situation. I would reverse the seriousness of the two as you see them. I contend that Obama lied about Benghazi. He said that he gave three orders; the first was to 'secure our personnel'. He never gave that order.
You have your reasons for prioritizing those two situations the way you do; I take loss of life more seriously, and I believe he lied about it.
06 Nov 12
Originally posted by vivifyVery difficult to know. Obama voted 'present' 55% of the time as a state senator. All of his records are sealed. He has disclosed so little about himself that Alot of Americans are left to draw their own conclusions. He was born in Hawaii, I accept that. Was he a citizen of Indonesia? Documentation for student loans certainly suggests that he was. He said in the biography that he himself wrote for the Harvard Law Review that he was born in Kenya. Was he lying then, or is he lying now?
Okay. But knowing Romney's history of lying, why wouldn't he lie about something just as serious, should he ever be in that situation? Also, does Obama have a history of lying about anything else? Think about that.
I'll tell you when he told the truth: in Dreams of My Father and The Audacity of Hope. And I find his truth very scary.
06 Nov 12
Originally posted by dryhumpWhat decade do you live in? It's not just the internet that spreads info quickly. There's also this new thing called television, where news can be broadcast live, anywhere in the world. Ever heard of it?
Right, and the things you see on the internet are an accurate representation of the whole republican party? Or the democrats?
And did you know that a newspaper in England can report an event that happens in Africa the day after it happens? I know this all seems like witchcraft, but trust me, all this is real.
06 Nov 12
Originally posted by vivifyI see, and none of your information sources ever paint a picture which isn't accurate? Do you believe that everyone involved with the tea party movement was a belligerent old white person? Or that everyone involved in the occupy movement was a 20 something college grad justifiably upset because they couldn't get work?
What decade do you live in? It's not just the internet that spreads info quickly. There's also this new thing called television, where news can be broadcast live, anywhere in the world. Ever heard of it?
And did you know that a newspaper in England can report an event that happens in Africa the day after it happens? I know this all seems like witchcraft, but trust me, all this is real.
06 Nov 12
Originally posted by dryhumpThese are the same news sources that you get YOUR information from. So if you're going to claim that everyone's views are distorted the media as a result, then guess what? So are yours. And this means you have no right to correct criticize anyone's views on current events.
I see, and none of your information sources ever paint a picture which isn't accurate? Do you believe that everyone involved with the tea party movement was a belligerent old white person? Or that everyone involved in the occupy movement was a 20 something college grad justifiably upset because they couldn't get work?
06 Nov 12
Originally posted by vivifyI never said my views weren't skewed. No need to take it personally, I was just pointing out that judging people from another continent is a risky business. It's easy to lump a lot of good people into a bad stereotype that way because news outlets tend to cover sensational material. I know lots of republicans who aren't liars just like I know lots of democrats who aren't socialists. Actually, I do have a right to correct or criticize, it's called the first amendment. You should look it up.
These are the same news sources that you get YOUR information from. So if you're going to claim that everyone's views are distorted the media as a result, then guess what? So are yours. And this means you have no right to correct criticize anyone's views on current events.