pacino wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

pacino wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:
I think they'll keep the attack on, but Romney needs to try and stick to substantive stuff.

I think that both sides -- Romney and Obama -- know that the election will not be decided by thoughtful persons evaluating substantive stuff. Such persons pretty much know which camp they are in.

The folks in the middle -- they may vote, they may not. They watch network TV, and they are informed by Oprah, sound bytes, and the 6 o'clock news.

Each side is going to try to turn the other's words and actions into something that scares the undecideds. Does the GOP do more of that? I wish they did.

i know youre trying to sound erudite and enlightened but it's not really coming across.

Thanks, professor. And why are you even in this thread? Seagull approach working out for ya?

i believe that's your approach, the guy that comes in once every three months to let hoi polloi know what o great one thinks.

Doll Is Mine wrote:Peggy Noonan

"Romney looked weak today I feel. I'm still kind of absorbing it myself. At one point, he had a certain slight grimace on his face when he was taking tough questions from the reporters, and I thought, 'He looks like Richard Nixon.'"

TomatoPie wrote:

pacino wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

pacino wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:
I think they'll keep the attack on, but Romney needs to try and stick to substantive stuff.

I think that both sides -- Romney and Obama -- know that the election will not be decided by thoughtful persons evaluating substantive stuff. Such persons pretty much know which camp they are in.

The folks in the middle -- they may vote, they may not. They watch network TV, and they are informed by Oprah, sound bytes, and the 6 o'clock news.

Each side is going to try to turn the other's words and actions into something that scares the undecideds. Does the GOP do more of that? I wish they did.

i know youre trying to sound erudite and enlightened but it's not really coming across.

Thanks, professor. And why are you even in this thread? Seagull approach working out for ya?

i believe that's your approach, the guy that comes in once every three months to let hoi polloi know what o great one thinks.

More accurate would be the occasional visit to attempt some polite dialogue with people left of me. Maybe you could try that?

jerseyhoya wrote:

SK790 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

td11 wrote:i think the difference between the articles jerz posted about why all those tweets were a bad idea is much different than what romney is trying to say, which is something like, "the embassy should've just told those angry muslims outside the walls to fuck off, USA! USA!"

imho

The first article was telling them and the rest of the world to eat our taint because we respect freedom of speech in our country unlike what they do in Egypt and Western Europe and if they can't understand that they should go fuck themselves.

imho

it's a wonder why muslums would have a negative view towards Americans when half of the country's attitude towards the is for them to "lick our taint".

imovho

The fact is that the First Amendment, no matter how embattled, protects a range of expression unthinkable even in Western Europe. Because of that unique position, and because the U.S. seems doomed to play an outsized diplomatic and military role in the tumultuous Muslim world, it behooves the State Department to constantly explain the vast differences between state-sanctioned and legally protected speech in the so-called Land of the Free. If the U.S. government really was in the business of "firmly reject[ing]" private free-speech acts that "hurt the religious beliefs of others" there would be no time left over for doing anything else.

It's really not that hard. The values in that film (or "film") are not our values; our government respects religion, religious expression, and religious pluralism (including and especially that of Muslims, even in the wake of murderous Muslim-led attacks on American soil); and we are not in the business of approving or (for the most part) regulating the private speech of our citizens. To the extent that that message is not sufficient for rioters, the problem is theirs.

I dunno. I think it sums it up pretty well and is farily "USA USA USA." We take a different approach to some issues than much of the rest of the world. These things are pretty important to us, and I'd hope it's more than half of the country that feels that way.

TomatoPie wrote:

pacino wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

pacino wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:
I think they'll keep the attack on, but Romney needs to try and stick to substantive stuff.

I think that both sides -- Romney and Obama -- know that the election will not be decided by thoughtful persons evaluating substantive stuff. Such persons pretty much know which camp they are in.

The folks in the middle -- they may vote, they may not. They watch network TV, and they are informed by Oprah, sound bytes, and the 6 o'clock news.

Each side is going to try to turn the other's words and actions into something that scares the undecideds. Does the GOP do more of that? I wish they did.

i know youre trying to sound erudite and enlightened but it's not really coming across.

Thanks, professor. And why are you even in this thread? Seagull approach working out for ya?

i believe that's your approach, the guy that comes in once every three months to let hoi polloi know what o great one thinks.

More accurate would be the occasional visit to attempt some polite dialogue with people left of me. Maybe you could try that?

TomatoPie wrote:

Doll Is Mine wrote:Mitt Romney has reached a new low, in my opinion. Attacking a US embassy staff during a crisis for simply trying to defuse danger is despicable.

The guy is a dick.

............and before this, you were gonna vote for him. Shame, really.

CalvinBall wrote:Romney people now saying attacks would not have happened if he were president. This guy is great.

Werthless wrote:Truman had a plaque on his desk: "The Buck Stops Here." In the same way that CEOs are ultimately responsible for everything that happens in their organization, Obama is responsible for the official statements said by his representatives. You wouldn't want a CEO to argue "Well, I told him not to do this. It's his fault." It's throwing the guy under the bus, publicly, to avoid direct blame for the activity.

If the guy is not doing a good job representing the President, then he shouldn't have that job. That he wasn't fired reflects a lack of accountability, not lack of blame.

SK790 wrote:lots of other countries have these freedoms too(some have even more freedoms!) and we shouldn't belittle the ones that don't, but instead try to help them to achieve the freedoms we have. i don't see how telling these people to "lick our taint" or jingoistic-ly chanting USA helps in that regard. it makes us look like assholes.

jerseyhoya wrote:

SK790 wrote:lots of other countries have these freedoms too(some have even more freedoms!) and we shouldn't belittle the ones that don't, but instead try to help them to achieve the freedoms we have. i don't see how telling these people to "lick our taint" or jingoistic-ly chanting USA helps in that regard. it makes us look like assholes.

The point of the article was the embassy should have offered a statement explaining the US government respects freedom of speech and freedom of religion, including Islam, and they do not control what private citizens say. I think that's a much better way to sell freedom of speech/religion and help other countries achieve similar ideals than to offer mealy mouthed apologies for some random citizen deciding to make a cheesy, offensive movie. Extol our system, don't act embarrassed about it.

jerseyhoya wrote:

SK790 wrote:lots of other countries have these freedoms too(some have even more freedoms!) and we shouldn't belittle the ones that don't, but instead try to help them to achieve the freedoms we have. i don't see how telling these people to "lick our taint" or jingoistic-ly chanting USA helps in that regard. it makes us look like asshat.

The point of the article was the embassy should have offered a statement explaining the US government respects freedom of speech and freedom of religion, including Islam, and they do not control what private citizens say. I think that's a much better way to sell freedom of speech/religion and help other countries achieve similar ideals than to offer mealy mouthed apologies for some random citizen deciding to make a cheesy, offensive movie. Extol our system, don't act embarrassed about it.

Monkeyboy wrote:Desperate.