• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Romney moves to reassemble campaign apparatus for 2016

Ockham said:
Nearly 3 years later, we find Obama still has a hard time using certain words, as does his administrations hired speakers. Obama clearly did not say "terrorism" - hasn't this been debunked about a dozen times already and here we are, with yet a fresh attempt. :roll:
Click to expand...

Heya Ockham. :2wave: Yeah that part with BO explaining why he didn't use the word terrorism kind of, puts it all into perspective. Evidently BO thought there was a distinction between an act of terror or acts of terror and terrorism.

Then he got caught in the lie.


Either way.....after Gingrich told Romney they have no front runners. Just runners, Romney let the final straw fall. His wife isn't denying her support. Plus he says he will run Right of Bush.
 
Kobie said:
Wait. After the 2012 campaign, he's regathering the same people????? LOLOLOL. That was one of the worst campaigns in recent memory.
Click to expand...

I agree, that was the only way Obama could win.
 
NIMBY said:
:lamo I needed this laugh after last night's painful game.

Who do you like--more than one answer is allowed--Paul Ryan just dropped out .
Click to expand...

Honestly....I have no clue yet. It's still too early in the game and too big of a question of who may or may not come out. I'm a big fan of Paul, yet at the same time don't think he'd be the best candidate at this point with our deep bench of Governors. I actually don't have anywhere near the issue with Christie as many do and am intrigued by him, but question how electable he is for unfortunate reasons (from Weight to Cowboys fan). Huckabee was someone I liked in 2008, but over the years some of the things he's been saying have largely turned me off. Very intrigued by Pence and Walker with their experience as governor. Rubio suffers the same non-executive experience issue as Paul, while also not being quite as intriguing to me politically...though I wouldn't have a big issue with him.

I'd say right now I honestly don't have a favorite for the nomination as much as I have three candidates that are routinely talked about that I have absolutely no desire for: Romney, Bush, Carson.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Jeb Bush will be the next Republican nominee for President and the next President of the United States.

All this talk of Romney wanting to get back into the race over the past month or so has got me thinking, however, that a Bush/Romney ticket on the Republican side would be a very powerful one, one that the Democrats would be hard pressed to even come close to.
Click to expand...

Romney will never accept VP. He's not a #2 type of guy.
 
Kobie said:
An "act of terror" isn't "terrorism." Interesting.
Click to expand...

Wait now...in THEORY he has a point here. If Obama is calling things an "act of terror", yet at times is not treating it from a law enforcement perspective as actual "terrorism", then it calls into the question of the legitimacy of the notion that when Obama suggests something is an "act of terrorism" it is equivilent ot saying it is "terrorism".

CanadaJohn said:
Obama used the same phrase "act of terror" when giving a speech at the memorial for those who were killed in the Colorado movie theater shootings.
Click to expand...

Do you have links to verify this CJ? If so, considering that Holmes is not being charged as a "terrorist", and the incident is not being looked at legally as "terrorism", then it would definitely suggest that him using the words "act of terror" is not inherently synonymous with labeling it "terrorism". However, if you CAN'T verify this, then it begs the question as to why you made a claim that is false?
 
Ockham said:
Nearly 3 years later, we find Obama still has a hard time using certain words, as does his administrations hired speakers. Obama clearly did not say "terrorism" - hasn't this been debunked about a dozen times already and here we are, with yet a fresh attempt. :roll:
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's a long list of things that have been banned and / or been provided the excessively politically correct euphemisms.

Islamic Terrorist = Freedom Fighter
Terrorist = “kinetic military action”
Illegal Alien = Undocumented worker

The ridiculousness of these euphemisms abounds with the politically over-correct, and with this president and his men (and women as well).
 
eohrnberger said:
Yeah, that's a long list of things that have been banned and / or been provided the excessively politically correct euphemisms.

Islamic Terrorist = Freedom Fighter
Terrorist = “kinetic military action”
Illegal Alien = Undocumented worker

The ridiculousness of these euphemisms abounds with the politically over-correct, and with this president and his men (and women as well).
Click to expand...

Or my fav.... Ft. Hood and "workplace violence". :lamo
 
Ockham said:
Or my fav.... Ft. Hood and "workplace violence". :lamo
Click to expand...

Yeah. A <> A, We call it B, so A = B but A <> A. See?

Never mind that 'illegal alien' is a fully legitimate legal term that accurately describes that person's legal status, and is the correct term to use, not some made up one. Heck, all of those are just made up terms.
 
Zyphlin said:
Wait now...in THEORY he has a point here. If Obama is calling things an "act of terror", yet at times is not treating it from a law enforcement perspective as actual "terrorism", then it calls into the question of the legitimacy of the notion that when Obama suggests something is an "act of terrorism" it is equivilent ot saying it is "terrorism".





Do you have links to verify this CJ? If so, considering that Holmes is not being charged as a "terrorist", and the incident is not being looked at legally as "terrorism", then it would definitely suggest that him using the words "act of terror" is not inherently synonymous with labeling it "terrorism". However, if you CAN'T verify this, then it begs the question as to why you made a claim that is false?
Click to expand...

Here is the complete text of his remarks at the Colorado Shooting event:

Full Text: Obama's Statement on Colorado Theater Shooting

My key was on his words here: "Now, even as we learn how this happened and who's responsible, we may never understand what leads anybody to terrorize their fellow human beings like this. Such violence, such evil is senseless."

I'll accept that I was wrong in my recollection that it was exactly those words, but it was equating that shooting to "terror".
 
MMC said:
Mornin' Pero. :2wave: Which after Romneycare.....then was first Grandmothered by Hillarycare before it became BO's Special Package.
Click to expand...

I'll buy that
 
Ockham said:
Nearly 3 years later, we find Obama still has a hard time using certain words, as does his administrations hired speakers. Obama clearly did not say "terrorism" - hasn't this been debunked about a dozen times already and here we are, with yet a fresh attempt. :roll:
Click to expand...
Please explain to me why I should care that he didn't use the word "terrorism?"
 
pbrauer said:
Please explain to me why I should care that he didn't use the word "terrorism?"
Click to expand...

You should only care if you want to be accurate and correct. Your post shows you care about neither of those things - so I'm guessing you wouldn't care if your posting history is used as a gauge. :shrug:
 
Verax said:
That 47% remark was so bad it could sink him twice. There is a movement in the U.S. that is very unhappy with wealth distribution and that remark is diametrically opposed to it. Nobody in the middle class or lower should vote for him because he does not have their best interests in mind, he cares only for the wealthy "job creators".
Click to expand...

There also is a movement in the U.S. that is very unhappy with massively growing number of lazy-ass deadbeat bums living off other people incessantly demanding they should get more from others for nothing.
 
Ockham said:
You should only care if you want to be accurate and correct. Your post shows you care about neither of those things - so I'm guessing you wouldn't care if your posting history is used as a gauge. :shrug:
Click to expand...
Did Romney say in the debate that Obama didn't say "Act of Terror?"
 
joko104 said:
There also is a movement in the U.S. that is very unhappy with massively growing number of lazy-ass deadbeat bums living off other people incessantly demanding they should get more from others for nothing.
Click to expand...

I agree, the rentiers are parasites.
 
pbrauer said:
Did Romney say in the debate that Obama didn't say "Act of Terror?"
Click to expand...


The transcript can be found here ---

Rose Garden Transcript: Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya | The White House
2nd Presidential Debate Transcript: Transcript: Second presidential debate – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

It took 2 weeks for Obama's administration to call the Benghazi attack terrorism, as he and his staff continued for 2 weeks to claim it was a spontaneous reaction to the anti-muslim video. Which was a lie and continues to be a lie. :shrug:

If I say "No act of terror will dissuade the United States" what exact act of terror am I referencing? You won't answer because you cannot. It was clear after the fact that everyone including the media saw Obama for the liar he was and continues to be.

Full Transcript of Obama's Rose Garden Speech After Sept. 11 Benghazi Attack - ForexTV
Replay: Obama’s Rose Garden Remarks on Libya - Washington Wire - WSJ
Obama’s claim he called Benghazi an ‘act of terrorism’ - The Washington Post (Four Pinnochio's)


Please continue your fail - it is amusing if nothing else.
 
11Bravo said:
Maybe so, but speaking about actual political careers, Hillary Clinton's is horrific. She began her career being FIRED from the Watergate investigation for LYING. She had a nonexistant life in the Senate, and then, well, haha we all know how hilarious her Sec. of State career was. I mean, come on. That was just brutal.

If you take Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton, even though he's a Bush....his career is no where near as disasterous as Hildawg's.
Click to expand...

i would rather take neither and demand that the republicans and democrats actually run someone who is more in tune with this generation.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
but thats what the people thought he said, and that stuck with him the rest of the campaign.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right. The media pounded away, day after day, hour after hour, drumming that tune into the hearts and minds of American voters until it was second nature to them and there was nothing Romney could say or do to explain it away. Once the media gets you in their sights, you're done.
 
CanadaJohn said:
You're absolutely right. The media pounded away, day after day, hour after hour, drumming that tune into the hearts and minds of American voters until it was second nature to them and there was nothing Romney could say or do to explain it away. Once the media gets you in their sights, you're done.
Click to expand...

that is all part of the game of politics.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Sorry if you can't comprehend that there are two groups that happen to be at the 47% level. There is undoubtedly, as he stated, 47% of the electorate that were going to vote for Obama no matter what. All the polls showed this. The election was a very narrow one. And he's right - these people are bought and paid for by Democrats. They represent those in society who want bigger government, bigger handouts from government and they want government to rape the rich and successful to pay for more benefits to the rest. It's the entire reason for Democrats to exist - what can government give me next?

Then there's the portion of the American people who don't pay federal income taxes - also, coincidentally, around the 47% mark. And as he said, the 47% who pay no federal income taxes aren't going to be interested in a message that says when President, Romney will work to reduce federal income taxes. If you pay no taxes, lower tax rates affect you not one bit so you don't care.
You and the media twist the message to mean that both groups of 47% represent the same people - they don't. But it was a good trick and Romney's words were open to being used against him and they were, quite effectively. That's what's incontrovertibly true.
Click to expand...

So you mean to tell me that Romney, without distinguishing anything, was talking about multiple "47 percent" groups in the span of a few sentences? That's utterly absurd spin. Romney's comments showed exactly how cluelessly out of touch he truly was.
 
CanadaJohn said:
You're absolutely right. The media pounded away, day after day, hour after hour, drumming that tune into the hearts and minds of American voters until it was second nature to them and there was nothing Romney could say or do to explain it away. Once the media gets you in their sights, you're done.
Click to expand...

Romney's 47% rant was just the icing on the cake. He was never good at relating to the average joe and already had one strike against him going into it because his career in the private sector consisted of sending people to the unemployment line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom