All Romney has to do to be worse than Obama is to stick to what he's said in his campaign. Turn back civil rights and social reform, keep the money in the hands of the rich, and cut taxes with no actionable plan for making up the lost income(other than cutting public broadcasting and abortions).
There's no demonizing required... Romney's own campaign should be enough to scare away any reasonable person. It's not even a left/right thing... all he does is lie, skirt around the issues, flip-flop whenever needed, and insult half the nation when he thinks only rich people are listening.
And don't say the media is trying to demonize him... as you're so fond of pointing out, Fox has the most viewership... and they're so far up his ass, they have to say things like "turn off the volume to see who won the debate"... probably because they know if anyone rational is actually watching(not that anyone rational watches Fox news seriously) Romney's arguments would get them firmly on the Obama bandwagon.
The only people Romney can count on are those who are staunchly conservative, and would vote a turd sandwich into office if that was the candidate they had to run with, and people who only care that he's letting religion decide his policies for him. Last I checked... there was supposed to be some separation of state and church.
Obama's done a lot for America, despite having republicans try and hold back progress at every possible avenue, simply because the president is a Democrat. - Feeling Glucky?
FNC leads the "Cable" news channels in rating, vs the other "Cable" news channels.
That does not include the three major networks.
Please don't tel me you didn't realize that?
When you add the news coverage of NBC, CBS, ABC to the news channels on cable, they ALL cheer-lead for Obama except for FNC.
FNC is one lone cable channel that does not take everything Obama reads from his teleprompter, as the truth and nothing but the truth.
And then you have Stewart, Colbert and Mayer all firmly backing Obama and focusing on demonizing FNC as you you do.
For someone who admits that he does not watch FNC, you seem to be simply parroting what you've been told by those who don't want you to consider FNC to be credible in anyway shape or form.
It's kinda like if you NEVER watched a Senators game, and only took prock's POV as the truth about the Senators, and blindly believed it.
It's funny, but on October 1st, Jon Stewart used his whole first segment on the Daily show to actually slam the Obama administration over their bungling of the terrorist attack in Libya.
He pointed out how from day after the terrorist attack, the President and his representatives pointed the death of Four Americans at the "spontaneous response" from a YouTube video that was released on July 13th (terrorist attack on Embassy happened on September 11th????)
Then last week, he had Obama on his show, and Stewart fell in line, like the good little cheerleader he is, and backed Obama in his blatant lie, that he had labelled the attack on the US embassy in Libya a "terrorist attack" the day after (September 12th).
You also had the moderator of the second debate also take Obama's lie and run with it during the debate. This lie is one of the biggest I've ever seen in any political campaign,
This should focus the Media on the cover up in the day s after the terrorist attack, and the truth should find the light of day.................but with Obama and the vast majority of the media firmly standing in the same camp, I will not be surprised to see them all try to sweep this under the carpet, until after the election.
Changing intelligence on Libya attack turns focus back to anti-Islam film, source says
Published October 19, 2012
FoxNews.com
The intelligence community on Friday once again modified its assessment of what caused the deadly terror attack last month on the consulate in Benghazi, Libya – returning in part to claims that the violence was in reaction to a protest at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo over an anti-Islam film.
At the same time, the latest assessment acknowledged there was no actual protest in Benghazi at the time of the attack and that “extremist” elements were likely involved.
The information, provided to Fox News by a U.S. intelligence official, is subject to change but could end up providing fodder to both sides in what has become a politically charged fight in Washington and on the presidential campaign trail. Lawmakers have slammed the administration for pointing almost exclusively to the film as the reason for the Sept. 11 strike in the days afterward.
The latest assessment appears to fall somewhere between the flawed account U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice gave on Sept. 16 claiming the attack was “spontaneous” and a subsequent revision on Sept. 28 by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper claiming it was a coordinated terror attack.
Virtually everyone in the administration now describes the attack as terrorism.
But the U.S. intelligence official said there does not appear to be a whole lot of planning involved, despite the fact the attack occurred on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
"No one is ruling out the idea that some of the attackers may have aspired to attack the U.S. in Benghazi. However, right now, there isn’t any intelligence that the attackers pre-planned their assault days or weeks in advance,” the official said. “The bulk of available information supports the early assessment that the attackers launched their assault opportunistically after they learned about the violence at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo. Of course, other factors may also have motivated participation in the attack."
Despite the re-emerging claim that the attack occurred with little planning, militants made several attacks on U.S. and Western targets -- including the consulate itself -- in the months leading up to the Sept. 11 strike. Sources also previously told Fox News that last month's strike may have been part of a deliberate effort to drive the U.S. out of eastern Libya.
Some lawmakers have described as ludicrous the idea that the anti-Islam film prompted a sustained overnight assault that involved mortars and rocket fire.
Clapper’s office appeared to knock down the video theory in its Sept. 28 statement, which said: "As we learned more about the attack, we revised our initial assessment to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists.”
His office said it’s unclear whether any “group or person” commanded the attack but that some of the attackers are linked to groups tied to Al Qaeda.
The intelligence official who spoke to Fox News on condition of anonymity walked a fine line in trying to give an updated picture of what happened. The official acknowledged that, despite initial comments, “there probably wasn’t a protest around the time of the attack.”
The official said: “It was clear from the outset that a group of people gathered that evening. A key question early on was whether extremists took over a crowd or if the guys who showed up were all militants. It took time—until that next week—to sort through varied and sometimes conflicting accounts to understand the group’s overall composition.”
Rice, to the contrary, seemed to indicate the attack was an outgrowth of a sudden protest when she appeared on “Fox News Sunday” on Sept. 16. She called it “a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video."
"People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent and those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya and that then spun out of control," she said.
Rice and other officials have since blamed the intelligence they had at the time for the faulty assessment.
The intelligence official said the initial briefing to Congress included guidance that “extremists were involved in attacks that appeared spontaneous.”
The official added: “The talking points were written so members of Congress and senior officials could say something preliminary about the attacks. Naturally, public statements about classified working assessments are going to be cautious and caveated.”
The official added that everything is subject to change.
“As new reporting comes in, we review, reassess, and revise as appropriate,” the official said.
FNC leads the "Cable" news channels in rating, vs the other "Cable" news channels.
That does not include the three major networks.
Please don't tel me you didn't realize that?
When you add the news coverage of NBC, CBS, ABC to the news channels on cable, they ALL cheer-lead for Obama except for FNC.
FNC is one lone cable channel that does not take everything Obama reads from his teleprompter, as the truth and nothing but the truth.
And then you have Stewart, Colbert and Mayer all firmly backing Obama and focusing on demonizing FNC as you you do.
For someone who admits that he does not watch FNC, you seem to be simply parroting what you've been told by those who don't want you to consider FNC to be credible in anyway shape or form.
It's kinda like if you NEVER watched a Senators game, and only took prock's POV as the truth about the Senators, and blindly believed it.
It's funny, but on October 1st, Jon Stewart used his whole first segment on the Daily show to actually slam the Obama administration over their bungling of the terrorist attack in Libya.
He pointed out how from day after the terrorist attack, the President and his representatives pointed the death of Four Americans at the "spontaneous response" from a YouTube video that was released on July 13th (terrorist attack on Embassy happened on September 11th????)
Then last week, he had Obama on his show, and Stewart fell in line, like the good little cheerleader he is, and backed Obama in his blatant lie, that he had labelled the attack on the US embassy in Libya a "terrorist attack" the day after (September 12th).
You also had the moderator of the second debate also take Obama's lie and run with it during the debate. This lie is one of the biggest I've ever seen in any political campaign,
This should focus the Media on the cover up in the day s after the terrorist attack, and the truth should find the light of day.................but with Obama and the vast majority of the media firmly standing in the same camp, I will not be surprised to see them all try to sweep this under the carpet, until after the election. - Doppleganger
clearly, you've put in earplugs every time Romney started speaking, like Fox tells you to.
America voted in a guy, in 2008, that did not get vetted by the media, and is lost without his teleprompter.
This time around the media, and hollywood are trying to get voters to overlook the mistake they made four years ago, and shifting any attention away from his record by demonizing Romney.
Is he gonna be any better than Obama? Well he can't be worse. - Doppleganger
America voted in a guy, in 2008, that did not get vetted by the media, and is lost without his teleprompter.
This time around the media, and hollywood are trying to get voters to overlook the mistake they made four years ago, and shifting any attention away from his record by demonizing Romney.
Is he gonna be any better than Obama? Well he can't be worse. - Doppleganger
Do you feel the current Healthcare plan set to go into full affect next year will raise, lower or have no affect on your health insurance costs? Since both have clouded or cloudy views of taxes and the national debt (for different reasons), i think this should be a question you have to ask yourself before you vote..
Then ask these questions:
1. have your healthcare costs gone up, down or no change over the last 4 years
2. Do you think we should re-write the entire Bill of Rights or did the founded fathers have a reason for every part of that document, including the 10th Ammendment?
Neither has becuase i don't think there is a thing either can do about it at this point..
The numbers i have heard from other sources were about double the numbers on this chart too.. - SabresFaninIndiana
I suspect the situation in the US is similar to the OAS issue in Canada. Few workers contributing to the plan, than in the past, is ratio to those collecting the benefit.
The Government made adjustments to our system in the last year, to prevent the OAS program from going bankrupt in the future.
Everyone can see the math and knows the system needs to be adjusted, otherwise it goes bankrupt, and that's probably why there is little if any discussion in the US in regards to SS.
I suspect the situation in the US is similar to the OAS issue in Canada. Few workers contributing to the plan, than in the past, is ratio to those collecting the benefit.
The Government made adjustments to our system in the last year, to prevent the OAS program from going bankrupt in the future.
Everyone can see the math and knows the system needs to be adjusted, otherwise it goes bankrupt, and that's probably why there is little if any discussion in the US in regards to SS. - Doppleganger
It may have more to do with the fact that in the past the government borrowed from social secuirity.. I believe that if things were left alone by the government we would not be in the situation that we are in with Socal Security.
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
- P. J. ORourke
Location: Dude has all the personality of a lump of concrete. Just a complete lizard. Joined: 06.26.2006
Oct 22 @ 8:44 PM ET
President Barack Obama and Gov. Mitt Romney have arrived at the The Keith C. and Elaine Johnson Wold Performing Arts Center in Boca Raton, Florida, at Lynn University, site of tonight's third and final 2012 presidential debate.
The two candidates will take part in a 90-minute debate focused on foreign policy and international affairs. Bob Schieffer, chief Washington correspondent for CBS News and host of Face the Nation, will be the moderator.
Schieffer will begin the debate at 9:01 p.m. ET, with opening remarks and then the first question for Romney. Each candidate will have two minutes to respond and Schieffer may then ask follow-up questions. There will be six 15-minute segments. Each candidate will deliver two-minute closing remarks, with Obama going first.
