Kids have always been kids. We pay way more attention to the detail of it now than we did in the past. I remember seeing news about who Chelsea Clinton was dating at times.
Politicians' kids are usually taught better than to say on national media that they'd like to punch the sitting president. Youth isn't really a good excuse here.
Kids have always been kids. We pay way more attention to the detail of it now than we did in the past. I remember seeing news about who Chelsea Clinton was dating at times.
Politicians' kids are usually taught better than to say on national media that they'd like to punch the sitting president. Youth isn't really a good excuse here.
At least he's being honest. I think most of us have wanted to punch the president (pick one) at one time or another.
Kids have always been kids. We pay way more attention to the detail of it now than we did in the past. I remember seeing news about who Chelsea Clinton was dating at times.
Politicians' kids are usually taught better than to say on national media that they'd like to punch the sitting president. Youth isn't really a good excuse here.
He's just standing up for his dad, though. Seriously, that's the best argument I think I can find for supporting the kid. Most people will probably ignore it because it really doesn't matter if the kid has poor impulse control. I mean, Chelsea Clinton was a whore (in my dreams).
"In public" is the key. Note the shit that came out about Mitt from highschool. He did similarly dumb things. Had a similarly prestigious father. It just wasn't news.
After the debate Obama told the moderator that he waited two weeks before using the full terrorist designation for the attack because he wanted to be sure the intelligence was solid. So why did he blame the video so quickly and stick to that for two weeks?
I think you answered your own question there.
Let me ask you this, if some group decided to strike a blow against the US because of the video wouldn't it still be terrorism. I mean the "Terrorists" have their specific reasons they are attacking the US, because they were not sure which group was involved right afterwards it looked connected to the riots, though I remember speculation that they were using the riots for cover. I saw most of the response about the video being in terms of the riots, I think people are forgetting because we didn't know what happened right away in Libya, we were still facing large scale and militant riots in other middle eastern countries that could also be used for cover and were still threatening our embassies. So blaming the videos for the trouble in the middle east that week was a legitimate thing. I think there was some confusion in the administration, the media and the opposition about the messaging, but I don't think there was any grand conspiracy.
Right. Saying that they suspect the video spurred the attack is not mutually exclusive with it being a terrorist attack. It's a terrorist attack regardless. Quite frankly, "Terrorist" is thrown around so much since 9/11/2001 that it's practically meaningless at this point. Tossing in that particular vocabulary would have changed absolutely nothing. This is a non-issue. People beating this drum trying to make it into a coherent talking point are revealing how shallow their analysis skills run.
Okay, point of order - Can we stop acting like Taggart Romney is a kid? He was born in 1970, he's forty-two years old, for fuck's sake, and an advisor to his father's presidential campaign. He should know better.
Okay, point of order - Can we stop acting like Taggart Romney is a kid? He was born in 1970, he's forty-two years old, for fuck's sake, and an advisor to his father's presidential campaign. He should know better.
Aaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhaha! These people are really the worst. I was imagining an 18 year old getting ready to go into the Marines because he then doesn't have to curb his urge to punch brown people.
Okay, point of order - Can we stop acting like Taggart Romney is a kid? He was born in 1970, he's forty-two years old, for fuck's sake, and an advisor to his father's presidential campaign. He should know better.
No kidding, I thought the forum members were better informed. Now I know who is basing their arguments off of misinformation and talking points and who is researching before they post.
Okay, point of order - Can we stop acting like Taggart Romney is a kid? He was born in 1970, he's forty-two years old, for fuck's sake, and an advisor to his father's presidential campaign. He should know better.
No kidding, I thought the forum members were better informed. Now I know who is basing their arguments off of misinformation and talking points and who is researching before they post.
LOL yes because your arguments regarding whether or not the word "terrorism" was included in a press release are so hard hitting.
Okay, point of order - Can we stop acting like Taggart Romney is a kid? He was born in 1970, he's forty-two years old, for fuck's sake, and an advisor to his father's presidential campaign. He should know better.
No kidding, I thought the forum members were better informed. Now I know who is basing their arguments off of misinformation and talking points and who is researching before they post.
You caught me. I knee jerk reacted without actually looking up Taggart's profile. I am bested.
Can you similarly admit you were wrong?
Also, do you realize the difference between things that matter (ie. economic policy) and things that don't matter (ie. what Mitt's kid said)?
Okay, point of order - Can we stop acting like Taggart Romney is a kid? He was born in 1970, he's forty-two years old, for fuck's sake, and an advisor to his father's presidential campaign. He should know better.
No kidding, I thought the forum members were better informed. Now I know who is basing their arguments off of misinformation and talking points and who is researching before they post.
Because this was the most important thing about the presidential election.
I thought once you were the Governor's kid, that just gives you the lifetime pass at saying or doing stupid things.
No, you're forgetting that because we got one detail wrong all of our opinions on anything are invalid. Don't you know? We're terrible posters who don't research anything.
Okay, point of order - Can we stop acting like Taggart Romney is a kid? He was born in 1970, he's forty-two years old, for fuck's sake, and an advisor to his father's presidential campaign. He should know better.
No kidding, I thought the forum members were better informed. Now I know who is basing their arguments off of misinformation and talking points and who is researching before they post.
To be fair, it is the sort of thing you expect to hear coming out of the mouth of a punk kid, not a man with a wife, kids and an executive career. Not to mention that damned near anybody would sound quite young next to that radio host, with nobody else for comparison. While I can see your point, I can also see why the assumption was made.
Okay, point of order - Can we stop acting like Taggart Romney is a kid? He was born in 1970, he's forty-two years old, for fuck's sake, and an advisor to his father's presidential campaign. He should know better.
No kidding, I thought the forum members were better informed. Now I know who is basing their arguments off of misinformation and talking points and who is researching before they post.
LOL yes because your arguments regarding whether or not the word "terrorism" was included in a press release are so hard hitting.
Come on, dude.
I am not arguing that. I am pointing out that the administration latched onto the YouTube video as the reason for the attack and waited two weeks to change from blaming said video to acknowledging all quada as the source of the attack.
I have also argued that congressional democrats opposed holding hearings on the attack based on partisanship (too close to election). While also arguing that if not for the election congressional democrats would have supported said hearings from the start.
I have also argued that congressional democrats opposed holding hearings on the attack based on partisanship (too close to election). While also arguing that if not for the election congressional democrats would have supported said hearings from the start.
Can you cite that, if you have a source handy? I'm curious to read more about that and don't really have time to look it up right now.
A feminist group that actually compiled said binders of qualified women says Romney didn't ask for said binders.
Nope, they didn't ask for binders. They were approached by a third party that did independent research, and used that third party's information to make selections for the cabinet.
This is dumber than quibbling about whether the term "acts of terror" meant "terrorist attack" or whatever.
I have also argued that congressional democrats opposed holding hearings on the attack based on partisanship (too close to election). While also arguing that if not for the election congressional democrats would have supported said hearings from the start.
On this I'm totally with you. I don't know if it's a partisanship issue, but whatever it is, the desperation to avoid saying or doing anything that is a risk to either party is getting old.
Okay, point of order - Can we stop acting like Taggart Romney is a kid? He was born in 1970, he's forty-two years old, for fuck's sake, and an advisor to his father's presidential campaign. He should know better.
No kidding, I thought the forum members were better informed. Now I know who is basing their arguments off of misinformation and talking points and who is researching before they post.
LOL yes because your arguments regarding whether or not the word "terrorism" was included in a press release are so hard hitting.
Come on, dude.
I am not arguing that. I am pointing out that the administration latched onto the YouTube video as the reason for the attack and waited two weeks to change from blaming said video to acknowledging all quada as the source of the attack.
I have also argued that congressional democrats opposed holding hearings on the attack based on partisanship (too close to election). While also arguing that if not for the election congressional democrats would have supported said hearings from the start.
I'm still trying to find the evidence that they walked out of a hearing... Do you have the links to support that?
I'm tired of lukewarm criticism of Obama. If anyone here is a diehard Obama supporter, can you help me to better understand some of the things I've seen him do that I don't like? Here's a quick list of some of the major criticisms I have:
Using drone strikes to kill American citizens without due process Continuing use of Gitmo for "enemy combatants" NDAA approval Extension of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act
These are the primary reasons I have trouble voting for him, I'd be curious to know what answers he could have for these things.
I think most die hard Obama supporters just gloss those issues over. I've never seen anyone try to defend them except to blame Congressional Republicans in some sort of hand-waving paragraph.
Comments
Come on, dude.
Can you similarly admit you were wrong?
Also, do you realize the difference between things that matter (ie. economic policy) and things that don't matter (ie. what Mitt's kid said)?
Seriously, bit over-dramatic there, dude.
I have also argued that congressional democrats opposed holding hearings on the attack based on partisanship (too close to election). While also arguing that if not for the election congressional democrats would have supported said hearings from the start.
This is dumber than quibbling about whether the term "acts of terror" meant "terrorist attack" or whatever.
Using drone strikes to kill American citizens without due process
Continuing use of Gitmo for "enemy combatants"
NDAA approval
Extension of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act
These are the primary reasons I have trouble voting for him, I'd be curious to know what answers he could have for these things.