Obama fires back

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Honestly, I think he threw the debate. For strategic reasons.

It was about the Economy.

Nobody could ever bring the country to unparallelled prosperity in just four years after the mess the GOP left it in. Even if the Rabid Right hadn't obstructed everything the majority of people would still be hurting.

We have slow steady growth, which is what we need. Not boom and bust which has been the right wing philosophy for decades.

Because of this, Obama knew his usual approach would not work. So he kept quiet and stuck on message, keeping his ammo for the other debates.




posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by BritofTexas
 


Absolutely agree! He let it go. He didn't need that debate. He gave NOTHING for Romney to shoot out on the campaign trail (except for an apology for his 47% remark), whereas Obama has Big Bird and a whole lot more to talk about around Mitt being disguised as a centrist fro the debate.

And it's quite possible Obama knew the jobs numbers that were going to come out and knew he didn't need to win the debate.

MANY incumbents have lost the first debate. It's just not that important. In fact, it's looking more and more like Obama actually "won" the debate by substance, as Annie said.
edit on 10/5/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by BritofTexas
 




Because of this, Obama knew his usual approach would not work. So he kept quiet and stuck on message, keeping his ammo for the other debates.


Here's the question I have.

When Obama and Romney go head to head on foreign policy, what ammo does Obama have?



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by BritofTexas
 


The problem with your theory is the facts get in the way. Obama had a majority in the House and Senate his first 2 years. He pissed it away on Obamacare and did nothing for the economy but flush money we don't have down the toilet. He lost the debate because he did not have a teleprompter and the facts got in the way. He stumbes everytime he has to use his head to speak. He did the same thing when talking to the Russian President. This is nothing new. His policies can not be defended. He resorts to lies knowing the sheep will believe him no matter the facts.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 




And it's quite possible Obama knew the jobs numbers that were going to come out and knew he didn't need to win the debate.


You do realize that September's job numbers were down from August right (after the numbers were revised)?

Tell me how you spin 114,000 new jobs in September as a victory when 127,454 were just laid off in August.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Deetermined
 



Originally posted by Deetermined
When Obama and Romney go head to head on foreign policy, what ammo does Obama have?


What do you mean. "ammo"? It's a debate. He has his foreign policies and they are, so far, quite successful.

If you want to, you can read about his accomplishments here:

www.whitehouse.gov...



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
He has his foreign policies and they are, so far, quite successful.

The middle east is melting down ... our supposed 'ally' Israel is out of control and on the verge of bombing Iran ... our people were murdered in Benghazi because this administration refused to give them the security they requested ... and then Obama's white house covered up the murder for a week claiming it was 'spontanteous' ... and partly due to failure to lead politically with oil producing nations, the price of gas is $4.00 a gallon ... the UN is trying to push a global tax on the United States (which we can't afford) to 'redistribute wealth' to the other side of the planet .. we bombed Libya when we had no business doing so ....

How is that 'quite successful'??

edit on 10/5/2012 by FlyersFan because: fixed paragraph



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by thePharaoh
 


What would you and Obama do without a sycophantic MSM to constantly spin and spew propaganda? Your guy is nothing without their protection and filter.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by BritofTexas
 




Because of this, Obama knew his usual approach would not work. So he kept quiet and stuck on message, keeping his ammo for the other debates.


Here's the question I have.

When Obama and Romney go head to head on foreign policy, what ammo does Obama have?


Have you forgotten Romney's "Grand Tour"?




posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by BritofTexas
Honestly, I think he threw the debate. For strategic reasons.

Again .. what 'strategy' is there for a President to go to a big political event (which everyone on both the left and the right have been preparing months for) looking weak and unprepared and unknowledgeable to the entire world ... and he did this with less than a month to go until the election. What possible 'strategy' could that be? That doesn't make sense.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 



Originally posted by FlyersFan
Again .. what 'strategy' is there for a President to go to a big political event (which everyone on both the left and the right have been preparing months for) looking weak and unprepared and unknowledgeable to the entire world...


He didn't look weak or unprepared to me. And he was very knowledgeable of his positions. He looked restrained and disgusted. What's his strategy? Perhaps to let Romney hang himself, to not give Romney any ammunition, and to show disdain by not making eye contact...

Let's give it a few days and see how he's doing then. His full strategy will become apparent.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by BritofTexas
 


I'm not sure how you consider that ammo to use against Romney??!!

Obama VERBALLY supports Israel too. But unlike Romney, he refuses to SHOW that support in any other way.

In the meanwhile, Obama has to defend the fact that Al Qaeda publicly declared on September 10th that the people responsible for killing top Al Qaeda leaders via drone attacks should be killed. And guess what? On September 11th, people died. How is Obama going to defend that? Reports were issued on August 27th about the recent terrorist attacks that we're taking place in Libya and Obama or Hilary's big response was to say that they didn't ASK for any additional security. In the meanwhile, I think that story has changed now too.

How does Obama defend himself on Fast and Furious?

How does Obama defend his stance on the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt?

How does Obama defend his stance on Syria? Does Obama have a stance on Syria? Last I heard he was asking for Assad to step down while Al Qaeda accuses him of protecting him so that radical Islamists don't take over Assad's government. Which is it?



edit on 5-10-2012 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
This kind of action reminds me of the bully who got beat up by the nerd and then tells all his bully buddies how he kicked the guy's ass.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Nite_wing
 


What action? Campaigning? Disagreeing with his opponent? Pointing out his opponents lies and faults?

Romney won the debate by today's debate standards. He was aggressive, assertive, engaged and vocal. He won. Obama lost this debate. But the next day comes. And if he got ammo FROM the debate, he's wise to use it to offset Romney's win.

Romney's busy apologizing for his 47% remark. Romney has NOTHING from the debate. I think Obama was brilliant!



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The more I have thought about O's behavior at the debate, the more I have come to the conclusion that he simply cannot stand to be in the same room with such a fraud as Romney


Judging by the way Obama deals (or doesn't deal) with the leadership of Israel, I have to agree with your assessment. However, the fact that Obama can't function when he's standing next to a person he doesn't like is pretty lame and shows he has no business being POTUS. A POTUS has to deal with people he/she does't like .. world leaders he/she doesn't like. Obama gets an 'F' in this department.



Why is Israel supposed to be so important to the American president. Seeing how Obama doesn't want to kiss Israel's butt in no way means he's a bad president. Israel should be treated no differently than any other country.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 




Romney's busy apologizing for his 47% remark. Romney has NOTHING from the debate. I think Obama was brilliant!


LOL! And Obama's trying to act like his 2007 racially charged speech hasn't been making it's rounds!

Personally, I really thought the airing of that video might have had something to do with Obama's down-in-the-dumps behavior on debate night.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Deetermined
 




Obama VERBALLY supports Israel too. But unlike Romney, he refuses to SHOW that support in any other way.

Check your facts. For some stupid reason aid to Israel has gone up under Obama. If he were so against Israel then it should have gone down.



In the meanwhile, Obama has to defend the fact that Al Qaeda publicly declared on September 10th that the people responsible for killing top Al Qaeda leaders via drone attacks should be killed. And guess what? On September 11th, people died. How is Obama going to defend that?

What shock people we are at war with calls for people to die and people die. That's what happens during war.



How does Obama defend himself on Fast and Furious?

Check into Operation Wide Receiver and you will know who to blame for fast and furious.



How does Obama defend his stance on the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt?

The Muslim Brotherhood isn't listed as a terrorist organization in America. So why should he defend himself against things people have dreamed up?



How does Obama defend his stance on Syria? Does Obama have a stance on Syria? Last I heard he was asking for Assad to step down while Al Qaeda accuses him of protecting him so that radical Islamist s don't take over Assad's government. Which is it?

Obama shouldn't do anything about Syria. What is happening there is none of America's business.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by PvtHudson
reply to post by thePharaoh
 


What would you and Obama do without a sycophantic MSM to constantly spin and spew propaganda? Your guy is nothing without their protection and filter.


No he just gave facts while Romney when he wasn't telling lies spewed BS.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

What do you mean. "ammo"? It's a debate. He has his foreign policies and they are, so far, quite successful.





Ambassador Stevens would beg to differ...if he were still alive to do so.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010
Seeing how Obama doesn't want to kiss Israel's butt in no way means he's a bad president.

He won't meet with the out of control leader of a country (Israel) that we are supposedly allys with and who keeps threatening to go to war. That isn't exactly 'kissing Israel's butt'. That's just meeting with the leader of a country we are hooked up with.

Israel should be treated no differently than any other country.

If that's the case then Obama has no excuse for not meeting with Israel. Obama managed to meet with the leaders of other countries .. and even meet with the terrorist organization 'Muslim Brotherhood' .. and Obama even managed to find time to go on 'The View' and talk with those ninnies ....

Again .. "F" in foreign policy.





new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join