CalvinBall wrote:Free fall has stopped! Obama gained a point today on 538. Also leading in one Arizona poll.

dead cat bounce

The runner up for the Republican nomination

I'm not sure if there's a stronger combination of stupid and vile in public life today than ol' Frothy.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Bucky wrote:ahh, the fruits of the 'one term president' agenda!!

jesus christ

/jh
i took care of that for ya

I don't really understand this comment

it's the retort you use when you can't believe what someone has posted.

oh, you mean the first one.

STEP 1: Cut President's requested security budget
STEP 2: ?????
STEP 3: BLAME!

Of course, we all know what filled in step #2.

The State Department official who denied the request for more security testified this week that the security/staffing decisions had nothing to do with budgetary limitations. Just more misleading statements and lies from the White House on Libya. Look over there! YouTube! Budget cuts! Romney's statement! None of these things actually mattered, but hey shiny object! Don't look too close at what really happened.

So the civil servant who denied the request for more security -- and would stand to be blamed and have her reputation and career dragged through the mud if that denial were found to be related to the deaths and injuries -- says her actions had nothing to do with it.

What a surprise.

THIS IS THE BIGGEST LAPSE IN NATIONAL SECURITY IN THE HISTORY OF OUR NATION!!! PUT US IN CHARGE, WE'VE NEVER MISSED ANY SIGNS!!!!

The running theme of the Romney/Ryan campaign, at least according to the liberal side of this board, is to lie their asses off. And because of all this lying, Romney may wiggle his way into the White House, where he will proceed to be a worse President than Obama. This is the current state of the board, basically. And now, when evidence arises that the Obama administration lied about evidence surrounding a terrorist attack on 9/11, and they continue to dig deeper by making false claims about how the security detail is funded, how does the board react? Predictably. Now, I don't expect any Obama supporter to really dive in and say "The President is wrong on this," but it's amazing that liberals will are trying to spin this into Romney/Ryan misleading the public. It's absurd. We should expect the truth.

Think back to 2004. We're in Iraq, Bush is running for re-election, and we haven't found any WMDs. The ancillary justifications for starting the war (preemption, Saddam is evil ad committed crimes against his own people, harboring terrorists, etc) were seen, by most folks, as secondary to the ownership of WMDs. Saddam had always been evil, but allowing him to have powerful weapons in his hands would have been de-stabilizing to the entire region, much in the same way that an Iran arsenal would create problems. In Oct 2004, the CIA released the Iraq Survey Group report declaring that Iraz did not have access to WMDs at the time of the US invasion. I couldnt find the administration's response to this information; it probably was something along the lines of "Saddam was evil, and America is still safer." But imagine if Bush and Cheney instead said "Oh, we can't find the WMDs, but this intelligence breakdown isn't the fault of the administration, since we didnt gather the intelligence. Re-elect us anyway." Or, "We need more funding for the CIA, so the breakdown doesnt occur in the future."

Remember how Kerry was being painted by Republicans as a flipflopping opportunist who will say anything to get elected? He was for the war before he was against it? Kerry was a flawed candidate, in different ways from Romney's flaws as a candidate. However, liberals were very focused on defeating an incumbent that they felt was misplacing priorities and hurting the course of this country. This election is very similar, with a vulnerable but likable incumbent, and flawed (rich) challengers. The difference is that Bush ran on his record, and didnt try to distort the truth that was smacking him in his face.

This post is way too long, but this thread needs more Jeff. And that's a bad sign for a thread. The personal attacks, just for sharing information about poll numbers and articles about this terrorist attack, are way over the line. And it's the same set of people. It's just annoying to have to sift through the crap to read the actual commentary by people who I'm interested in reading (dajafi, tenuredvulture, jerseyhoya, etc).

Washington State has two candidates for Attorney General. One is for Washington families. The other is for criminals. I'm gonna vote for the guy who,is for,criminals because that's a gutsy stance and I admire gutsy politicians.

pacino wrote:im watching bill maher...ann coulter is SCARY looking. goddamn, eat a sandwich

her assertion is that the only racists left are liberals, and they also didn't do anything during the civil rights era.

wow.

Advice: Don't watch Bill Maher or Ann Coulter. You'll be happier.

Werthless wrote:Think back to 2004....{insert delusional revisionism in some peculiar attempt to liken bush/cheney's iraqi war manipulations with clumsy handling of embassy security in Libya} The difference is that Bush ran on his record, and didnt try to distort the truth that was smacking him in his face.

smh

ffs

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:Think back to 2004....{insert delusional revisionism} The difference is that Bush ran on his record, and didnt try to distort the truth that was smacking him in his face.

smh

ffs

wat

what personal attacks?

this thread is 8 million times better than most sports message board political subforums

The War in Iraq:

A war ginned up on false evidence of WMD (a failure which Bush DID blame on the Intelligence community);
A war later justified on ever-changing rationales, including "Al Qaeda in Iraq," and more than two dozen other rationales (according to a University of Illinois study);
A war which cost more than 4,000 American lives and cost a Trillion Dollars, most, if not all, of which was put on our Chinese credit card;
A war which the administration claimed would be paid for from Iraq oil and for which we'd be "greeted as liberators;"
A war which dangerously destabilized the Middle East by removing Iran's natural counterbalance, allowing Iran both to spread its dangerous, fundamentalist Shiite influence both in Iraq and elsewhere and attempt to accelerate the pace of its nuclear arms program.

It is inconceivable to me that ANYTHING the Bush Administration said about the War in Iraq could be held up as an example of how an Administration should respond to any crisis, foreign or domestic.

td11 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Werthless wrote:Obama now trading at 61.5% on Intrade, down 1.8% today. 1.7 million shares traded.

And last night the idea that the debate was basically a draw was mocked here.

it's cute when you guys suck each other's dicks

td11 wrote:what personal attacks?

this thread is 8 million times better than most sports message board political subforums

no thanks to you

i'm just assuming a nickname for me is etc.

JFLNYC wrote:The War in Iraq:

A war ginned up on false evidence of WMD (a failure which Bush DID blame on the Intelligence community);
A war later justified on ever-changing rationales, including "Al Qaeda in Iraq," and more than two dozen other rationales (according to a University of Illinois study);
A war which cost more than 4,000 American lives and cost a Trillion Dollars, most, if not all, of which was put on our Chinese credit card;
A war which the administration claimed would be paid for from Iraq oil and for which we'd be "greeted as liberators;"
A war which dangerously destabilized the Middle East by removing Iran's natural counterbalance, allowing Iran both to spread its dangerous, fundamentalist Shiite influence both in Iraq and elsewhere and attempt to accelerate the pace of its nuclear arms program.

It is inconceivable to me that ANYTHING the Bush Administration said about the War in Iraq could be held up as an example of how an Administration should respond to any crisis, foreign or domestic.

And the takeaway is that you demand truth from your political leaders, yes?

JFLNYC wrote:The War in Iraq:

A war ginned up on false evidence of WMD (a failure which Bush DID blame on the Intelligence community);
A war later justified on ever-changing rationales, including "Al Qaeda in Iraq," and more than two dozen other rationales (according to a University of Illinois study);
A war which cost more than 4,000 American lives and cost a Trillion Dollars, most, if not all, of which was put on our Chinese credit card;
A war which the administration claimed would be paid for from Iraq oil and for which we'd be "greeted as liberators;"
A war which dangerously destabilized the Middle East by removing Iran's natural counterbalance, allowing Iran both to spread its dangerous, fundamentalist Shiite influence both in Iraq and elsewhere and attempt to accelerate the pace of its nuclear arms program.

It is inconceivable to me that ANYTHING the Bush Administration said about the War in Iraq could be held up as an example of how an Administration should respond to any crisis, foreign or domestic.

but dan senor knows all and is telling paul ryan and mitt romney everything that they're supposed to do!

pacino wrote:i'm just assuming a nickname for me is etc.

You're the reason I know you can't ignore mods. (I ignore and unignore folks if I need a break from a poster for a period time. You were unbearable last politics thread.)

glad i could be of service.

Werthless it was a joke. I don't think you guys actually blow each other