Poll: Obama Leading Romney 49% To 46% Ahead Of Second Debate

[SteeleJoe]

No. I have lived outside the US for 30 years and travelled abroad even longer but I have never been to a US Embassy or Consulate. Thanks for your description: sounds awesome.

"When I saw what facilities were available in Benghazi, my immediate reaction was the entire slaughter was due to a massive mishandling by the State Department"

Personally I'd prefer to rely on a far more in depth, balanced, nuanced and fact based analysis conducted with sufficient time, rather than your "immediate reaction".

"If Hillary didn't know what the facilities were then her leadership should be questioned. "

Absolutely.

"If she didn't bring any potential flaws in the security system to Obama's attention then both of their leadership qualities should be questioned."

By all means, question his leadership qualities -- but why do so based on a (hypothetical) failure of Secretary Clinton?

Oh, and you didn't answer my questions or responded to my refutation of your posit. (Just a reminder -- you're obviously not obliged to and I shan't hector you to do so).

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

I am not certain which questions I failed to address unless you are talking about this from one of your earlier posts:

"If you really want to be so absurdly partisan that you need to rely on that sort of semantic game: "This act of terror" won't shake us -- means that others possibly will. Is that what you want? Or would you rather a President declare that the America will NEVER be deterred by ANY act of terror?"

I want any US President to be somewhat truthful. He was addressing the Benghazi incident in his Rose Garden speech and not the attack on the Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon.

What his speech writers should have ordered him to say was..."This and any other attack of terror".

That would have covered it rather nicely.

Yes, that was one of my questions.

I want them to be somewhat truthful too. How is that pertinent?

So you now acknowledge that he was addressing the Benghazi "incident". Not sure what the attack on the Corps (an event that changed my life -- and which DID shake us and made us back down; and arguably contributed to all sorts of disasters that followed) has to do with it. And if one mentions the attack on the barracks why not the bombing at the embassy in Lebanon? Or the killing of the Ambassador in Pakistan? The list goes on -- not sure why they need to be brought in though.

So to sum up: in response to my highlighting your absurdly semantic position you come back with a new and even more absurdly semantic argument about Obama's speechwriters?

Really? That's what you think we (the American people) should be worried about? That his speechwriters -- in a speech which was made the day after a specific attack and indisputably about that attack, didn't use "this and any other act" rather than "no act"? With all due respect, I don't feel that sort of silliness is worth my time to discuss.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Edited October 24, 2012 by SteeleJoe

[chuckd]

With 67% of Australians supporting Obama, that would hardly represent a "fair and balanced" approach..

"Of all the countries polled, France is currently the most strongly pro-Obama, with 72 per cent wanting him to be re-elected and just 2 per cent preferring Romney. Australia (67%), Canada (66%), Nigeria (66%), and the UK (65%) are among the other countries with large majorities favouring Obama."

http://globescan.com...-to-romney.html

In the same way, does the fact only 5% of Americans have passports make them any more/less insular than other countries? No. Does the fact gun ownership is 88 per 100 people in the US mean that 88% of Americans are a bunch of hillbilly rednecks? Again no.

Throwing around numbers thinking they back up an argument is plain silly without proper justification. And to be honest, people have been doing that far to liberally on this thread. A bit like saying 'oh its cold today, thus global warming isn't real'.

The economist in me thinks this article is one of the more balanced things I've read of late concerning polls. Goes to the heart of the statistical methods of data collection, and not just random numbers which people on this thread have thrown aroudn thinking they back up an argument.

Your two examples have nothing to do with this thread and are really rather silly.

This is about political opinions written by an Australian talking head knowing full well that 67% of his potential readers will lap up any criticism of the man they do not favor.

Please provide the name of a political opinion piece author that doesn't cater to his readership. They all do.

My 'rather silly' example was intentional - to show that your '67% of Australian's like Obama' factoid was rather silly and pointless as well (not to mention the fact that at Australians are generally a conservative bunch and are about to elect in droves a conservative federal government next year having elected them in most states already...).

But as you say, this is a side issue.

So, okay then, instead of dancing around the issue, why don't you critique the actual article? Better than us chucking around useless statistics? No?

OK, let's look at a couple of things.

First, there is Nate Silver's 538 blog. This blog is part and parcel of the New York Times. The NYT is a major player in the Obama cabal of the main stream media that supports Obama 100%. Not being American, you might not understand that. Think of MSNBC and the NYT being cut from the same bolt of cloth.

Secondly there is this remark from your link...

"... the effect of the differential response rates washed out, along with all but sliver of the swing to Romney. Responses are weighted in this fashion by YouGov as well as Rasmussen, but not by most other American pollsters. The argument against this approach (which, amusingly enough, has most often been heard from liberal critics of Rasmussen, which is renowned for its Republican lean) goes that party identification can change sharply in response to specific events, and that weighting for it negates their impact on voting intention."

The reference to Rasmussen is incorrect concerning their so called "Republican lean". Rasmussen has been the most accurate pollster during the past four federal elections. They hardly have a Republican lean so it seems rather strange that the most accurate pollster is said to have a Republican lean yet fails to mention the well known bias of the NYT.

Your link was nothing but an opinion piece written by an editorialist to satisfy his readership IMHO.

[koheesti]

For those who want to politicize the death of 4 Americans in Benghazi, and try to put blame on Obama and/or Sec. Clinton, here's something you can put in your pipe and smoke:

1983: 220 Marines, 18 sailors and three soldiers, along with sixty Americans injured in one horendous terrorist attack, ....in Lebanon. You know who was president at the time. You want to blame R.Reagan for those deaths? I didn't think so.

The deaths were politicized, NOT by Romney, but by Obama when he had his admin lie to the people in order to preserve his image as the man who put al Qaeda on the run. Blaming Romney for politicizing Benghazi is the same as blaming the Democrats for politicizing Watergate.

[koheesti]

The day after the attack in Libya, this excerpt from the president's speech:

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation,...."

Where in that sentence do you see the word 'terror'? I see it. Do Republican attack dogs see it?

Even if you want to take that one sentence by itself and out of context, that still doesn't explain why Obama had his people out there for weeks denying that it was a terror attack, pushing the story line that the attack was motivated by the video. Read through the threads here on Thaivisa if you don't believe me. We had pages of debate on it. No Obama supporters were claiming it was a terror attack because that was NOT the Obama admin position.

[koheesti]

Obama's speech writers should have put these words in his mouth..."THIS act of terror will never shake the resolve of this great nation".

I wouldn't be surprised if they did but Obama took it out. Remember, this is the man who changed "War on Terror" to "Overseas Contingency Plans".

[koheesti]

With 67% of Australians supporting Obama, that would hardly represent a "fair and balanced" approach..

"Of all the countries polled, France is currently the most strongly pro-Obama, with 72 per cent wanting him to be re-elected and just 2 per cent preferring Romney. Australia (67%), Canada (66%), Nigeria (66%), and the UK (65%) are among the other countries with large majorities favouring Obama."

http://globescan.com...-to-romney.html

In the same way, does the fact only 5% of Americans have passports make them any more/less insular than other countries? No. Does the fact gun ownership is 88 per 100 people in the US mean that 88% of Americans are a bunch of hillbilly rednecks? Again no.

Seeing as how over 10% of Americans are foreign-born in the first place I don't believe only 5% have passports. Nor do I believe that anywhere close to 88% of the population own a gun. IF they did, we are an amazingly safe country when it comes to gun violence.

[Chicog]

For those who want to politicize the death of 4 Americans in Benghazi, and try to put blame on Obama and/or Sec. Clinton, here's something you can put in your pipe and smoke:

1983: 220 Marines, 18 sailors and three soldiers, along with sixty Americans injured in one horendous terrorist attack, ....in Lebanon. You know who was president at the time. You want to blame R.Reagan for those deaths? I didn't think so.

The deaths were politicized, NOT by Romney, but by Obama when he had his admin lie to the people in order to preserve his image as the man who put al Qaeda on the run. Blaming Romney for politicizing Benghazi is the same as blaming the Democrats for politicizing Watergate.

Romney was so quick to attack the statement appeasing Muslims and calling for calm that he didn't notice that it was issued FOUR HOURS before the actual attack. That wasn't his only screw up, he also breached an accepted protocol that says you do not play politics after a terrorist incident. That's exactly what he did.

So please stop the lie about Romney not politicising it, he was straight out of the gate trying to get votes, and the idiot didn't even understand what he was criticising. Another reason why Romney the foreign policy idiot should not have access to the Football.

[koheesti]

Really? That's what you think we (the American people) should be worried about? That his speechwriters -- in a speech which was made the day after a specific attack and indisputably about that attack, didn't use "this and any other act" rather than "no act"? With all due respect, I don't feel that sort of silliness is worth my time to discuss.

Yes! By all means, let's get back to Big Bird and Binders of Women!

[Chicog]

Really? That's what you think we (the American people) should be worried about? That his speechwriters -- in a speech which was made the day after a specific attack and indisputably about that attack, didn't use "this and any other act" rather than "no act"? With all due respect, I don't feel that sort of silliness is worth my time to discuss.

Yes! By all means, let's get back to Big Bird and Binders of Women!

No, let's get back to lying about gas prices and hiding your tax returns so people don't know just how many tax "loopholes" you've taken advantage of (when you're promising to close them - yeah right).

[koheesti]

Really? That's what you think we (the American people) should be worried about? That his speechwriters -- in a speech which was made the day after a specific attack and indisputably about that attack, didn't use "this and any other act" rather than "no act"? With all due respect, I don't feel that sort of silliness is worth my time to discuss.

Yes! By all means, let's get back to Big Bird and Binders of Women!

No, let's get back to lying about gas prices and hiding your tax returns so people don't know just how many tax "loopholes" you've taken advantage of (when you're promising to close them - yeah right).

Gas prices - what both of you guys are missing is that it doesn't matter WHY. Voters see prices are really high now and they see who is in office and that guy gets the blame. The same way that Clinton got to take credit for the booming economy as a result of the coming of the Internet.

Romney has released his tax returns and they shamed Obama/Biden by how much he gave to charity and that's why the Dems have shut up about tax returns.

But I understand where you are coming from, Obama is in BIG TROUBLE and that's why he and his supporters are coming up with all kinds of crazy distraction issues in a last gasp attempt to keep his job. I have a feeling thought that he'll pull it out in the end. This all reminds me too much of the time leading up to the Supreme Court Decision on Obamacare...everything pointed to it being ruled unconstitutional and in the end everyone was surprised, including Obama himself. Today, everything is pointing to a Romney landslide but when there are votes to count and there is a Democrat in the room, anything can happen.

[koheesti]

Interesting article from an Australian online newspaper I subscribe to about why polling methodolgies might be artificially skewing the results to Romney.

http://blogs.crikey....-minus-13-days/

Given that it isn't from the US - more likely to be really 'fair and balanced'.

But as they say, the only poll that counts....

With 67% of Australians supporting Obama, that would hardly represent a "fair and balanced" approach..

"Of all the countries polled, France is currently the most strongly pro-Obama, with 72 per cent wanting him to be re-elected and just 2 per cent preferring Romney. Australia (67%), Canada (66%), Nigeria (66%), and the UK (65%) are among the other countries with large majorities favouring Obama."

http://globescan.com...-to-romney.html

This is odd...

The countries with the largest proportions favouring Mitt Romney are Kenya (18%) and Poland (16%).

Kenya also preferred Obama by 66%.

[uptheos]

Reading the different posts by American's, has helped me to understand why the country is almost split 50/50

[SteeleJoe]

The day after the attack in Libya, this excerpt from the president's speech:

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation,...."

Where in that sentence do you see the word 'terror'? I see it. Do Republican attack dogs see it?

"Even if you want to take that one sentence by itself and out of context..."

Read through the threads here on Thaivisa if you don't believe me. We had pages of debate on it. No Obama supporters were claiming it was a terror attack because that was NOT the Obama admin position.

The context of that one sentence: a speech about the attack in Benghazi. I don't think anyone can dispute that (and surely a transcript isn't necessary -- but it's easily posted if you like). I inclusion of context only confirms the fact that it was called an act of terror.

"...that still doesn't explain why Obama had his people out there for weeks denying that it was a terror attack, pushing the story line that the attack was motivated by the video."

THAT is the only thing worthy of discussion here: leaving aside pathetic nitpicking about speechwriters using "this" or "this or any other" or "any", there's no denying he called it an act of terror. But:

To what degree, if any, was there a deliberate effort to misrepresent what happened?

What was the motive behind that endeavor, if indeed it existed?

On whose behalf was that hypothetical deliberate misrepresentation put forth and if indeed it was on behalf of the POTUS (rather than lower level CYA or other possibilities), how aware and complicit was he in that effort?

These are legitimate questions and deserve to be looked at. Contrary to the fervent and completely bigoted responses to these questions that I anticipate, none of them are known for certain and there are perfectly sound arguments for any number of scenarios -- some of which aren't especially nefarious and don't go beyond incompetence and ineptitude by people well below Pres. Obama's pay grade.

Let me say now, that I don't think this is the place for a lengthy and detailed discussion of this issue.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[SteeleJoe]

Really? That's what you think we (the American people) should be worried about? That his speechwriters -- in a speech which was made the day after a specific attack and indisputably about that attack, didn't use "this and any other act" rather than "no act"? With all due respect, I don't feel that sort of silliness is worth my time to discuss.

Yes! By all means, let's get back to Big Bird and Binders of Women!

You quote me so I feel compelled to point out that I have not and would not discuss such things.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[somtumlion]

Obama wins - takes Ohio and takes 52 % of the vote. I'll be back on the 7th to remind you I said this, and accept your congratulations at my impressive prognostication skills.

[SteeleJoe]

Obama's speech writers should have put these words in his mouth..."THIS act of terror will never shake the resolve of this great nation".

I wouldn't be surprised if they did but Obama took it out. Remember, this is the man who changed "War on Terror" to "Overseas Contingency Plans".

Where? When?

"War on Terror" is a stupid phrase anyway. Pointless and senseless rhetoric. Let's have a war on those who wage war on the US and its allies (including those who in any way facilitate or terrorism), by all means. But you can't make war on an abstract noun and you can win a war against a tactic -- as opposed to its practitioners (especially one that's been around for millenia and will always be around). And if you can't win it and it never ends, it's poor political rhetoric call it "a war". Not only that, I always felt that phrase was actually harmful to our efforts and I know some people with expertise in in the field of security issues that surpasses my own (which is not entirely lacking) who agreed with me.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Edited October 24, 2012 by SteeleJoe

[SteeleJoe]

OK, I admit I was being a bit disingenuous in trying to highlight that we don't know for sure that the phrase was officially changed or whose idea that was. But looking at this article that discusses it, I notice some things that put the change into a better context.

http://www.washingto...9032402818.html

"...In an address to Congress nine days after the attacks, President George W. Bush said, "Our war on terror will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."

But critics abroad and at home, including some within the U.S. military, said the terminology mischaracterized the nature of the enemy and its abilities. Some military officers said, for example, that classifying al-Qaeda and other anti-American militant groups as part of a single movement overstated their strength.

-- Washington Post

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Edited October 24, 2012 by metisdead
: Edited for fair use.

[Chicog]

Gas prices - what both of you guys are missing is that it doesn't matter WHY. Voters see prices are really high now and they see who is in office and that guy gets the blame.

Ah bless, here we go again, because it's pointed out that gas prices even at their worst have been cheaper under Obama than his predecessor, all of a sudden "it doesn't matter".

Well it sure did when you were telling us "Gas prices have doubled under Obama!".

There are more graceful ways to backtrack you know.

The same way that Clinton got to take credit for the booming economy as a result of the coming of the Internet.

So the Internet made the economy boom? Wow, some of the straws you are clutching are so thin I'm surprised you can feel them.

Romney has released his tax returns and they shamed Obama/Biden by how much he gave to charity and that's why the Dems have shut up about tax returns.

Romney has released a couple of years of tax returns that show he pays less than average tax, gives his money to the Mormon church and writes a large chunk of it off; but he daren't release the rest, or the tax loopholes - which Dems have NOT shut up about - will very much come to the fore. If anything is going to cost him votes, it's his refusal to tell the truth about who is going to pay for his tax cuts (hint: It ain't going to be his rich buddies).

Today, everything is pointing to a Romney landslide but when there are votes to count and there is a Democrat in the room, anything can happen.

It isn't the Democrats that wheedled their way into the voting system to try and find creative ways to put off the elderly and disenfranchised from voting (many simply don't have drivers licenses) and hired voter registration companies to throw away Democrat voters' registration forms.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Rimmer
Flame removed

[chuckd]

Really? That's what you think we (the American people) should be worried about? That his speechwriters -- in a speech which was made the day after a specific attack and indisputably about that attack, didn't use "this and any other act" rather than "no act"? With all due respect, I don't feel that sort of silliness is worth my time to discuss.

Yes! By all means, let's get back to Big Bird and Binders of Women!

No, let's get back to lying about gas prices and hiding your tax returns so people don't know just how many tax "loopholes" you've taken advantage of (when you're promising to close them - yeah right).

And we certainly don't want to mention that Iran borders the Arabian Gulf, Arabian Sea and the Caspian sea as sea routes to the world as some have posted. Particularly when Iran borders the Arabian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman and the Caspian Sea is actually the largest LAKE in the world.

Have you consulted that globe yet?

[SteeleJoe]

Sorry to make yet another post on this but I'm afraid a previous post by me may have been misleading as to my position: I want to add that I personally believe -- with lots of identifiable and explicable reasons to support my belief -- that the Benghazi issue (ie what it was called and how it was discussed afterwards) is even at its worst NOT as big a deal as Romney partisans wish it was or pretend it is.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Edited October 24, 2012 by SteeleJoe

[Chicog]

Really? That's what you think we (the American people) should be worried about? That his speechwriters -- in a speech which was made the day after a specific attack and indisputably about that attack, didn't use "this and any other act" rather than "no act"? With all due respect, I don't feel that sort of silliness is worth my time to discuss.

Yes! By all means, let's get back to Big Bird and Binders of Women!

No, let's get back to lying about gas prices and hiding your tax returns so people don't know just how many tax "loopholes" you've taken advantage of (when you're promising to close them - yeah right).

And we certainly don't want to mention that Iran borders the Arabian Gulf, Arabian Sea and the Caspian sea as sea routes to the world as some have posted. Particularly when Iran borders the Arabian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman and the Caspian Sea is actually the largest LAKE in the world.

Have you consulted that globe yet?

Oh dear, more selective editing? Romney said "route to the sea", he mentioned nothing about "routes to the world".

And I don't recall anyone quoting him as saying that on this thread. More Romnesia?

(Not to mention that the Caspian coast gives Iran direct access to sea ports in four different countries; I wouldn't expect Romney to know that anyway, with his limited knowledge of affairs outside continental America).

[notmyself]

The world poll spoken about earlier.

[chuckd]

And we certainly don't want to mention that Iran borders the Arabian Gulf, Arabian Sea and the Caspian sea as sea routes to the world as some have posted. Particularly when Iran borders the Arabian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman and the Caspian Sea is actually the largest LAKE in the world.

Have you consulted that globe yet?

Oh dear, more selective editing? Romney said "route to the sea", he mentioned nothing about "routes to the world".

And I don't recall anyone quoting him as saying that on this thread. More Romnesia?

(Not to mention that the Caspian coast gives Iran direct access to sea ports in four different countries; I wouldn't expect Romney to know that anyway, with his limited knowledge of affairs outside continental America).

Here was your initial post concerning Romney's remark about "Route to the sea" I do acknowledge he said "sea" rather than "world".

You are the one that made the post on this thread about Romney's comment. It is in your quoted post immediately following.

The trouble is, if it was Romney, he'd invade Canada thinking he was invading Mexico or something. This cock up from Mitt the Twitt is beyond incredible:

""Syria is Iran's only ally in the Arab world," he said. "It's their route to the sea."

Er.... what?

Aside from the fact Iraq is now quite chummy with Syria, what with their governments sharing the same muslim sect and all, perhaps someone needs to get a globe and show Romney the Arabian Gulf, the Arabian Sea and the Caspian Sea - and which country borders all three.

Strewth, that's right up there with "aircraft need windows that open".

Talking about aircraft with windows, you might want to consider this simple fact. No country borders all three of your mentioned bodies of water.

Iran borders on the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman and the Caspian Sea, but not the Arabian Sea

However the Caspian Sea is actually not a sea. It is the largest lake in the world which means it is landlocked. It provides no access to the world's seas and oceans.

You might want to refer to your own globe, unless you have already sent it to Romney.

Had Romney said "routes to the world" your three bodies of water would only have one error. However, since he specifically said "routes to the sea", you were incorrect with the Caspian Sea (aka Lake) and the Gulf of Oman. One out of three isn't very good.

My point is the Caspian Sea is a landlocked lake and does not provide naval access to any other body of water, other than by road of course. You were incorrect on that.

Iran does not border the Arabian Sea. It borders the Gulf of Oman. You were incorrect on that as well.

Up to you whether you admit your mistakes or not but I know what I would do.

Edited October 24, 2012 by chuckd

[koheesti]

Really? That's what you think we (the American people) should be worried about? That his speechwriters -- in a speech which was made the day after a specific attack and indisputably about that attack, didn't use "this and any other act" rather than "no act"? With all due respect, I don't feel that sort of silliness is worth my time to discuss.

Yes! By all means, let's get back to Big Bird and Binders of Women!

You quote me so I feel compelled to point out that I have not and would not discuss such things.

My reply was more to the "silliness" part and not specifically to you yourself.

The Obama campaign has been relying heavily on silliness. I mean, after the 1st debate their focus of attack on Romney was his comment about Big Bird. After the 2nd debate it was Binders of Women. Seriously? With the historical mess the country is in ("greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression!", $16 trillion in debt, trillion dollar deficits now the "new normal", a resurging al Qaeda, etc) and the Obama campaign focuses on silliness. For the first few months of this year at least Obama was distracting with more serious topics - "War on Women", same-sex marriage, amnesty for illegals who came to the USA as minors. Even partisan Democrats can't be so blind not to notice the new low levels the Obama campaign is sinking to.

[Chicog]

And we certainly don't want to mention that Iran borders the Arabian Gulf, Arabian Sea and the Caspian sea as sea routes to the world as some have posted. Particularly when Iran borders the Arabian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman and the Caspian Sea is actually the largest LAKE in the world.

Have you consulted that globe yet?

Had Romney said "routes to the world" your three bodies of water would only have one error. However, since he specifically said "routes to the sea", you were incorrect with the Caspian Sea (aka Lake) and the Gulf of Oman. One out of three isn't very good.

My point is the Caspian Sea is a landlocked lake and does not provide naval access to any other body of water, other than by road of course. You were incorrect on that.

Iran does not border the Arabian Sea. It borders the Gulf of Oman. You were incorrect on that as well.

Up to you whether you admit your mistakes or not but I know what I would do.

You are getting quite desperate to get away from the real issue, but let's keep the facts out there, shall we? The Gulf of Oman is accepted as a branch of the Arabian Sea, much like the Gulf of Mexico is part of the American Mediterranean Sea. Your quibbling is rather pointless, since you can verify these facts for yourself.

As for the Caspian not being a Sea, well whoop de do, I'm afraid that's what it's called so you'll have to get over it. I've never worked out the Sargasso myself, so I just accept that it's called a "Sea" and move on.

More importantly, and this is something perhaps you could forward to Mr. Romney, the Caspian Sea is of significant strategic importance, since it forms a direct sea route from Russia to Iran, which I would imagine probably carries some cargo that might be of interest to the Commander-in-Chief - especially considering some of it might be used in forthcoming military skirmishes.

Again, you are using Fox News tactics to try and (I might say quite poorly) criticise my choice of maritime terms - and bend the truth about me misquoting Romney - to deflect from the fact that FIVE TIMES Romney has repeated that Syria is Iran's "Route to the Sea", which illustrates that (a) he does not understand Iran's borders and coasts, and ( b ) he seems to have forgotten about the fact that there is no border between Iran and Syria.

If anyone needs to admit something it's you.... that Romney is an ignoramus when it comes to Foreign Affairs. I'm sure he knows every good resort in the Cayman Islands, if that's some consolation to you.

Just to clarify, here's a map. I think it would be a good idea if you forwarded it to "[email protected]" and told him him which one is Iran, which one is Syria, and which one is Iraq (you might want to point out the Caspian and Russia while you are at it).

Added: I'd like to hear what both of them have to say about the Amir of Qatar arriving in Gaza waving his chequebook around. That is a most surprising turn of events.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Chicog

[chuckd]

It isn't the Democrats that wheedled their way into the voting system to try and find creative ways to put off the elderly and disenfranchised from voting (many simply don't have drivers licenses) and hired voter registration companies to throw away Democrat voters' registration forms.

Wrong in so many ways.

1. Look up Obama's former employer and see how many convictions have been issued to them for Voter Registration Fraud. The acronym for this organization is ACORN. http://www.washingto...again/?page=all

2. Go back to Lyndon Johnson's first Senate election when the Democratic party suddenly found enough votes in a small county in Texas to win him his election. http://www.reformati...on-johnson.html

3. Look up John Kennedy's election when it was found that Joe Kennedy bought off some Illinois officials to somehow produce enough votes for Kennedy to carry Illinois. http://stonezone.com...icle.php?id=391

4. Check out the New Black Panther Party's intimidation of voters in the 2008 election. They had been charged when the Obama administration's Attorney General chose to drop all charges. http://washingtonexa...00#.UIemU2_BuTQ

5. Anybody can get a photo ID by going to the appropriate state government office and requesting one. Voter ID laws DO NOT require the ID to be a driver's license. A photo ID can be a library card or nearly any sort of photo ID card.

Edited October 24, 2012 by chuckd

[koheesti]

Romney's "too soon" response criticized the Twitter statement by the US Embassy in Egypt apologizing [in advance] for the video. The Obama admin agreed with him and had the statement removed from the Embassy Twitter account.

I criticized Romney for coming out so early considering the tragedy (we should unite at times of tragedy). But the way the media hounded Romney for DAYS while giving Obama a free pass as he flew off to LAS VEGAS for a fundraiser after his Rose Garden speech, maybe even before we had recovered the body of our ambassador is inexcusable.

You know putting it in red doesn't make it any more impressive - it was covered in the debate and Obama was there when the bodies arrived on US soil. Romney was rightly hounded for making a politicial issue out of a tragedy just to try and win a few votes. That is just bottom feeding in my book.

Yes, by the time the bodies had been recovered and shipped to the USA, Obama was back from his fundraising tour in Las Vegas. But the fact is why they were still unaccounted for Obama was out in Sin City, smiling, laughing and raising money.

When we were attacked on 9/11, President Bush was not allowed to return to Washington DC by the Secret Service and people on the Left criticized him for being absent even though it was out of his control. But when we get attacked by terrorists on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 and 4 Americans die including an ambassador for the first time in over 30 years, President Obama can go straight to Vegas to raise money for his political campaign and all the Left and their MSM friends can do is go after candidate Romney. If there is any bottom feeding going on here, it is by people with Obama/Biden bumper stickers on their cars.

[koheesti]

Romney has released a couple of years of tax returns that show he pays less than average tax, gives his money to the Mormon church and writes a large chunk of it off; but he daren't release the rest, or the tax loopholes - which Dems have NOT shut up about - will very much come to the fore.

Romney's tax rate was higher than someone making $50,000/year and that's another reason Obama has shut up about it. Other Dems may not have because they are low information, uninformed voters.

Romney pays higher tax rate than someone earning $50,000 per year

IRS data, though, shows that Romney’s effective income tax rate — that’s what he pays as a percentage of his income once deductions and other benefits are factored in — is actually far higher than what most Americans pay.

And it’s certainly higher than what someone making $50,000 pays

http://www.ijreview.com/2012/09/17369-romney-pays-higher-tax-rate-than-someone-earning-50000-per-year/

[SteeleJoe]

Romney's "too soon" response criticized the Twitter statement by the US Embassy in Egypt apologizing [in advance] for the video. The Obama admin agreed with him and had the statement removed from the Embassy Twitter account.

I criticized Romney for coming out so early considering the tragedy (we should unite at times of tragedy). But the way the media hounded Romney for DAYS while giving Obama a free pass as he flew off to LAS VEGAS for a fundraiser after his Rose Garden speech, maybe even before we had recovered the body of our ambassador is inexcusable.

You know putting it in red doesn't make it any more impressive - it was covered in the debate and Obama was there when the bodies arrived on US soil. Romney was rightly hounded for making a politicial issue out of a tragedy just to try and win a few votes. That is just bottom feeding in my book.

Yes, by the time the bodies had been recovered and shipped to the USA, Obama was back from his fundraising tour in Las Vegas. But the fact is why they were still unaccounted for Obama was out in Sin City, smiling, laughing and raising money.

When we were attacked on 9/11, President Bush was not allowed to return to Washington DC by the Secret Service and people on the Left criticized him for being absent even though it was out of his control. But when we get attacked by terrorists on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 and 4 Americans die including an ambassador for the first time in over 30 years, President Obama can go straight to Vegas to raise money for his political campaign and all the Left and their MSM friends can do is go after candidate Romney. If there is any bottom feeding going on here, it is by people with Obama/Biden bumper stickers on their cars.

Am not! You are!

I am so very depressed by the level of political discourse in my country. The divide is not nearly so wide as people make it out of be -- but it is so deep and so intense and lacking in reasoned attempts at objective analysis and representation of facts... that we are down to this sort of pathetically puerile crap. It sometimes makes me laugh -- but only in lieu of complete despair.

Shall we analyze where each President was on every occasion that something bad happened and decide what is and isn't appropriate? Shall we start trying to itemize and quantify each incidence of shameless use of news items by a candidate to score political points?

Seriously?Is this the best you people (Dems or Reps) can do

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Edited October 24, 2012 by SteeleJoe

[koheesti]

Sorry to make yet another post on this but I'm afraid a previous post by me may have been misleading as to my position: I want to add that I personally believe -- with lots of identifiable and explicable reasons to support my belief -- that the Benghazi issue (ie what it was called and how it was discussed afterwards) is even at its worst NOT as big a deal as Romney partisans wish it was or pretend it is.

And the opposite can be said of Obama supporters.

So basically one side puts too much importance on lying to the American people about a terrorist attack which killed 4 Americans and the other side puts too little importance on it. Yeah, that's a winning position for Obama, I hope he runs with it the next two weeks.

Edited October 24, 2012 by koheesti