It’s pretty trivial, prr. He posted a link to a site, and presented that link as his cite. Then he made a little joke about it.
He metabolizes oxygen, too, and probably requires liquid water in his environment to support life. He can’t be wrong about everything he does.
In the same way that it remains to be seen whether the sun will come up tomorrow, sure. Romney’s “plan” to reduce the deficit is pretty ridiculous: reducing income taxes while simultaneously keeping effective rates about the same.
By the way, I hope you’ll stick around. You debate well and in good faith, and while the media may not be left-leaning the Dope could use some balancing.
There is the Bush trifecta because he’s also going to sky rocket defense spending and pick new wars.
Referees do more than keep time, they call fouls. Frankly I wish moderators did more of that, to both sides. I understnad it works against Romney because he has taken such inconsistent positions at different points of his campaign but frankly you should be able to deny saying what you said.
It happened to both sides during the VP debate. It hurt Ryan more because he already had a reputation as a liar but the moderator also challenged Biden’s statements on the withdrawal from Afghanistan (you could tell that moderator wanted to moderate the third debate).
Thats like asking, who is the “tea party” Sure its a bit of a grassroots movement but I can create an organization and call it “the Northern Virginia Tea Party”
But your point is well taken, these guys are terrorists either way and I should have focused on the fact that we don’t know enough to know how coordinated or pre-planned this attaack was.
Privatize the profits; socialize the losses. AKA “heads I win, tails you lose.”
I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the Bank. … You are a den of vipers and thieves. -Andrew Jackson, 1834
This media fixation reminds me of Joe the Plumber, it turned out he wasn’t getting ready to buy a company that makes 250 to 280 thousand dollars a year, he isn’t a certified plumber, and his name isn’t Joe.
It’s just so irrelevant to begin with but becomes funny when it’s revealed to be a lie.
These guys might shoot you if you did.
Unfortunately for you, and Obama, Romney was correct. First, the President lied, and then Crowley felt the need to open her yap and repeat the lie. You do realize you can look up what Obama actually said in the Rose Garden, don’t you? And if you want to see what he believes, just look at the U.N. speech two weeks later. Or any statement he made for two weeks following the attack.
Obama has an exceedingly odd reluctance to call Islamic terrorism for what it is.
At least we have the answer for that other thread about Libya - right-wingers think Obama lied because he has a reluctance to call Islamic terrorism for what it is.
Are you kidding me? Obama grouped the attacks in Libya with other attacks in a context which he clearly referred to as “acts of terror.” This is obvious from the transcripts and videos.
This nonsense about Obama being reluctant to call out Islamic terrorists smacks of desperation. You’re not getting any traction outside of the fact-free “conservative” echo chamber on this point.
It was in the talking points, so it must be true.
I would also recommend that anyone interested in this issue read the UN speech that magellan alluded to. I just read the transcript again and I think it’s an extremely well-state case against terrorist tactics and Muslim intolerance. You can find it here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/president-obamas-2012-address-to-un-general-assembly-full-text/2012/09/25/70bc1fce-071d-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_story.html
Have you even read this thread?
Here’s what Obama said THE VERY NEXT DAY in the Rose Garden:
Here’s what Obama said A DAY LATER ABOUT THE ATTACK IN LIBYA when Obama was in Colorado:
READ THE FREAKIN’ TRANSCRIPT. Simply repeating your belief that the president did not actually say these words makes your argument look beyond pathetic.
So facts are utterly irrelevant to you, right?
You know that people can look up, and even watch, what Obama said, and you’re trying to tell us that he didn’t actually say what he said?
That’s just sad.
But if you insist upon being sad, please continue…
BTW, has Romney said anything about wanting to find out who did do this? Or is his only concern about whether or not they were called terrorists, or whatever?
Why read stuff when you’ve already been told something is true?
Eh, drop enough bombs and sooner or later we’ll get the bastards.
Last night on one of the news shows, The Ed Show I believe, Bob Strum and Michael Steele were arguing about the “Act of Terror” semantics and it sounded almost exactly like the arguments going on in this thread - which is to say that Steele sounded like a moron and Strum was just beside himself with frustration over how much of a moron Steele was.