Obama fires back

page: 5
11
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by thePharaoh
 


It's time for Obama to ball up.


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. Obama has NO love or respect for the man, and was disgusted to be having a "discussion" with him. Romney represents everything Obama has fought against in his life: The wealthy 1%, the slimy liar, the elite snob, the cheating traitor who hides his money to prevent paying taxes that he owes to the country and the Corporate CEO who likes to fire people so he can use their wages for another private jet or buy his wife another thoroughbred horse...

What we saw at the debate was someone who was simply biting his tongue and passing the 90 minutes as quickly as possible.

The next day, Obama could say more of what he really thinks, in a way that is socially acceptable - on the campaign trail.
Ummm.....from where I sit Obama's 11.8 million make him a 1%er as well so he must have been fighting against his own angst during the debate...........right? If he was biting his tongue and passing the only thing that passed was gas...

You might even claim that Odogma is a corporocrat that likes to fire......at people, without the benifit of trial, so let me see, fire people, fire at people..........nope, not even in the same constitution.........oh wait, not even in "the
constitution".

YouSir




posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by blacko

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic He's brilliant.


If by brilliant, you mean that he can passionately read a speech from a teleprompter then I agree.

Unfortunately there are no teleprompters at the debates and he flailed like a fish out of water. Only a True Believer would think otherwise.


The teleprompter comments are stupid - boring - and getting old.

Any top level politician who does not use a teleprompter these days is just plain STUPID!

One wrong word can change an entire meaning.

When Obama first took office - - he did make some "off the cuff remarks". Guess who took those "off the cuff remarks" and like a bunch of starving hungry animals tore them to pieces? Yeah! The fanatical Right.

Again - - ANY top level politician today who does not use the teleprompter and read their speech WORD FOR WORD - - - is an idiot.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by thePharaoh
 


....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. Obama has NO love or respect for the man, and was disgusted to be having a "discussion" with him. Romney represents everything Obama has fought against in his life: The wealthy 1%, the slimy liar, the elite snob, the cheating traitor who hides his money to prevent paying taxes that he owes to the country and the Corporate CEO who likes to fire people so he can use their wages for another private jet or buy his wife another thoroughbred horse....


I don't talk politics here very often but I have to say something about these comments.

- Obama is a member of the wealthy 1%
- Obama is a slimy liar (all politicians are IMO)
- Obama is an elite snob
- Obama most certainly hides his money offshore
- Obama rides in a private jet daily paid by us

Not sure why you think this is "everything Obama has fought against in his life" when he lives it daily.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


You complained about the middle east melting down. Now you say we shouldn't be in Libya. Then you go off about the Ambassador.

Lets make this simple.

We should not be meddling in the middle east. The are a supplier and we are a buyer...period.
We should not be ready to jump up and take one in the butt for Israel. If they end up in a fight...sucks to be them. They are not "my ally"...they are someone else's lover...both sides using the other.

The attack on the Libyan Embassy was not a rage riot...it was a coordinated terrorist attack. Having a couple more guards around would not have prevented it.

And no...you are still wrong. The price of oil is set by the stock market. IF the president could do something about it (which he cannot) the Right wing conservatives would be squaling and jumping around like their heads were on fire that it was "socialism"...Big Gov involved in free trade.

Pick you side and stick to it. Either you are a capitalist and deal with what that causes or you are not.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by wills120
I don't talk politics here very often but I have to say something about these comments.

- Obama is a member of the wealthy 1%

no he isnt...hes rich bt not wealthy....you think he stands along side steve jobs, richard branson, the windows guy (im actually forgetting his name)



- Obama is an elite snob

i guess you havnt seen him in the OP bus`na move lol



- Obama rides in a private jet daily paid by us


no...the president does....all presidents get private jets paid for by us...as well as military aircraft

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



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by blacko

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic He's brilliant.


If by brilliant, you mean that he can passionately read a speech from a teleprompter then I agree.

Unfortunately there are no teleprompters at the debates and he flailed like a fish out of water. Only a True Believer would think otherwise.


The teleprompter comments are stupid - boring - and getting old.

Any top level politician who does not use a teleprompter these days is just plain STUPID!

One wrong word can change an entire meaning.

When Obama first took office - - he did make some "off the cuff remarks". Guess who took those "off the cuff remarks" and like a bunch of starving hungry animals tore them to pieces? Yeah! The fanatical Right.

Again - - ANY top level politician today who does not use the teleprompter and read their speech WORD FOR WORD - - - is an idiot.





I guess MLK was an idiot. So was Abraham Lincoln. Winston Churchill? Buffoon! The list could go on for ages. ANYONE with average literacy skills can read from a teleprompter. How about showing some intelligence and creativity? Oh yeah, we don't do that in today's society. It is acceptable to be lazy. Using a teleprompter IS a big deal. Am I really reading what I quoted above? Seriously?
edit on 6-10-2012 by Subconsciously Correct because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Subconsciously Correct
 


They used old school teleprompters, also known as paper. In most instances they read their speeches. Some, like MLK were adept at memorization. MLK, with a history in the Church and experience at the lectern was adept at the ability to memorize a speech in the abstract and then deliver it with conviction and immediacy.

It is considered poor form, in this day and age, to keep looking down ( at a prewritten speech or set of notes ) while publicly speaking - thus teleprompters. Lincolns famous Gettysburg Address is extant in multiple forms, in his own handwriting, showing that he edited altered it before actually speaking it.

I cannot think of a single politician who does not use some form of predetermined response or statement in public speaking. Even interviews are almost always negotiated beforehand so that the subject is aware of what will be brought up.

Katie Couric strayed from that concept just a few years back and now we call it "Gotcha journalism" if an interviewer goes "off script"

~Heff



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by thePharaoh
 



Obama's trying to have a round 2 without Mitt on the stage with him. Sorry Mr. President, your next scheduled beat down isn't for a couple weeks. Now everything he says is in question. I just gotta wonder every time Obama has one of his new slogans or sayings, "how would Mitt dismantle this if he was there to respond?"



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by Subconsciously Correct
 


They used old school teleprompters, also known as paper. In most instances they read their speeches. Some, like MLK were adept at memorization. MLK, with a history in the Church and experience at the lectern was adept at the ability to memorize a speech in the abstract and then deliver it with conviction and immediacy.

It is considered poor form, in this day and age, to keep looking down ( at a prewritten speech or set of notes ) while publicly speaking - thus teleprompters. Lincolns famous Gettysburg Address is extant in multiple forms, in his own handwriting, showing that he edited altered it before actually speaking it.

I cannot think of a single politician who does not use some form of predetermined response or statement in public speaking. Even interviews are almost always negotiated beforehand so that the subject is aware of what will be brought up.

Katie Couric strayed from that concept just a few years back and now we call it "Gotcha journalism" if an interviewer goes "off script"

~Heff


Pre-written speeches are one thing, but none of the speakers I mentioned were famous for reading directly off paper like Obama does with a teleprompter. I just can't believe I read the comment "anyone in today's society who doesn't read word for word from a teleprompter is an idiot." That's ludicrous.
edit on 6-10-2012 by Subconsciously Correct because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Subconsciously Correct

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by blacko

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic He's brilliant.


If by brilliant, you mean that he can passionately read a speech from a teleprompter then I agree.

Unfortunately there are no teleprompters at the debates and he flailed like a fish out of water. Only a True Believer would think otherwise.


The teleprompter comments are stupid - boring - and getting old.

Any top level politician who does not use a teleprompter these days is just plain STUPID!

One wrong word can change an entire meaning.

When Obama first took office - - he did make some "off the cuff remarks". Guess who took those "off the cuff remarks" and like a bunch of starving hungry animals tore them to pieces? Yeah! The fanatical Right.

Again - - ANY top level politician today who does not use the teleprompter and read their speech WORD FOR WORD - - - is an idiot.



I guess MLK was an idiot. So was Abraham Lincoln. Winston Churchill? Buffoon!


Try moving into the present.

What political office did MLK hold?



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Subconsciously Correct
I just can't believe I read the comment "anyone in today's society who doesn't read word for word from a teleprompter is an idiot." That's ludicrous.


That is NOT what I said.

This is what I said: "ANY top level politician today who does not use the teleprompter and read their speech WORD FOR WORD - - - is an idiot."



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 

Dear Annee,

Hello again. really good to see you. You should know that I take your comments seriously; one, because they are serious, and two, because I always have to think before I respond.

May I mention my thought on this teleprompter business?


Any top level politician who does not use a teleprompter these days is just plain STUPID!

One wrong word can change an entire meaning.

Again - - ANY top level politician today who does not use the teleprompter and read their speech WORD FOR WORD - - - is an idiot.
Would you be surprised that I largely agree with you? In many speeches the stakes are too high to run the risk of being misunderstood, even if it's just for domestic consumption. (Why does Joe Biden come to mind?)

The problem is this wasn't a speech, and it was only partially about facts and policies. Other debates may have been different but this one ended up focusing on the candidates as individuals, as people.

What does either candidate do when they're under pressure, criticized, or attacked? Do we see a person we can trust, someone we can understand? Unfortunately for the President, he came out of this debate on the very short end of the stick. I don't think it matters if he got 70% of his facts right to Romney's 50% (or whatever the numbers were)

I left feeling worried and uncertain about our President as a man, and I think a bunch of undecideds did too.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Deetermined
Yes, it's so much easier for Obama to spout half lies/truths himself when he's not being challenged.

Let's compare Obama and Romney's statements:

Obama yesterday in Denver:


But it couldn’t have been Mitt Romney -- because the real Mitt Romney has been running around the country for the last year promising $5 trillion in tax cuts that favor the wealthy. The fellow on stage last night said he didn’t know anything about that. (Laughter.)


Romney didn't say he didn't know anything about that, here's what he said (at least twice):


What I’ve said is I won’t put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit. That’s part one. So there’s no economist can say Mitt Romney’s tax plan adds 5 trillion (dollars) if I say I will not add to the deficit with my tax plan.



Let me -- let me repeat -- let me repeat what I said -- (inaudible). I’m not in favor of a $5 trillion tax cut. That’s not my plan. My plan is not to put in place any tax cut that will add to the deficit. That’s point one. So you may keep referring to it as a $5 trillion tax cut, but that’s not my plan


What else did Obama say yesterday?


The Mitt Romney we all know invested in companies that were called “pioneers” of outsourcing jobs to other countries. But the guy on stage last night, he said that he doesn’t even know that there are such laws that encourage outsourcing -- he’s never heard of them.


Here's what Obama said during the Presidential debate that Romney was questioning:


And part of the way to do it is to not give tax breaks to companies that are shipping jobs overseas. Right now you can actually take a deduction for moving a plant overseas. I think most Americans would say that doesn’t make sense. And all that raises revenue.


Here's how Romney responded:


The second topic, which is you said you get a deduction for getting a plant overseas. Look, I’ve been in business for 25 years. I have no idea what you’re talking about. I maybe need to get a new accountant.


The truth is, there is no special incentive for moving a plant overseas. All moves are considered a business deduction regardless of where you move them because it's a business expense, period. So, it looks like Romney gave Obama a chance to clarify his statement, and Obama didn't know how to respond.

Obama's rally in Denver yesterday:

www.whitehouse.gov...

Transcript from Presidential debate:

www.nytimes.com...



Thank you for taking the time to get a verbatim account of what was said. That is greatly appreciated. I have to agree that it appears Obama is trying to put words in Romney's mouth that Romney had never stated or even implied.

It is really making Obama look like a cheap used car salesman ... quite honestly ... it really does.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by thePharaoh
reply to post by Deetermined
 


it would be fascinating to know where most of you stand...have you chosen already...or will this debate influence your vote.

if i was american i would be so torn between the candidates based on that debate....but obama still edges it...as he only alienates the 1%.....romney aleinates the other 99% lol

good show

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


This debate influenced who I am going to vote for. I absolutely, 100% thought Obama was going to rip Romney to shreds. I was completely surprised that Obama was handed his ass.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by thePharaoh
 


Did you happen to see the interview on CNN interview with Stephanie Cutter regarding the fact that CNN fact checked the lie the Obama camp has been spreading about the 5 Trillion and Stephanie had to admit that it wasn't true after all. Did you also happen to see the segment on CNN with Wolf where they fact checked everything Romney said and reported that everything he said was true.

Check this video out if you haven't seen it yet.

www.youtube.com...

The reason Obama lost the debate was because he was confronted face to to face with the person he was telling lies about and was called on it, and he knew it. He also knew that if he tried to continue with the normal line of BS, Romney would just call him on that also and make him look even more foolish.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

Even though obama lost, I just wanted to know why the romney supporters cant see what you just explained? Are they in this 1% or something? Is there something im missing or not trusting in this guy? I wonder if he did win and all hell broke loose then what would the supporters have to say then? "well he won the first round"



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sestias
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Yeah. Mitt Romney does this "alpha male" thing, swaggering, trying to tower over Obama, ignoring and talking over the moderator, and the pundits swoon. Even Chris Matthews of MSNBC was shrilling, "He was MASTERFUL."

IMO Obama thinks Romney's a total liar and a fool, but he doesn't feel free to say as much before the whole country, so he suffers him begrudgingly. I noticed Obama appeared not to even look at Mitt, his distaste is so strong. IMO what he tried to do was clearly spell out his positions instead of engaging him in a combative way. I guess Obama came off as suffering fools a little too patiently and I suppose what he needs to do is to light into Romney in a forceful and aggressive way. But that would come with the price of turning a lot of people off, too,

Unfortunately, men in this country are still obliged to do the "caveman" thing in order to get respect. In many ways they need liberating too.

edit on 5-10-2012 by Sestias because: Added a sentence





Obama didn't lose because of his intense distaste for Romney, that's a weak excuse. I've never had a hate so strong for anyone that I wouldn't stand by them and make them look like a fool and liar. I would stand side by side with a pedophile to call him out on his disgusting ways and I think they should be shot on sight. Obama lost because he's not use to speaking without his every word being scripted. Because he couldn't lie and have his yes men back him up. He was not suffering a fool, he was out of his league.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by TylerKing
How exactly are they our ally?

They are technically our ally because we have agreements with the country.
Agreements with military and financial aspects. So yes .. they are technically our 'ally'.

Your only excuse for their reprehensible behavior is that they're our ally. .

Get off it. :shk:
1 - I am not excusing Israels behavior. That's absurd.
2 - Their behavior doesn't change the fact that our country has an ally agreement with them.
3 - It's the JOB OF THE POTUS to deal with foreign leadership even if he doesn't like them.
4 - Netanyahu is out of control and threatening war against Iran and trying to drag us in.
It's Obamas JOB to meet with our supposed ally and to get the situation under control.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I think you misread something. Read the quote and then my response.

Okay ... I re-read it. I'm still seeing it the same way.
I guess I'm not getting what you are saying or something ...
Whatever .. moving on ...

reply to post by Annee
 

I think what he means is that Obama uses teleprompters for speeches (fine) .. but is incapable of going off teleprompter when the situation demands it. Like at a debate. He needs someone else to feed him the pretty speech lines.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jeremiah65
We should not be meddling in the middle east.

Agreed.

We should not be ready to jump up and take one in the butt for Israel.

Unfortunately, on paper we have agreements with them. Both military and financial. They are indeed considered an 'ally' by our government. That is why the meeting between Obama and Netanyahu is so important. Netanyahu is out of control and is trying to drag us into a war with Iran. Obama has to stop it. But Obama hates Israel and Netanyahu so much that he can't function and meet with the man to smack him in the nose with a newspaper - something that is desperately needed.

The attack on the Libyan Embassy was not a rage riot...it was a coordinated terrorist attack. Having a couple more guards around would not have prevented it.


1 - Of course it was a terrorist attack. Unfortunately the Obama administration lied to the American people for a week in order to cover up their own deadly mistakes with our people in Libya.

2 - Our diplomatic people in Libya requested additional security multiple times. It was denied. There were credible threats against them. This was ignored by the Obama administration. That is CRIMINAL NEGLECT on their part - IMHO

3 - 'A couple of more guards'??? You just pulled that out of your backend. The guards are the ones that doublecrossed our diplomatic staff. Our staff made note that the guards were taking pictures inside the compound and even one of the staff posted online that he didn't know if he'd live out the night because 'something was up'. (he was murdered a few hours later). You have no idea what kind of security (or evacuation) would have taken place of our staff if the Obama administration had responded to the repeated requests for more security. You can't say 'a couple more guards'. You do not know that.


And no...you are still wrong.

And no .. I"m still CORRECT. Oil prices are set by speculators, supply and demand, world situations and politicing by the world leaders with oil country leaders. It's a give and take .... if oil prices are too high, the POTUS makes deals with countries like Saudi Arabia to get oil production higher etc etc. This is all basic economics and PolySci 101 stuff. Didn't you take any of those courses in college?
edit on 10/6/2012 by FlyersFan because: fixed quote





new topics
top topics
 
11
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join