(I decided to wait to post on this subject a few days until I had the chance to compose myself.) So much for honoring the dead and the spirit of national unity brought on by the infamous 9/11 terrorist attacks. Instead, the Romney campaign decided to seize on the occasion of 9/11 (NOT a coincidence!) to declare the president a terrorist sympathizer. While American Embassy staff in Libya were literally in the process of being physically attacked by well-organized terrorists that day, the Romney campaign decided to rhetorically attack them and the Obama Administration by way of associating the two. We all know that there is an entire section of the Republican Party that has always believed President Obama an anti-American Islamic terrorist from Kenya...out of choice because they're racists. The statement highlighted above makes it clear that the Romney campaign is now trying to stoke that sentiment and advance that theory, just as Mr. Romney did last month with his birther "joke" () that his audience cheered in agreement with rather than laughing off. The timing was not coincidental. He chose 9/11 to proclaim Obama a terrorist because on that date most Americans would be, after all, thinking about terrorism. Even the Romney staffers themselves have now admitted that Mr. Romney was simply awaiting an opportunity to issue such a statement. Point: This is irrefutable proof that Romney is running a racist campaign that aims to portray the president as a foreign Islamic terrorist as far as I'm concerned. Yeah I said it. But going further, there is an irony here. Mr. Romney also proclaimed that the U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya (and thereby the Obama Administration) was betraying "American values" by repudiating a hate video made by an American Christian that, among other things, portrays the Islamic prophet Mohammad as a supporter of child sex abuse. Where's the irony you ask? The irony in proclaiming religious intolerance a cherished American value lies in that religious intolerance was precisely one of the crucial factors that motivated the 9/11 attacks in the first place. So much for honoring the date and what it SHOULD HAVE taught us as a nation. Instead it's apparently now just an excuse for the Christian culture wars of racist fanatics because THAT's what this country is all about...right?
For taking a few days to compose yourself, you sure chose a terrible statement by the Romney campaign to try and prove he's racist and labeled Obama a terrorist. nice try though. better luck next time.
He didn't. It's the same thing as when liberals claim to detect racism in coded talk from Republicans and "dog whistle language". When 5 year olds project their imagination as reality, we think it's cute. It's not so cute when grown ups do it.
Your thread title is a lie. It's hard to take anything else you say seriously when you start off like that.
So, if I understand your ranting diatribe correctly, Romney never called Obama a terrorist. Is that correct?
Willard has bad advisers, but Willard is proving he will do anything, say anything for "his turn" Imagine what he would do if the tea party told him to be reelected he had to bomb Iran...remember, many tea partiers believe that the end of the world is near and they are a part of making that happen, this is serious stuff folks, these are crazy and childish people with adult powers...
No, he went right up to that line and implied it, and he did it to feed the disgusting filth that supports him, aka the tea party
Romney may not have called obama a terrorist but what he did say in so many words is that obama has been the apologetic catalyst in this latest anti American uprising across the Mideast and across northern Africa. I can just picture obama sitting in the oval office kissing his nobel peace prize while knowing full well that his foreign policies or lack thereof are killing Americans abroad. Have we ever had a more feckless president than jimmy carter and obama?
Implied it eh? And when Obama says that America has been arrogant and dismissive in the past, does that imply an apology for America's actions?
I beleive thelaw of the United States includes very stiff sentences for supporters and sympathizers of terrorism. Romney actually accused the president of sympathizing with the attackers. Since the attackers were terrorists, guess what? He directly links obama to terrorists. Now I don't think he did it out of racism. I think he did it out of premature ejaculation. He NEVER should have given a statement without all the facts. He NEVER should have called the embassy staff disgraceful. He NEVER should have attacked the president about mixed messages DURING an attack on US interests. All he had to do was wait until the facts were in. He didn't wait because he thought he could score some cheap political points by "condemning" both Obama, embassy staff, and the attacks all in one statement. this single thing illustrates more than anything else that Romney is not ready for the presidency of the United States. Its just what you need as the commander in chief, a guy ready to act before being in command of the facts.
Now we know you're completely clueless on U.S. federal law. A crime hasn't been committed until material support has been rendered to terrorists. People can sympathize all they want, and the Branch Paulinian Left often does. But it was your first thought, wasnt' it? Because no presidential candidate ever uses current events to highlight the difference between them and an incumbant. That would just be unthinkable. It's not as if Obama doesn't do enough whining himself, he's got sycophants like you whining for him....kind of an echo chamber of infantile moaning. Is that like the cheap political points President you-didn't-build-that scored when he finally broke several months of Press Corps silence by coming in front of the cameras to condemn Congressman Akin's comment? Actually it illustrates one more reason we need competence in the White House when the world is on the brink of falling apart.
I have trouble believing that considering America is still knowingly harboring terrorists.(1) The bush doctrine is hypocritical rhetoric used to incite violence against weak countries that may commit terrorism(a pretty broad term) or harbor terrorists when there is another objective in mind. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles#Personal_life Anyways I have no doubts that Obama is a terrorist since he uses fear for intimidation much like bush and the majority of presidents before him. Instilling terror is a tactic it's not surprising in the least when states utilize terrorism or anyone else who uses force to instill their will.
That last point was a very valid one and one that I had forgotten. What do you call a president who threatens social security checks not being sent out unless the Democrats get their way? Is that not terrorism?
he did not, he simply indirectly implied that Obama supports them by calling him a terrorist Sympathizer. This is a way to gain support from people who think Obama is a Muslim without actually throwing his hat in with them and being open to criticism.
Yes, sadly Willard and team have decided to appeal to the worst of the worst in our nation, the people who hate others for who they are... really sad, but not new, remember Willie Horton?
I really wish the tea partiers would come out and say "we are angry that a Black family is occupying our White House" then we could have a dialogue, but until they admit this is 99.99999999999999% of the reason they oppose Obama, we are going to get nowhere
You just can't wrap your head around the fact that people can disagree with Obama over policy which has nothing to do with his skin color, can you. Lots of folks had the same problem with Jimmy Carter. Were they angry that a white Southern family was occupying the White House?
Sorry, but if you criticize Obama "from the right" and you dont simultaneously attack W and others on the right just as vehemently, then you are a bigot. If you criticize Obama for being left at all, you are a liar because he is not left at all...if you criticize him for NOT being left enough, then you might have something It isnt complicated
YOUR perception of what his policies should be aren't the same as mine. I don't want him to be left. You apparently do. You're simplistic views are duly noted.
Pssst.... Barack Obama is president, not George W. Bush. But let's take your logic to its logical conclusion. If you attack George W. Bush "from the left" and don't simultaneiously attack Barack Obama and others on the left just as vehemently, then you are a bigot, right? And yes, of course Barack Obama is the most left-wing president we've ever had. You're right, it isn't complicated.
