Halloween: is that when the 47% go around begging for scraps of food and the 53% pretend to be scared?
Wait a minute, there is a big difference between “right wing morons” and “morons who are right wing”. Check the transcript.
From the transcript: “Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.”
I assume the part about denigrating religious beliefs of others is a reference to the video.
Speeches like this are mulled over and rewritten numerous times with the full knowledge that every single word or phrase will be parsed. If Obama wanted to call this a terrorist attack he would have done so outright and probably near the beginning of the speech. The term “acts of terror” is deliberately vague and seems to refer to any and all acts generally as opposed to this particular event.
Psst. I wasn’t really sorry in an apologetic way.
Also noted by some at DailyKos, Mitt’s reply on the equal pay for women question was “I recognize that if you’re going to have women in the workforce that sometimes they are going to have to be more flexible.”
“If” you’re going to? Really? This is optional? We ought to put a stop to this!
Okay, I’ll play along. What’s the difference between a terrorist act and and a terrorist attack?
I’m not the one parsing it. If you bothered to read my earlier posts I said that I don’t see the difference between the two phrases.
yorick, seriously, what point are you trying to make that is any way worthwhile?
Bolding mine. So did he or did he not mention the video?
You assume that the phrase “denigrating religious beliefs of others” is a reference to the video without actually being specific but there’s a difference between “acts of terror” and “act of terror.”
And thus did the right wing jump the shark.
Three weeks to the election and all that will be discussed is “acts of terror” vs “terrorist attacks”. Not unemployment, or the deficit, or raising taxes, or gun control: all areas where Obama might be vulnerable.
So, what will Michelle wear to the inaugural ball?
If Yorik takes it axiomatic that Obama is wrong, then there must be a reason, no matter how weird or silly that supports that.
Fairly common on the right.
He was vague on both issues. Why…I have no idea. Perhaps he was hedging. At that point maybe he did not have enough information. The disturbing trend is the next two weeks when the administration tried to pin this on some obscure filmmaker.
And, of course, it’s only women who need flexibility. No men who might want to go to a teacher conference, or make dinner, or stay home with a sick kid. It’s the price you pay, I guess, if you hire women.
:rolleyes:
Obscure filmmaker? Sure, but the fact is that the film clearly incited anger across the Middle East, including in Libya.
More than that, Romney didn’t bring it up. His initial response was good and didn’t mention any quote.
It was Obama, on a follow up question about the buck stopping with Clinton that brought it up:
This was a trap. Romney jumped on it because clearly that isn’t what the message was of the campaign for the first ten days after the attack. But Obama’s people found that one line and used it well. They basically caught him in a definition of the word “is” snare.
It depends on the state of the economy – when it picks up sufficiently, employers are going to be so hard-pressed to hire people that they’ll even let women in. Mitt explained that quite clearly.
(He never did get around to answering the original equal-pay question, though. Admittedly, he may not have had necessary information, such as whether or not companies can count the cost of spraying for girl cooties toward payroll.)
After Obama brought it to worldwide attention, yes.
Frankly, my biggest annoyance at Mitt was his revival of the lame, long- and fully-discredited “Apology Tour” bullshit. That piece of craven dishonesty ought to immediately disqualify him from the office of the President.
Weren’t the crowds in Cairo protesting the video the day before the attack in Libya? Also, it was the Libyans who told on-scene reporters that the video was the reason for the riot. Good for the administration to wait until all the facts were known.
It wasn’t an apology tour, it was a tour of apology.