President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Behshad]

I don't have a dog in this fight. From my perspective, Romney won the first debate, decidedly. I thought this debate was much more even, but would probably give a slight edge to Obama. That said, they both still suck

Hope you're ok after that earthquake

[YoungJRNY]

^Win.

I still stand by my own set of thoughts that these debates will only convince a small portion of undecided voters that won't make that much of an impact. Even before the first debate, most of America got their minds made up.

[Behshad]

[FinnFreak]

Wow, this was created quickly....
http://bindersfullofwomen.tumblr.com/

Oh yeah... the “binders full of women” - heh.


John -

[conversationpc]

I agree with John. Putting partisanship aside, this debate was fairly even.

[slucero]

[FinnFreak]

Does it bother anyone that he flat out lied about Libya? First time I've been flat out fucking pissed at Obama. Despite Candy's additional lie, he never called it that and went out for weeks later say otherwise.

Saying "No acts of terror..." and then saying 15 times later that it wasn't is not calling it an act of terror. That really angers me.

Obama did NOT lie about Benghazi.

Obama just didn't answer the ACTUAL question - and Romney missed the opportunity after being corrected.


John -

[Memorex]

Dude come on. he flat out lied. Tell me how what he said was true in any way.

[FinnFreak]

Dude come on. he flat out lied. Tell me how what he said was true in any way.

Politicizing a tragedy..?


"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."
- President Obama, September 12, 2012 - Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off ... taff-libya



Hmmm... all that fancy rhetoric... whattheheck did he mean/not mean..?


This one was pretty clear tonight:


"I'm the one who greets the coffins when they come home."


This will cost Romney a lot of votes.


John -

[RedWingFan]

Romney in a walk. Not gonna be close. Book it!

[Memorex]

I thought it was weird that he said coffins. Morbid.

That quote you posted was when he was talking about a larger theme. He absolutely did not call the act terrorism. You are not going to win this one because I can play you a dozen clips of the president and his people saying for days and days that it was the video or under investigation. So if he was saying on the first day it was terrorism, why the fuck did he go off of that?

Don't carry the water on this one. No Democrat or Republican should get away with telling the American people flat out lies, especially when people were killed.

Even Candy came out after the debate and said she made a mistake and that Romney was correct.

[Memorex]

Listen at the 3:00 minute mark. He is insinuating it was the video. and doesn't really speak of the attack again until the 6:00 minute mark which is just a general comment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0wllKURCq8


5 days later - Susan Rice on Fox news Sunday (similar to the other 4 shows she did that day).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xk6s5FkObt0


Then this - 2 full weeks later - his answer on The View was that the reason for the attack is still under investigation. "Wasn't JUST a mob action". There was zero mob action.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8Qys-QEo9o&feature=context-shows&list=SL

And of course, the worst of it all (until tonight):

During his speech before the United Nations on Tuesday morning, President Barack Obama eulogized the murdered U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, reiterated American values of freedom and tolerance, and condemned both the “crude” Innocence of Muslims video and the “mindless” violent protests that have swept across the region in the last few weeks.

And Candy's correction tonight:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/17/cnns-crowley-backtracks-romney-right-in-the-main-on-benghazi/

There is a deeper reason I am mad about this. One I don't really want to discuss, but I happen to have a friend that works at an embassy. So for me it's a personal issue and I'm very angry about it. But I asked myself if I would be angry if I was just ordinary Joe Blow and the answer is 100% yes. Not so much that the attack happened. I mean, I know there are many people trying to do us harm and sometimes they will succeed. I get that. I'm angry because the president had some weird reason for coming out and trying to hide that we were attacked by terrorists. And the only reason he would do that is because of the election and I'm sorry, but that shows a total lack of honesty and character. The press should have been all over this, forcing the president to come to terms with his actions within a couple days. But somehow he thought it would die down.

And maybe the worst of all of this is anybody defending Obama on this. It's plain as day and yet the allegiance is so blind that some are willing to compromise simple honesty just to support their team. That really sucks.

And you know I don't care much about all the other "lies" because they are simply stretching the facts (oil drilling, tax rates, etc.). Those happen daily.

[Memorex]

I only saw the last part of the debate (school conference night). But in seeing some of it and reading about it, looks like I was wrong on Candy. Tell me if I'm wrong, but I am reading that she repeatedly cut off Romney and gave Obama some additional chances. Also, looking at the questions, I can see she clearly intended to make this a tougher night for Romney. But that doesn't really matter to me other then it just irritates me that moderators feel the need to favor anyone. A candidate should be able to answer any question in any forum at any time.

Hope I get time to watch the full debate. Busy week.

[FinnFreak]

ter·ror·ism   /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ [ter-uh-riz-uhm]

noun

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Origin:
1785–95; terror + -ism

Related forms
an·ti·ter·ror·ism, adjective

Related Words for : terrorism
act of terrorism, terrorist act

terrorism (ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm)

— n
1. systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal
2. the act of terrorizing
3. the state of being terrorized

terrorism

1795, in specific sense of "government intimidation during the Reign of Terror in France" (1793-July 1794), from Fr. terrorisme (1798), from L. terror (see terror).



John -

[steveo777]

ter·ror·ism   /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ [ter-uh-riz-uhm]

noun

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Origin:
1785–95; terror + -ism

Related forms
an·ti·ter·ror·ism, adjective

Related Words for : terrorism
act of terrorism, terrorist act

terrorism (ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm)

— n
1. systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal
2. the act of terrorizing
3. the state of being terrorized

terrorism

1795, in specific sense of "government intimidation during the Reign of Terror in France" (1793-July 1794), from Fr. terrorisme (1798), from L. terror (see terror).



John -

Now we have to define terrorism? LOL
John, could you please show me your American, county of residence, voter registration card?

[FinnFreak]

ter·ror·ism   /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ [ter-uh-riz-uhm]

noun

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Origin:
1785–95; terror + -ism

Related forms
an·ti·ter·ror·ism, adjective

Related Words for : terrorism
act of terrorism, terrorist act

terrorism (ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm)

— n
1. systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal
2. the act of terrorizing
3. the state of being terrorized

terrorism

1795, in specific sense of "government intimidation during the Reign of Terror in France" (1793-July 1794), from Fr. terrorisme (1798), from L. terror (see terror).



John -

Now we have to define terrorism? LOL
John, could you please show me your American, county of residence, voter registration card?

Yes We Can - Anyone naive enough to vote for Romney deserves to be outsourced


John -

[conversationpc]

Yes We Can - Anyone naive enough to vote for Romney deserves to be outsourced


John -

Something Obama has proven he's really good at over the last 3+ years.

[Enigma869]

Hope you're ok after that earthquake

All is well here. Very odd to feel the Earth move in Boston. Oddly enough, even though I've never experienced anything like it before, I knew instantly that it was an earthquake. I just couldn't imagine what else that it could have been. Hopefully, that will be my one and only experience with that insanity. I'll stick to blizzards!

[Behshad]

Hope you're ok after that earthquake

All is well here. Very odd to feel the Earth move in Boston. Oddly enough, even though I've never experienced anything like it before, I knew instantly that it was an earthquake. I just couldn't imagine what else that it could have been. Hopefully, that will be my one and only experience with that insanity. I'll stick to blizzards!

[Behshad]

[Behshad]

[Behshad]

[Behshad]

[Behshad]

[conversationpc]

Still uses? Romney was the Governor of Massachusetts from 2003-2007. Smartphones weren't exactly quite in fashion yet and I'm pretty sure binders were still well in use.

[conversationpc]

[conversationpc]

I love it!!!

[KenTheDude]

If all the Dems have is a comment about binders full of women, then I'm satisfied with the outcome of this debate.

[conversationpc]

If all the Dems have is a comment about binders full of women, then I'm satisfied with the outcome of this debate.

Yep...They'll be talking about binders and Big Bird for the next three weeks.

[Behshad]

If all the Dems have is a comment about binders full of women, then I'm satisfied with the outcome of this debate.

Theres more to talk about, but whats the point when you have already made up your mind.

All jokes aside with the women in binders, Romney was asked about qomen and equal pay and not once did he say that women should get paid equally, just that he has looked for women (in binders) competent enough to do the job, but not a damn thing about their pay , simply because he still thinks that women dont deserve the same pay for the same job as men.

He tried to convince people that he creates jobs at the same time that he said Government doesnt create jobs !
He also took pride when he closed down a coal mine, but now all of a sudden he loves coal.


Or we could all just pretend that Romney was great last nite, won the whole thing and has already won the election. better ?