For the Love of God and all us children - Please Mr. President, Keep This Bum Cornered Monday Night
Last edited Fri Oct 19, 2012, 05:23 PM - Edit history (1)
Please don't hit me with the hate on this with the "of course he will" or certainly any concern stuff, I just want to hear that our President is:
A) Doubling down on debate practice and priming this final kill shot to polish off this clown once and for all and
B) Doubling down on the hate - You hate this fucking liar, Mr. President, don't go forgetting that. This asshole stood up there, even in debate #2, and said he didn't believe in employers telling employees they couldn't have contraceptives covered under their health insurance, when THAT IS NOT HIS FUCKING POSITION.
This man - the true depiction of a say anything, lying child who just wants what he wants - needs to be handled with a firm hand - and every combative act of aggression must be met with opposing force.
Obama let his hate and his annoyance with Romney go on Tuesday night, and he did it in his uniquely Obama way where it didn't even come off as dickish. It's a rare talent.
C) Hold him down for his incoherent, embarrassing, Bush-adviser dominated backward-looking bullshit mess of anything resembling a foreign policy.
Skewer each nonsensical, absurd when boiled down to the particulars, or flat out ignorant position that this dipshit and his dipshit campaign have put out there over this last year.
Mostly, what I am saying is FUCK HIM UP.
This is foot on the throat, no this guy is not getting back up again, time to PUT IT ON HIM time.
Dear Lord, let our President not go back to being the nice guy he naturally is. Keep him nice, but keep him in touch with his inner dick.
D) For the love of God, if that asshole tries to bring domestic economics back into it, figure out the best way to segue into an attack on his 47th out of 50 states jobs growth in Mass and how that relates and how, contrary to what he's been pretending, he was a shitty governor.
What is the exact format, and what can people tell me about what to expect from Minimum? Maximum? Bob on Monday night?
I'd like to see people respond in this thread with what they see as some of the dagger points to drive home in this debate, like Ryan's despicable assertion that voting to send other people off to die in war constitutes foreign policy experience.
So what would people most like to see hammered away on Monday night?
It just scares the crap out of me to hear people say, oh, right, the Foreign Policy debate, well that one's going to be a slam dunk for the President...
This is Multiple Mitt. Say Anything Mitt. Front any expedient strategy Mitt. He's a loathsome, dangerous, unqualified candidate for President, but his utter lack of positions, or morals, or decency makes him a dangerous debate opponent.
Now is the time for locking down every minute of the debate.
The win is at hand.
You prepare to prosecute every minute of that debate, to have Romney nailed whether he wriggles left or right - to keep him all the while pinned with blades to that spinning board.
When the win is at hand, you plan that much harder.
Please tell me our bunch, who are very smart, are not overconfident.
Any evidence to that effect would be most appreciated.
Please understand it is not weakness to be one who gets most nervous and focused when victory is at hand. That is a very successful and tried and true method for victory in sports. The great ones always get laser-focused when the chance to put the game away presents itself. In my time, and on my level, I was vicious in those spots. That's what I want from our President.
Kick this asshole off the cliff.
Check the transcripts.
That's what I hope to hear on Monday night. It's quite effective.
I would love it if I could hear - Since Governor Romney didn't answer the question - I will. Then when finished with his response . . . BTW - Mitt Romney is stating xyz - Not true. Don't believe me? Check the transcript.
just to hear that again and again would be music to my ears.
We know they need to have a completely game-planned response on Benghazi - an every option is covered response, and they probably need to have a dismissive, get the fuck out with your bullshit response ready, when Mitt tries to reclaim is shattered manhood over his Libya disaster. As ridiculous as it is, they will try to parse what "you really meant."
Just be ready to stomp on that.
Ready for more thoughts.
"Not true" - every time I heard him say that on Tuesday night was like a weight lifting off my chest.
Stomp on it.
And we all know that Mitt will never ever answer the question. So pointing that out then answering the question posed will highlight President Obama's knowledge of what is going on in this world.
I know the polls show again and again that people think Romney will be better on the economy. But he is not knowledgeable on the world outside of his front door. He also doesn't have the 'polish', warmth, and measured approach that is a necessity in dealing with the leaders of the G8 and G20.
Obama, Biden, and SOS Clinton have done an amazing job at rebuilding the US' reputation in the rest of the world. I'm very well traveled - I've seen the difference between being in the countries of old allies circa 2006 - vs 2011 or 2012. We are a leader again. I don't want to lose momentum on that.
they need to tie that right to the Bush foreign policy.
That foreign policy turned us into a laughingstock around the world, a clumsy bully, and an isolated one, at that.
We do NOT need to go back to being viewed as, at best, an irritant, and at worst, a menace. That's what Bush and his ham-handed touch "won" for this country.
As a huge sports fan, I cannot tell you how distressing and notable the reaction our athletes received in Athens was.
Now, they're going to claim fires all over the Middle East is the failure of the Obama foreign policy - what's everyone's best answer on that?
I think we did the right thing, I know we did what we say we stand for where Democracy is concerned, and I wonder if we have the chance to make some actual friends, instead of just friends of convenience like Mubarak and the ghastly Gaddafi clan.
But what's the best way to answer on that count?
(after the requisite Thank You's)...
There is an old Celtic Proverb that states: Never give sword to a man who can't dance. Now, I don't know Mr. Romney well personally, and have not spent any time with him privately. But from what I have seen PUBLICLY, based on that ancient logic, I would not trust my opponent with a Pop-Gun, let alone command of the most effective (War)Ship of State the Earth has known since at least the time of Genghis Khan. And I would be much saddened on election night, to discover that the American People have decided to return control of that ship to the method of thinking, that, for completely childish and self-aggrandizing reasons led the LAST Republican Administration to drag this Great Nation into that "most famous of Classic Blunders". Governor Romney, the floor is yours.
That would be it. It would be over in 90 seconds, Romney would be screwed by the idiocy and incompetence of BushCo and have no where to run; as a Republican he would have to OWN that shit, or just decide on the spot to throw Jr. under that bus once and for all. (AND we would get a Presidential-level Princess Bride reference for good measure (now how damn cool would THAT be hahahahaha).
I'd like to know how?
How did president Obama make a young Tunisian man named Mohamed Bouazizi self imollate?
Despite how exceptional Mr. Rmoney thinks America is, everything that happens in the world does not have to be caused by America.
What would he have done differently?
Does he think it's a bad thing that Tunisia, Egypt and Libya have nascent democracies?
What would he do differently with Iran (as VP Biden asked lyin Ryan)? Go to war?
"Do you, Mr. Romney, want to lead us into 2 more wars like the previous Republican administration?
(Purposefully calling him Mr instead of Governer, just to wind him up even more)
Some further thoughts related to this topic...
As I've mentioned before. The MIC have a lot of stock gathering dust and are desperate to get their war on and they must be slathering at the lips at the thought of a Rmoney presidency. Don't some of the major news channels have strong ties with the MIC? Could this be why they're so desperate for this to be a horse race?
I'm looking for a knockout in the first round on Monday night!
and the guy who attacks too carelessly can end up floored.
Or in MMA, see the Scott Smith - Pete Sell fight or the Robbie Lawler - Melvin Manhoef fights.
You attack methodically, efficiently, relentlessly, scoring and scoring and shutting down any attempts at return fire.
Dissection over recklessness or carelessness, but always the pressure, you build it up pound upon pound by constant application.
But now I'm getting off-track.
Well, the way Joe Scarborough keeps whining, I think Romney is going to attack President Obama on Libya again. He got embarrassed the last time. The Republicans actually think the Obama Administration was covering something up. Embarrass them again. Romney is out of his leaque. He, nor Paul Ryan have never served in the military. If he starts with this apology crap again, school him on crowd control techniques. The White house don't control conditions on the ground in a foreign country. That is just like the President controlling a General in a War Zone. I would go after Romney's political operatives in the right wing Republican Congress too. The congressman from Utah and Issa. I would also challenge Romney on his Foreign Policy advisor's by bringing up Bush neocons. One of his advisors is a General that approved of water Boarding. I would bring up one of his Top advisors, (Ambassador Bolton) and his views which are extreme. Then I would dig up the quoted source where General Colin Powell stated that he was concerned about Romney surrounding himself with the most extreme rightwing advisors on Foreign Policy. If he takes that approach and tie it into his argument about Romney's decisions in selecting the worse people, it will be a slam dunk. If Romney is selected, Our Foreign Policy will be George W. Bush II.
It's both damning and accurate. That's a very effective line to drive home at some point.
If Robme dares bring it up again, that could knock him out.
"Why have you almost never mentioned national security or foreign policy in twenty years of running for public office?" "Why didn't you even mention our brave men and women in uniform in your convention speech?"
"kicked off the cliff", too. He's been asking for it.. hope our President gives it to him.
us right down to the Swiss and Fiji!
for all Romney's to disappear? Absolutely. Magically.
IMHO, language like "shoot to kill" should not be used in US politics.
I don't like it when the other side uses this sort of language, and I don't approve of it on our side either.
are quite different from mere rhetoric expressed to a side that has simply not shown the same violent tendencies.
I understand that some of you don't like the expression, but it's what I came up with after a long, sleepless night, and I find it very different when expressed to a left-leaning audience that does not have the same record of violence.
I respect the viewpoint you are espousing, and am glad you have all shared your opinions, but, at least at this moment, I do not feel inclined to change it.
I, personally do not feel hypocritical in using that common expression. I find it rather close to "a look that killed" and all similar expression. I'm sorry if you find it to be different.
Or balanced the budget there, remind folks that he did that with a 1.3 billion check from the federal government. And if he brings up how he worked in bipartisan fashion with democratic leaders in Massachusettes, remind folks that this was mainly on the health care bill he now denounces for the rest of America and that he spent half of his term preparing to run for President, changing his stance on abortion, stem cell research and gay rights and leaving the state with a 34% approval rating. Pound him on his constantly changing positions on everything. Make him look like the lying, income tax dodging, phoney he really is.
Always thought Bob a skilled journalist who trended left but spoke it
with aplomb, courtesy, and class, as in his book on Reagan "The
Now I think he's mellowed into a down home southern aristocrat
journalist who's spent too much time with Mitch McConnell.
So I expect Lehrer II.
Befuddlement, gentlemanly, but unable to moderate with authority
in any significant manner.
Soft spoken hard-hitting questions that appear friendly, and
softball followups that let Mitt off the hook.
The Media has been clear. If Obama is going to be reelected, he's
going to have to do it himself. The Fourth Estate will be no help.
trying in vain to stop two grandkids from squabbling, and then throwing his hands up in frustration.
I wish Martha Raddatz was going to be the moderator again.
Bob Queefer http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/81454100/ Just so-o-o-o gr-r-ross.
His Texas roots, fratboy from TCU, strong Bush Family Evil Empire connections: Schieffer is the older brother of Tom Schieffer, a friend and former business partner of President George W. Bush, who was appointed U.S. Ambassador to Australia 20012005 by President Bush http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Schieffer I don't know-I'm not an ageist-but 75-I'm just sayin'. And Jim Lehrer-78? I'm 60 and I'm unhappy with Mittens's 65. Struggling with Hillary (whom I adore) being 68 in'16. Joy-Ann Reid is my dream choice.
We had the most historic smack down in presidential debate history that should have ended the discussion, and the media has allowed the Republicans to obfuscate it to the point where Romney getting his butt kicked over it does not even exist, all that exists is how horrible it was for the moderator to interject facts into it.
They botched the messaging about it, and it would be ideal if they could just come and out say that, but they can't because the republicans would just go to TOWN on it.
So, they are stuck in the position of having to talk past it.
They have to figure out the framing to turn it back on Romney.
If you aren't playing offense, you are playing defense.
Generally, it is a format that Romney is going to be able to shout down and control, and it will be framed positively for him even though his overall foreign positions are somehow even worse and more muddled than his domestic policies.
the supposedly light-hearted dinner last night. Romney told harsh stinging "jokes" that bordered on disrespectful. It sounded like they were all written by Dennis Miller and were laced with spite. Romney always carries a sword and goes for the kill every time. Look at his face during the debate for the Libya question. Daggers from the eyes. Obama needs to attack Romney for what he really is and -again- he needs to stop complimenting romney as being a good man because he's not.
taught to him by Beatrix Kiddo
Twice or three times. Throw him into the dustbin of history and dump a ton of moldy vegetables on him. End this silly fker's despoiling of the political landscape once and for all.
I don't like the "shoot to kill" violent terminology though.
I'm wondering now how much they have to do with it. The first debate was at the same time as the Likely Voter Change.
Don't see how Rmoney can "win" this one - without flip flopping again. Americans are tired of wars. Rmoney acts like a creep and it'll be more clear that's how he'll act with foreign leaders.
that will be his main thrust, with the most specific element of that being his Libya attack.
After that, he'll make up a bunch of bullshit about China (Nice that Obama JUST won another trade suit against China), probably go for the "I'll have more flexibility" Russia thing...
Use that as one of the pillars to a "What is the President not telling us he's planning to do" line of bullshit (Whereas the truth is that for all we know, Romney intends to sell the country to China on behalf of the 1% - actually, this probably is the goal - load us up with more Chinese debt to pay for 1% tax breaks - those two scenarios are the same).
He'll make up a whole lot of "I'll be tough on this" stuff, and scream Iran a million times - he'll claim we've failed in Afghanistan -
Basically, Obama needs to be as tough on any of this nonsense as Biden was with Ryan, although he doesn't need to borrow Joe's laughing jags.
There's a start, I figure.
Those cuckoos to splatter their bird cages with their own feces?
What the hell do I care?
It's a false equivalency and here's a dem who is decidedly not non-violent.
Whoop de doo.
"Desperate DUmmies are hate-filled DUmmies (not that that is much different from their normal mood). Witness the hate on display in this THREAD by DUmmie jsmirman, "Please, for the Love of God and all us children - Please Mr. President, Shoot to Kill Monday Night."
Hate filled? Ha ha.
Freepers are such idiots that they allow JimRob to use that circa 1998 format for his website and still enjoy using it!
and it still makes my eyes burn.
What a hideous place, in every way.
the Rep Party Platform to criminalize abortion. hoping romney would shun it and piss all them off