'If four Americans get killed, it's not OPTIMAL': Obama's extraordinary response to Comedy Centr

reply to post by Grimpachi


Wow good one... You got me.

The entire Libya boondoggle is simply transferring the "vote pool" from Obama to Romney

This latest gaffe is paramount.

Perception is the problem for Obama & Co.

Here’s the transcript from the White House pool report:

Jon Stewart: “Is part of the investigation helping the communication between these divisions? Not just what happened in Benghazi, but what happened within. Because I would say, even you would admit, it was not the optimal response, at least to the American people, as far as all of us being on the same page."

POTUS: "Here’s what I’ll say. If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal. We’re going to fix it. All of it. And what happens, during the course of a presidency, is that the government is a big operation and any given time something screws up. And you make sure that you find out what’s broken and you fix it. Whatever else I have done throughout the course of my presidency the one thing that I’ve been absolutely clear about is that America’s security comes, and the American people need to know exactly how I make decisions when it comes to war, peace, security, and protecting Americans. And they will continue to get that over the next four years of my presidency."

Obama: Benghazi Murders 'Not Optimal'

Regardless of how Obama supporters or Romney supporters see it, the whole thing is another "failure feather" in Obama's cap.

All of Obama's "Feathers" are pigeon feathers. True and strong Leaders all have Eagle Feathers in Their caps

The voters and former Obama supporters are thoroughly fed up with the BeeEss surrounding all these "official" accounts.

The voters have "HAD IT UP TO HERE"

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

I'm having difficulty deciphering your post due to the multiple grammatical errors.

At least I understand what optimal means.

Originally posted by HostileApostle
The OP can't even say why his comments were wrong.

All the OP knows is that her Right Wing sources are saying it is outrageous, so it must be parroted.

Ironic that the OP and other Right Wingers don't find it offensive for Romney to continue to use these American's deaths as his little political pawns. But the President says it's never an optimal situation when Americans lose lives after being asked a question about optimal conditions, and they are outraged.

It's so fake and dishonest and really pathetic.

Ok lets not use deaths as political pawns its just not right! I'm sure Eric holder feels the same way as you do. Hey it was a mistake that cost 4 people their lives no big deal right have Hilary take the blame months later but not step down from office then have obama come to the rescue and claim its his fault in a debate! But hey no political pawns there he was just stating the obvious.

By the way heres the definition of Optimal
op·ti·mal (pt-ml)
adj.
Most favorable or desirable; optimum. Usually you use the term optimal when you have choices to make and most of the time you choose the most optimal choice. Obama's choice of words is interesting to say the lest I wonder why it wasn't optimal for him

aww i see he took the word from John so he just parroted it from the leading question.

reply to post by 3chainz


Oh yes I am quite aware of forum dogpiles and how they transpire. You all U2U each other and bam...

I have thick skin, and yes you are projecting.

*

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by campanionator

 

Too little,and too late.
next...

Nothing will please you, so what on Earth is the point of you coming to a discussion forum to let others
challenge your assertions?

reply to post by digital01anarchy


It was kind of you to help them along with their understanding. I have to admit I was rather enjoying allowing them to continue. It is good to have it on the record.

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by 3chainz

 

Oh yes I am quite aware of forum dogpiles and how they transpire. You all U2U each other and bam...

I have thick skin, and yes you are projecting.

Man the right wing is so paranoid. Their media REALLY brainwashes them. I'm sure you think we all work for George Soros too.

I hope you kept the receipt for that "English degree"


I always wondered how anyone could have supported George W and it makes sense now. They don't know what words mean

Originally posted by 3chainz

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by 3chainz

 

Oh yes I am quite aware of forum dogpiles and how they transpire. You all U2U each other and bam...

I have thick skin, and yes you are projecting.

Man the right wing is so paranoid. Their media REALLY brainwashes them. I'm sure you think we all work for George Soros too.

Yeah the fact that we're all here calling BS means we must be sending each other private messages apparently...


Personally I'm here calling BS by my own volition (look it up OP) because it's disturbing that people like this are probably eligible to vote for our next president...

reply to post by MsAphrodite


You have never watched the Daily show? "fake news".
Truth be told, I get more information and balance from the Daily show than the MSM.

Seems as if you are being spoon fed by your friends at Fox News. Or another MSM outlet.

Do yourself a favor and listen to what the Daily show has to offer. You just might get why its all "fake news".
Far be it from me to change the way you see things, its not my place.
You are the one making the bed the you sleep in here.

Let's put this to rest. I am well versed in the English language as well. Optimal can be portrayed as being a positive response. Thus the term: "I got optimal responses for the surveys I posted." As in - favorable. In another context, it can have the opposite meaning in relation to the sentence, as in having an optimal or no more allowable effect. The president chose a poor word that can be taken in two different manners as in relation to sentence structure, and it was a bad word to have chosen.

reply to post by Hawking


Where exactly did you find proof of my ever supporting GW? Please link your proof, thanks.

Yes unless we all march in lockstep with your candidate we are a bunch of stupid, illiterate haters. It kind of goes against everything your educators have taught you to find out otherwise. I'm so sorry to burst your collective bubbles. Just because you think it doesn't make it so.

reply to post by zysin5


I don't watch Fox News. Another lie that your educators have told you. I watch Bloomberg and CNN almost exclusively. I'm not big on television.

Originally posted by SaturnFX


You want to get disgusted by a potus making light and fun of a tragic event? go look at bush jokingly looking under couches and crap for Osama for laughs.

Bush ISNT President anymore.


WHY cant Obama be help to the standard a CURRENT President, should be held to?

WHY shouldnt his administration, be held responsible for the current "bloodletting"?

The current "Liberal" Warmongers should NOT get a pass. PERIOD.

reply to post by MsAphrodite


Your outrage doesn't make sense. That is why everyone is clowning on you. Obama said American deaths are a bad thing. He used the word optimal because Stewart said it in the question he asked Obama.



There is absolutely NO joking in this video, he is serious. What are you complaining about?

reply to post by MsAphrodite


Yet you make a thread about something you "heard" about else where. Daily show covers the BS of CNN.
Fox news, CNN. Same stuff different side of the coin.

And spare me, you are being trollish here. Almost like you want to pick a fight with people in here. I sense your anger, and it does not suit your case here.

To borrow Rachel Maddow"s favorite lead in:

"In other words"...
It's "not optimal" for him because "it's just a bump in the road" and he would much rather be playing golf.

"In other words"...
It's "not optimal" because it's a major inconvenience and he really thinks its all about him.

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by 3chainz

 

Oh yes I am quite aware of forum dogpiles and how they transpire. You all U2U each other and bam...

I have thick skin, and yes you are projecting.

here are some common tactics.

The Manual to Debating a Liberal, from a former Liberal


Be aware and study These tactics...

1. SHOW UP WITH YOUR TALKING POINTS. Make sure you have something that you feel will show your opponents in a negative light, and make that the subject of the discussion.

2. DEMONIZE YOUR OPPONENT. Attempt to cover them with shame, the same way you would a 4 year old that touches his pee-pee.

3. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DOING #2 ABOVE, SUPPORT HIM IMMEDIATELY.

4. ACCUSE YOU OPPONENT OF SAYING SOMETHING HE DIDN’T. Attempt to define his statements in a negative light. Interpret them this way and state it as fact that he did actually say it. NEVER ask him…always TELL him what his meaning was.

5. CLAIM THAT IT IS “OLD NEWS” AND NOT WORTHY OF DISCUSSION. This applies especially when the discussion turns to the misdeeds of Democrat Party Leadership.

6. QUOTE AN UNSOURCED NEW ARTICLE. Always quote the article selectively, or describe it in a general manner.

7. IF ASKED DIRECT QUESTIONS ABOUT THE NEWS YOU HAVE PROVIDED, RESPOND INDIRECTLY. Never actually answer the specific of the question.

8. IF ASKED TO SOURCE YOUR NEWS ARTICLE, IGNORE THE QUESTION.

9. ACCUSE YOUR OPPONENT OF A MENTAL DEFECT OR LACK OF INTELLIGENCE. Personal attacks of this sort are especially useful as the target will almost always try to defend himself, thus changing the subject.

10. IF THE PARTY LEADERSHIP IS ATTACKED, ATTEMPT TO TURN THE TABLES BY INFERRING THAT SOMEONE IN YOUR OPPONENTS PARTY IS JUST AS BAD.

11. ACCUSE YOUR OPPONENT OF NOT ANSWERING YOUR QUESTIONS. Try to do this before he has an opportunity to. Try to infer that it you have given him multiple opportunities to do so. Do it even if the question has been answered. If he misses the question and asks you to repeat it DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES REPEAT THE QUESTION FOR HIS BENEFIT).

12. RESORT TO INSULTS. Try to question you opponent’s masculinity, his resolve, ANYTHING, but try to diminish and demean him. (This is know as the “LBJ Rule” codified by him thus: “Accuse your opponent of being a pig fornicator, then make him deny it.) REMEMBER, IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO THIS TACTIC, IT MEANS YOUR OPPONENT IS WINNING!

13. ACCUSE YOUR OPPONENT OF BEING UNINFORMED. This works especially well when you are asked to provide your sources. It is especially effective if you work in a reference to someone you have already demonized. Rush Limbaugh is currently the Demon of Choice.

14. SPEAK CRYPTICALLY. Try to make it difficult for people to divine your meaning

15. CHANGE THE SUBJECT. Try to get it back to your original talking points (see #1 above)

16. APPEAR TO AGREE. You will need to do this in order to achieve #15.

17. CLAIM YOUR OPPONENT IS BEING UNREASONABLE OR WON’T LISTEN TO REASON, AND LEAVE IN A HUFF.

18. BAIT YOUR OPPONENT. Needle him, tease him, call him names until he makes an inappropriate post, then scream bloody murder to the Moderator.

19. DENY THE EVIDENCE EXISTS. Ask for evidence of wrongdoing by those you support. When that evidence is presented, continue denying that it exists.

Good Old Liberal Debate Tactics

The barrages will escalate until after the elections