September 13, 2012
If Obama talked like this in 2008...
... how can it be awesomely awful for candidate Romney to articulate his criticism of the present administration?
Video via Ed Morrissey ("I think that policy in Iraq and Afghanistan were perfectly acceptable topics for political debate at that time"), via Instapundit (FLASHBACK: Major-Party Nominee Uses War Deaths To Score Political Points. Yeah, but he was a Democrat, and black, and hence above media criticism.").
Can we get some consistency from the big-media pundits? Shouldn't the NYT, for example, have noticed by now that new media is dogging them, and we have YouTube? I mean, they've got to feel how it's screwed up the economics of newspapers. But to ignore the way they undermine their credibility — don't they see how damaging it is to the political power they clearly want? That is, if they want that power, they need to make sure it is not clear.
The more MSM lets their lust show, the less likely we highly selective swing voters will spend any time with you. You have to insinuate yourself into our minds, and you've triggered our resistance. We're turned off. Yes, the base loves what you're saying, but they didn't need to be seduced.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
152 comments:
how can it be awesomely awful for candidate Romney to articulate his criticism of the present administration?
Ann, as seems to be common during elections, you've got the question backwards:
How was it good for Obama to speak like that in 2008?
Obama is AWESOME!!!
Consistency? They are consistent. Hell they even get together to decide what quesitons to ask and what stories to push as long as they ALL dis the Republican and help the Democrat.
Just what sort of disaster must take place for the press to look at this president with a critical eye?
POTUS' Secret Service detail can hang with their prostitutes back at the hotel -- the Palace Media are more than willing to step in front of a bullet for him.
Can we get some consistency from the big-media pundits?
It's said that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
Expecting the MSM to be consistent when it comes to criticizing Republicans and Democrats is foolish. They aren't going to do it and you can't make them. Who among them cares about credibility? There are political points to be made for their guy. That's all that matters.
Two boneheads - the one country they're supposed to be protecting - who's going to win?
That's probably the least important question in a crisis ever devised,...
No, Althouse.
The NYT reporters lives in Manhattan. They live in a world in which half the people they know are gay.
And, they enjoy the martyrdom mythology.
#Propagandists.
Call them by their rightful name, out loud and in public.
Not #LiberalBias. #Propagandists.
Can we get some consistency from the big-media pundits?
This IS consistency, Ann. This is who they are, this is what they think it is their job to do.
Dems=Good, Repubs = Bad. That's the stylebook.
They are The Good and The Smart, so whatever they want to be, that is what it SHOULD be, and frankly, they are puzzled as to why we ever question them about it.
Why are you still asking "why" questions about the Media and Obama?
Can we get some consistency from the big-media pundits?
How much more consistent could they be? Obama good, Romney bad. And rich. And a meany. And racist. And he wears funny undergarments.
Shouldn't the NYT, for example, have noticed by now that new media is dogging them, and we have YouTube?
You'd think.
I mean, they've got to feel how it's screwed up the economics of newspapers. But to ignore the way they undermine their credibility — don't they see how damaging it is to the political power they clearly want?
Apparently not.
I'm starting to be convinced the term "highly selective swing voters" stands for people with little-to-no good sense,...
Liberal, literary Manhattan has become a nuthouse.
When middle class white kids started with the pretending that, because they were women or gays, they were martyrs on the order of blacks under Jim Crow, everything went nuts.
The morons over at the NYT actually believe this shit. That fool Andy believes this shit.
What do you expect? These assholes have convinced themselves that women and gays are being gunned down in the U.S. west of the Hudson.
They're hysterical.
"...have noticed by now that new media is dogging them"
Well when the "new media" indicates that a challenger dogging Obama makes them want to protect him, the old media says "nothing to worry about".
The more MSM lets their lust show, the less likely we highly selective swing voters will spend any time with you.
Ann: I imagine this is true for you, and I would like it to be true, but I'm not so sure how many swing voters you represent.
Repetition from an authoritative source is effective.
People at media outlets such as the NYT cannot conceive of their credibility waning, because nobody they know questions it, and the people who do are all hicks. I'm sure many Fifth Century Romans could not conceive of barbarians taking over, because after all, barbarians are barbaric.
In 2006 Iraq and Afghanistan there were troops dying in bombings and ambushes of rescue forces every day.
In Benghazi this was the death was one of one of the Dems anointed light bringers from U C Berkleley and Hillary's corps of peace makers by enabling Muslim revolutions to ditch old line American allies and turn the middle east into a crisis under their enlightened management.
That is why only a solemn national mourning was appropriate.
A reassessment of the light bringer's role of kowtowing to Muslims and then hoping that is all they require of The Great Satan is not acceptible.
Althouse does try awfully hard searching for irrelevant conservative inane rationalizations/analogies re: her lost pup mittens!
Hey, if it makes her flock happy, it's all good ...
Again, it's alright to whine as it's expected here in this little con bubble!
In 2008, Obama made a statement that helped no one but Obama - and you backed him for it.
Now, in 2012, Mitt Romney has made a statement that helps no one but Mitt Romney - and you're backing him for it.
What is it about ruthless self-interest - above the needs of the country - that you find so attractive?
You're not supposed to have a memory! FORWARD.
As to Obama's 2008 attack, what better proof is there of the "benefits" of the Iraq invasion than the present deteriorating situation elsewhere in the Middle East under the "broader strategy" of Obama?
I keep hearing that, and people who don't vote at all have all the sense. Yes, that does make sense, when you're antagonistic and only antagonistic.
It's too bad the Romney campaign didn't have access, or memory, of this clip as soon as Romney made his comments.
Ann: I imagine this is true for you, and I would like it to be true, but I'm not so sure how many swing voters you represent.
Repetition from an authoritative source is effective.
Unfortunately, yes. And not just "repetition"-- confirmation, reassurance, insulation, self-flattery, ego/ sociocultural identity buttressing.
Professor Althouse: There is a great post on your blog about how public-school teachers who ought to know better look foolish mouthing simplistic, sloganistic political arguments. Check it out.
That clip is evidence of why he uses a teleprompter.
Anyone hear how Obama's compaign fundrasier in Vegas went yesterday? I don't see any details in the MSM.
Exactly. Obama lust is a big turn off. We'd like the news please. Not a gushing narrative. Not a coordinated effort to re-elect a proven failure.
Again, it's alright to whine as it's expected here in this little con bubble!
I gotta ask ya...What is the life of a troll like?
I mean besides the freedom from stifling logic and rigid reason and the liberation that comes from a complete lack of self-awareness?
By what metrics are you valuing/quantifying your contributions? What constitutes "a good day spent trolling" for you?
All YOU do is whine about Althouse's "whiny" commenters...does that not ever strike you as idiotic?
Shouldn't the NYT, for example, have noticed by now that new media is dogging them, and we have YouTube?
The victims of Jonestown probably didn't notice the bitter-almond taste of the grape Flavor-Aid, either.
Well, the S part of SCOAMF is certainly on display in that video, but this is why the media line is going to go flat.
Too many videos of Tweedeldum and Tweedledum from IL - The Dick From Chicago and I was against it fii-irst, I was against it fii-irst.
shiloh said...
Althouse does try awfully hard searching for irrelevant conservative inane rationalizations/analogies re: her lost pup mittens!
So irrelevant the little animal felt obliged to answer.
mittens lol train wreck mama grizzly
D^ H& J: C>
A vote for Obama is a vote for Paul Krugman's failed economic fantasies.
I could not agree more with Ann's comment. I, too, think that it is becoming painfully obvious to "average' citizens that the MSM is biased beyond any doubt. Alternate channels are stripping the "unbiased" veneer from papers like the NYT and WP and making them seem a desperate joke.
"how can it be awesomely awful for candidate Romney to articulate his criticism of the present administration?"
While it may be naive to assume that Professor Althouse or anyone agreeing with her is open to rational argument, this point is fallacious in many ways. Nobody critizes Romney for articulating criticim of the present administration. The criticism is for (1) getting his facts wrong, and (2) criticizing the administration for attacks against Americans before the bodies were even cold. Neither of those things apply to Obama. His facts were correct and he waited a respectful time after the attacks to make his point.
Can we get some consistency from the big-media pundits?
Puh-leese, how can you expect anything other that the party line? Pravda would be proud.
I could not agree more with Ann's comment. I, too, think that it is becoming painfully obvious to "average' citizens that the MSM is biased beyond any doubt. Alternate channels are stripping the "unbiased" veneer from papers like the NYT and WP and making them seem a desperate joke.
AF: 1) Romney's facts were so right that the administration agreed and the Cairo Embassy withdrew its statement. 2) Romney was talking about EGYPT not LIBYA. Do understand these are two different places.
Also note: Obama responded FIRST to Romney THEN to the attacks. His priorities are screwed up.
NYT does have a piece today which focuses on the very light security arrangements, contrasting it with the known volatility and danger in Benghazi.
That's the scandal.
In a sane world there would be demands for Secretary Clinton to resign over the negligent security and questions raised over Obama's responsibility for the security.
In a sane world, that is.
2012. Your chance to vote against Pravda.
If the MSM told me 2+2=4 I wouldn't believe them. The point being not that they are right but that I don't believe them on even the simplest of things. I'll find the truth elsewhere thank you very much.
he waited a respectful time after the attacks to make his point.
And the "respectful time" is what?
" I, too, think that it is becoming painfully obvious to "average' citizens that the MSM is biased beyond any doubt. "
No, it's not. If it were this election would not be close. People would not tweet and retweet crap stories. Most people are too busy trying to live their lives to give this a lot of thought.
Remember when dissent=patriotic?
Now dissent from the Affirmative Action President=treason! Burn the witch!
Lefties like garage and Allieoop and the rest of their parasitic ilk will be very surprised one day when their precious diverse constituents turn on them and burn their homes to the grounds----and the people they insult daily, the ones who built and maintain and protect society---finally do the right thing, stand back, and do nothing.
AF said...
The criticism is for (1) getting his facts wrong, and (2) criticizing the administration for attacks against Americans before the bodies were even cold
In a rich bit of irony, you are wrong on facts.
See stupid, Romney was criticizing the statement by the embassy in Cairo.
Which was also done by both Hillary Clinton & President Obama before the bodies were cold.
This has been pointed out to you multiple times, yet you persist.
What do you think that says about you?
Speaking of waiting a respectfulo time and patriotic dissent, let's look at the WaPo coverage of
John Kerry as the Democratic nominee in 2004 while on the campaign trail against George Bush:
Later, addressing a crowd at a picnic in Racine, W.Va., Kerry devoted almost his entire 27-minute address to a critique of Bush. On a day when seven U.S. servicemen were killed in a suicide bombing attack in Iraq, Kerry termed the war in Iraq "catastrophic." Still later, he referred to it in a statement as "a quagmire," a word often applied to the U.S. conflict in Vietnam. He also blasted the president's record on job creation, health care, energy independence and education.
But do go on, lefties. Tell us how respectable and statesmanlike Jean-Francois was as opposed to that lunk Romney.
AF said...
Professor Althouse: There is a great post on your blog about how public-school teachers who ought to know better look foolish mouthing simplistic, sloganistic political arguments. Check it out.
Hey idiot, Ann isn't the one conflating Egypt with Libya.
You are.
Don't forget that awesomely awful Romney politicized hurricane Isaac too while Obama was busy fund raising in Ohio.
Now the awesomely awful Romney politicizes the Arab Spring riots. Arab Spring, power to the Brotherhood, power to the Islamists, was the only foreign policy achievement achieved by the dynamic duo, not the Greatest Achievement they achieved in Iraq when they began their term. Can't we give them credits for trying?
Seems the awesomely awful Romney has morphed into an awfully awesome candidate right before our eyes.
Secretary of State Clinton, yesterday:
"This is not easy. Today, many Americans are asking – indeed, I asked myself – how could this happen? How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction?"
She said we'd be greeted as liberators. Can we critique President Obama's "broader strategy" now, or should we wait a few more years until the situation has time to develop?
The more MSM lets their lust show, the less likely we highly selective swing voters will spend any time with you. You have to insinuate yourself into our minds, and you've triggered our resistance.
I think you're unusual, though, in that you're a high-information swing voter. Most undecided swing voters are low information voters. They are comparatively less likely to look beyond the superficialities in news coverage, so the journalists' ploy here may well work.
It's true that basically no one believes the media are credible. I just don't think that's stemming from their zeal to frame stories to help prop Obama up.
"And the "respectful time" is what?"
Waiting long enough so you aren't trying to insert your political points into the news cycle before the deaths have even been reported. Romney had an embargoed press release ready to go before he even knew who had been killed. That's what was so crass about Romney's statement, along with the fact that it was factually incorrect.
Obama brought up the Afghanistan attacks in a Larry King interview two days after they occurred.
So, can I assume there will be no foreign policy questions in any of the debates?
"Can we get some consistency from the big-media pundits?"
MSM pundits do not strive for consistency - they strive for notoriety and ratings. Controversy and outrage are good for ratings, and good for gaining featured appearances on one another's show or column space. Reporters no longer want to report the news, they want to BE the news.
"Shouldn't the NYT, for example, have noticed by now that new media is dogging them, and we have YouTube?"
That would assume that they care about accuracy and accountability. Clearly, they do not. They think that 20,000 hits on YouTube does not equal 500,000 newspapers and 100,000 viewers on MSCNNBC. They are correct about the amount of exposure they enjoy vs. their online rivals, and right now, they still are way, way ahead. So they do not care.
However, they are deathly afraid of talk radio, with millions of listeners daily. That's why they want to kill it any way they can.
"But to ignore the way they undermine their credibility — don't they see how damaging it is to the political power they clearly want?"
That question is based on an assumption that credibility is necessary for political power. The media clearly does not make that assumption.
There used to be a journalistic ethic, and competition in the industry, that kept a reporter within some self-imposed behavior guidelines. If you got too many stories wrong, the other journalists drove you out of the fraternity, and no one reputable would hire you. Your career would end up working for a small, "hack" publication like the Shepherd Express or the Isthmus. Now, with the dearth of two-newspaper towns and the desire for the reporter to BE the news, a reporter is rewarded for being partisan.
creely23 said: The more MSM lets their lust show, the less likely we highly selective swing voters will spend any time with you.
Ann: I imagine this is true for you, and I would like it to be true, but I'm not so sure how many swing voters you represent.
I tend to agree. I suspect that the number of people who are like Althouse (in that they are 1) actually moderate enough that they sit between the 2 parties and consistently could vote for either and 2) pay attention and are genuinely informed) probably numbers less than 1000 across the country. Not even close to a significant number.
Obama brought up the Afghanistan attacks in a Larry King interview two days after they occurred.
Yes, because after 2 days, people totally have forgotten those who die.
"There are none so blind as those who will not see."
They exist for the base and by the base. Even if 75% of their subscribers cancel, they still have the base. They know/hope the government and foundations will support them.
Ford Foundation gave the LA Times a cool million. They have about a billion left in the coffers. Something tells me the NYT knows this too.
And the "respectful time" is what?
Whatever Obama waited. Whatever The One says or does is right. He's AWESOME!!!
Debate questions from pro-D spinsters to Romney:
"Do you regret what you said...."
"Did you jump the gun..."
Then onto questions about rape and abortion.
"Lust"
Perfect description. It's obvious to all but the person under it's spell.
"The more MSM lets their lust show, the less likely we highly selective swing voters will spend any time with you. You have to insinuate yourself into our minds, and you've triggered our resistance. We're turned off. Yes, the base loves what you're saying, but they didn't need to be seduced."
What I find most interesting/delusional/liberal is you opine on these circumstances and the foolhearty uninformed liberal masses as an "objective" observer when in fact you are talking about YOU...you are the fool that was willingly duped, you are the fool who bought the media blather, you are the fool who would vote for the SCOAMF again if he only pulled the right heart string...it is really wierd and your analysis never touches the REAL devastation YOUR president inflicts on your fellow Americans...in this case DEAD PEOPLE!!!
"And the "respectful time" is what?"
Waiting long enough so you aren't trying to insert your political points into the news cycle before the deaths have even been reported. Romney had an embargoed press release ready to go before he even knew who had been killed. That's what was so crass about Romney's statement, along with the fact that it was factually incorrect.
Apparently I have to repeat myself. Pay attention to the bolded words, AF. Have a friend sound them out if they're too multisyllabic for you:
Later, addressing a crowd at a picnic in Racine, W.Va., Kerry devoted almost his entire 27-minute address to a critique of Bush. On a day when seven U.S. servicemen were killed in a suicide bombing attack in Iraq, Kerry termed the war in Iraq "catastrophic." Still later, he referred to it in a statement as "a quagmire," a word often applied to the U.S. conflict in Vietnam. He also blasted the president's record on job creation, health care, energy independence and education.
In light of this, would you care to revise and extend your earlier remarks, or just double down on stupid?
4 Americans killed by radical Islamists on the anniversary of 9/11, and Obama is Awesome.
Jay, I have no idea what you're talking about. The gratuitous insults are getting in the way of your points, such as they are. Surely you aren't denying that Romney himself attributed the statements by the Egyptian embassy to the Obama administration and himself conflated the attacks in Egypt and Libya? Here is his press release:
"I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."
Romney was criticizing the statement by the embassy in Cairo.
Not just the statement itself, but the people who issued it as well as the ObamaAdmin and Obama personally.
"It's their administration," said Romney, referring to the embassy in Cairo. "Their administration spoke. The president takes responsibility not just for the words that come from his mouth but also from the words of his ambassadors, from his administration, from his embassies, from his State Department. They clearly sent mixed messages to the world. The statement that came from the administration -- and the embassy is the administration -- the statement that came from the administration was a statement which is akin to apology. And I think was a severe miscalculation."
http://tinyurl.com/9m6bqvg
Fox News, that horrible right wing Faux News, was discussing the collusion between NPR and CBS reporters at Romney's presser.
Are any other media outlets covering this?
I'm working. Can't follow up. Can't somebody else?
AF said...
Romney had an embargoed press release ready to go before he even knew who had been killed
Hey idiot:
Romney's "press release" had nothing to do with knowing about anyone being killed.
How much longer are you going to repeat these silly, dipshit lies?
I'm just glad Cruel Neutrality is back... if only until Obama needs protecting ;)
purplepenquin said...
Not just the statement itself, but the people who issued it as well as the ObamaAdmin and Obama personally.
I know.
Good for him.
"And the "respectful time" is what?"
Oh, four years or so.
And, as the troll knows, Romney's statement referred to the Egyptian Embassy's statement. It was about the shameful attack in Egypt. Not the deaths in Libya. They're two different places. Two different events.
AF said...
"how can it be awesomely awful for candidate Romney to articulate his criticism of the present administration?"
While it may be naive to assume that Professor Althouse or anyone agreeing with her is open to rational argument, this point is fallacious in many ways. Nobody critizes Romney for articulating criticim of the present administration. The criticism is for (1) getting his facts wrong, and (2) criticizing the administration for attacks against Americans before the bodies were even cold. Neither of those things apply to Obama. His facts were correct and he waited a respectful time after the attacks to make his point.
OK, fair is fair. It takes a certain talent to pack this much stupid and misinformation into just a paragraph or two.
Kudos on a job well done.
The check's in the mail.
Is ChrisInMA trying to say that Romney is as out-of-line now as Kerry was then? Or is the point being made that there was nothing wrong at all with what Kerry said back then, and people at the time got worked up over nothing?
... Why do people keep saying "Romney was wrong/lying" despite -- it has now been nearly half a dozen threads -- every time being told they're wrong.
Is this really how we'll do political fights from now on? Continual insistence on an untrue thing until the right gives up and says: "Yes. Fine. You TOTALLY are awesome and right."
Purple: It doesn't matter. Romney's statement was about Egypt, not Libya.
AF said...
Surely you aren't denying that Romney himself attributed the statements by the Egyptian embassy to the Obama administration and himself conflated the attacks in Egypt and Libya?
Um, I think you should go on pretending Romney didn't release multiple statements.
It really speaks well to your ongong idiocy.
Here is what Romney himself said immediately:
The embassy in Cairo put out a statement after their grounds had been breached," Romney told reporters. "Protesters were inside the grounds. They reiterated that statement after the breach. I think it’s a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values. That instead, when our grounds are being attacked and being breached, that the first response of the United States must be outrage at the breach of the sovereignty of our nation. An apology for America’s values is never the right course."
Carry on with your stupid "bodies weren't cold meme" now.
Professor, you have identified the root of the problem. MSM knows that they have lost their credibility, and that therefore, the only way to maintain their political power is to ensure that the left succeeds.
Imagine how insignificant the NYT and WP would become if the country swings conservative and they are mocked by the President and Congress. [See, e.g., Newsweek and Time]
This is a battle for survival by MSM, and credibility is no longer available to them as a weapon. So now it's win at any cost. Damn the ethics, and double down on the lies.
Jay: "Romney's "press release" had nothing to do with knowing about anyone being killed."
Bryan C: "Romney's statement referred to the Egyptian Embassy's statement. It was about the shameful attack in Egypt. Not the deaths in Libya. They're two different places. Two different events."
Romney's statement: "I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."
So let me spell it out for AF who appears to be so blinkered and unaware of the facts:
At a 10:15 a.m. press conference, Romney offered the remarks quoted above.
the U.S. embassy released its statement at least several hours before protesters stormed the U.S. compound in Cairo -- and well before the attack in Libya took place. So the statement was not made in response to the storming of the Cairo embassy, nor to the killings in BenghaziM.
Are you following along with this way too complex for you to understand series of events, AF?
Matthew Sablan: " Romney's statement was about Egypt, not Libya."
Romney's statement: "I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."
AF said...
Romney's statement:
Hey dummy, Romney made a statement at 10:15 am.
Romney’s initial statement on the evening of Sept. 11 calling the administration’s response "disgraceful" was made with knowledge of how the Cairo incident ended, but before the full details in Libya had emerged.
Do try and keep up.
It's truly weird what's happened in our country and political culture over at least the past 4 years, but probably longer. Members of the two political traditonal leanings have seemed to become much more separated in their worldviews from each other. You would think that the prevalence of high speed information that we have in this new age would have the effect of bringing the two sides closer, but instead it seems like this country has become more divided than ever. The old media, desperate to find a place for itself and remain relvent in these times has become obsessed with the idea of creating narratives to support their political persuasions rather than straight reporting. Truth has become interpretive. Fact checking and fact checking fact checkers has become a major point in our political discourse. When it comes to political discussions in general, people seem to be even more hostile towards one another than at any other time that I can recall. What's different now?
Ah. So AF is talking about a different statement than the one everyone else is talking about.
Which, by the way, is a completely different thing than the one being fact checked.
Look, slow down AF. Stop. Go back. Re-read the chronology and realize that this is not that crazy a thing. Well, maybe it is. Obama thought it more important to play politics by debating Romney than to deal with the fact people on his team had been murdered.
Remember this cold, clear difference in leadership between Romney and Obama.
When a little girl -- no relation of his -- was missing, Romney closed his business and spent a small fortune to find her. When a diplomat -- his team member and subordinate -- was missing, Obama went to bed.
I know.
You didn't seem to be aware of it when you posted your 9/13/12 10:07 AM message. You called AF "stupid" for pointing out that Romney was criticizing the administration, and instead you insisted that the candidate was criticizing the statement by the embassy.
Glad to see that you now got the facts right.
Is ChrisInMA trying to say that Romney is as out-of-line now as Kerry was then? Or is the point being made that there was nothing wrong at all with what Kerry said back then, and people at the time got worked up over nothing?
My point is that AF is carrying water for the Chocolate Crackhead with his bleating that Romney should have waited a "respectful time" before saying anything.
But as the last four years have taught us, to the left dissent is only patriotic when there's a Republican in the White House, and the "respectful time" to wait before commenting on the deaths of Americans is the time it takes for the body to hit the ground.
Jay: I'm well aware that the Egypt embassies statement was before the Libya attacks. It's Romney who got that point wrong in his initial statement. He referred to the attacks -- plural -- on Egypt and Libya and then stated: "It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."
And yes, he corrected his factual errors the next day. He surely deserves a cookie for that.
"Highly selective"? You did vote for him last time, if I recall.
Just a note: I'm a little disturbed by how often what we're debating changes when talking to people from the left. First, it was the initial Romney statement (that solely focused on Egypt). Once we debunked that, a -different- statement was substituted in as "The statement we are offended by." It's impossible to honestly debate and discuss things with people who change the rules of engagement midstream without telling anyone.
So let's go through something called a "timeline" for AF since this is like way too confusing.
Event 1:
The U.S. embassy in Cairo released a statement at 6:17 a.m. East Coast time on Sept. 11, 2012.
Event 2:
At a 10:15 a.m. press conference, Romney said:
"The embassy in Cairo put out a statement after their grounds had been breached, "Protesters were inside the grounds. They reiterated that statement after the breach. I think it’s a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values. That instead, when our grounds are being attacked and being breached, that the first response of the United States must be outrage at the breach of the sovereignty of our nation. An apology for America’s values is never the right course."
Can AF figure this all out?
The pundit media and the sick horse they ride on, went mental yesterday because they and Obama/Democrat's were going to run Obma as some foreign policy President, (his domestic police re. Epic failure).
Since the convention and that hack Kerry's speech, Time, Politco, NY times, WP and liberal blogs have all run stories about how awesome Obama's leading from the crack in his ass has been in the middle east...
. Now that that has epically blown up in their faces, and reminding Americans again how Obama is the black Jimmy Carter..
so they went overboard and knew they had to take down Romney any way they could before he could get a bump in the polls.
AF said...
Jay: I'm well aware that the Egypt embassies statement was before the Libya attacks. It's Romney who got that point wrong in his initial statement. He referred to the attacks -- plural -- on Egypt and Libya and then stated:
You're not "well aware" of anything.
Romney spoke live to reporters at 10:15 AM.
"Or is the point being made that there was nothing wrong at all with what Kerry said back then, and people at the time got worked up over nothing?"
This is a key question, because it shows how very simple and binary such understanding is.
It can be right to raise questions and others have the right to disagree with answers. Kerry was perfectly fine to raise the questions about Iraq, but he was and should have been argued against in terms of his answers.
The issue with Romney isn't just people disagreeing with him, but saying he had no inherent right to say his opinion.
Which is basically what those in Libya and Egypt are pushing for. By the very nature of speaking something disagreeable, those people speaking should be condemned.
Romney, in essence, is being treated as a heretic.
AF: Romney's characterization of how the Egyptian embassy (part of the Obama administration) was harsh, but accurate. Sort of like calling Romney a vampire capitalist. He is not literally a blood sucking hellspawn; but the point is clear.
But, only Democrats get the benefit of the doubt with harsh language.
"Ah. So AF is talking about a different statement than the one everyone else is talking about.
Which, by the way, is a completely different thing than the one being fact checked."
No, the statement that Romney got wrong was his initial statement written Tuesday night and release Wednesday morning at 12:00 am. His comments at Wednesday's press conference were not factually incorrect, just embarrassing.
AF also can't acknowledge that this happened "before the bodies were cold"
Obama Administration Distances Self From Statement Issued by US Embassy in Cairo
My point is that AF is carrying water for the Chocolate Crackhead with his bleating that Romney should have waited a "respectful time" before saying anything.
???
There ain't a user named "Chocolate Crackhead" posting on this thread...is this a carry-over from another thread?
Hard to keep up with all you regulars! :D
And to clear it up, you are saying that Kerry was treated unfairly back-in-the-day when he made his statement, yes?
So at this point AF is reduced to whining about a press release that incorporated the Obama Administration's criticism.
That's funny.
See, but Romney -didn't get anything wrong- in his initial statement. As has been stated multiple times in multiple threads -- Obama -agreed- and made Egypt's embassy change their statement. The fact that Romney wants to rub Obama's face in his administration's error is known as "holding leadership accountable."
You know, something that was cool when we had a Republican president.
AF said...
No, the statement that Romney got wrong was his initial statement written Tuesday night and release Wednesday morning at 12:00 am
You don't seem to understand that Romney spoke live to reporters 4 hours after the Cairo Embassy tweet.
Keep pointing to a news release 12 hours later to make some irrelevant point.
Jay:
By 10:15am on Wednesday, Romney had corrected the factual errors he made in his statement released at 12:00am on Wednesday. That doesn't change the fact that his initial reaction to a diplomatic crisis was to (1) get his facts wrong, and (2) trying to use the deaths in Libya to score political points before, you point out, "the full details in Libya had emerged."
"And the "respectful time" is what?"
After Obama's Las Vegas money grab?
"Romney was criticizing ...Not just the statement itself, but the people who issued it as well as the ObamaAdmin and Obama personally."
Why shouldn't Romney criticize Obama? Because he's black? Where the hell did the buck stop? Why was Bush responsible for Katrina's "40,000 killed", and Obama isn't accountable for his stupid policy? Because he's black? Why was Bush responsible for the war deads in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Obama not responsible for the Ambassador's death? Because he's black and should be held to a lower standard? Why the hell did he set up an outpost without the protection of the Marines? Because he was so-loved by the Islamists for killing Gaddafy?
Americans who were serving their country were murdered on 911, an anniversary of the greatest attack on American soil. Every year, there were threats, every year there were raised world wide alerts of threats. Yet Obama set up an outpost in hostile land where a civil war was raging, an outpost without the slightest protection of the Marines. Yes, Obama is to blame, he is the president. If he's not up to being the president, get the hell out.
AF: What, specific, factual errors were corrected? Stop being vague.
Jay: "You don't seem to understand that Romney spoke live to reporters 4 hours after the Cairo Embassy tweet."
No, I don't understand that because it isn't true. Romney spoke to reporters at 10:15 am on September 12, not September 11. He spoke to reporters after, not before, releasing his factually incorrect statement.
Actually, forget it.
Can you tell me why we're talking about what Romney may or may not have said, instead of why Obama decided that an embassy -- that had been attacked before, reported suspicious activity, in a stronghold of terrorist sympathizers, on the anniversary of 9/11 (a well-known time where heightened security is required) -- needed only locked doors as security?
Let's talk about an -actual- failure of leadership that left people dead, instead of one that left people miffed. Ok?
Since you seemed so upset that Romney wasn't respectful of the dead, let's talk about them. Maybe like why Obama thought getting a good night's sleep was more important than finding out about them, and why Obama thought punching down to deal with Romney was more important than responding to people being murdered and our soil raided.
Let's talk about these things you say Romney should not have been talking about because they were happening.
Matthew Sablan:"What, specific, factual errors were corrected? Stop being vague."
The factual error was to refer the US Embassy in Cairo's tweets as "Obama Administration’s first response" to the "attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt" when in fact the tweets came before the attacks in Egypt or Libya.
we highly selective swing voters
lol
And to clear it up, you are saying that Kerry was treated unfairly back-in-the-day when he made his statement, yes?
No.
AF believes that Romney was impolitic by speaking "before the bodies were cold." I bring up Kerry to punch back twice as hard.
Kerry, like you and like me, has the right to say whatever he wants whenever he wants. I don't expect a choom-addled "constitutional law professor" to understand this, but one would think that those organizations which use the First Amendment as their shield would.
You know what we should talk about? Why Obama thought his security briefings weren't all that important in the lead up to the anniversary of 9/11? Was there anything in there that may have helped tip him off that Libya was a powder keg (hint: Yes.)? Why did it take dead bodies for him to decide to secure our embassies (an effort that has failed, by the way, as other embassies have been attacked)? Why is Obama only reacting and not reinforcing -every- embassy?
Let's talk about the issue you pretend to care about while lying about Romney.
AF: Here's a hint. The tweets came both before AND after the attacks; the one that came after, however, was deleted from the public record (something that is actually probably a crime, destroying part of the public record). So, I can see your confusion. But, no. Romney was correct; you just couldn't be bothered to read enough to figure that out.
Surely you aren't denying that Romney himself attributed the statements by the Egyptian embassy to the Obama administration
What branch handles foreign diplomacy?
I's either judicial, executive, or legislative.
Hint: It's the one the President controls.
Can't talk about Bain, can't talk about his taxes, now we can't talk about Romney, at all.
Unfair!
Garage: So, I take it, you have no thoughts on any of those questions asked about the failure at the embassies? I suppose we should go back to talking about Romney's tax returns, because of all the people that've died because he hasn't released them. You sure have some messed up priorities.
Is this really how we'll do political fights from now on?
From now on? From now on?
Where the heck have you been since at least 1980?
I wasn't born until 1984.
Skimming the discussion, I think people are missing that the Embassy in Egypt did indeed put out the statement in the morning before the Embassy was breached, but they then reiterated the statement after the breach.
The tweet reiterating their statement (since deleted) has internal evidence that it was sent after the breach, since it also protests the violation of the Embassy.
Can we get some consistency from the big-media pundits? … they undermine their credibility — don't they see how damaging it is to the political power they clearly want?
No, they don't "see" it. What they "see"(and know) is that propaganda, which they present as fact, usually works. They see that they usually control the narrative on any particular issue – that even though a few viewers/readers will see through the charade that most will not and can be easily deceived with complete impunity.
Example: "Swiftboating" has become a term that means to "falsely accuse" when the original swiftboaters illustrated the hypocrisy of Kerry attempting to claim a war hero status that was not deserved. The original swiftboating caught the MSM by surprise and they lost that particular propaganda battle. But they made sure the term itself became a byword for false accusations.
As for "credibility," they only care about their credibility within the insular liberal/progressive/socialist community. Their careers depend on being a member in good standing of that culture.
Oh the irony that mittens keeps repeating misinformation sayin' Obama apologized for this and that when Althouse cons spend most of their time apologizing for mittens ad nauseam faux pas.
Again, who are you trying to convince at this 90/10 con blog? Rhetorical.
Will it make you feel better when willard loses?
I wasn't born until 1984.
This certainly shouldn't be news to you then!
Surely you aren't denying that Romney himself attributed the statements by the Egyptian embassy to the Obama administration
You do understand that when we talk about the Egyptian Embassy, we actually mean the US Embassy in Egypt, right?
If our diplomats aren't speaking officially on our behalf, why do we have them? The Administration can say that the guy tweeting went rogue -- which he totally did -- but they can't say that they weren't made by an official representative of the US government, in his official capacity.
Garage: Talk about Bain all you want. Talk about Romney's tax returns all you want. These topics have been tried and the msm has given up, realizing that to talk about them non stop is to piss off their public, such as it remains. Romney's tax returns have been filed with the IRS and presumably have been accepted along with the amounts due. Dive in, if you like, to the Bain Securities and Exchange filings and read them as long as you would like. Dive into their financial reports. Dig into their compensation practices. Have at it. You will not know what you are reading, of course, but you are likely to find some fact that you will misinterpret but which will make you happy that you have sleuthed out some malfeasance. To quote your disciple Shiloh, lol.
AF said...
By 10:15am on Wednesday, Romney had corrected the factual errors he made in his statement released at 12:00am on Wednesday
There were no "factual errors"
Romney's statement came out at 10:25 PM Tuesday night.
Question to the conservative majority online here -
If the Cairo Embassy statement is an "apology" as claimed, for what is the government apologizing? Is it our constitutionally guaranteed rights of free exercise of religion and speech? If so how does calling religious freedom "a cornerstone of American democracy" and refering to the "universal right of free speech" constitute an apology. The statement condemned a "abuse" of free speech it didn't apologize for our constitutional rights. Nor did it say "we're sorry your feelings are hurt."
Where's the apology?
I'm confused. Are AF and Purple really honestly and truly saying that the President and his Administration have no responsibility for public statements issued by a US Embassy in response to a foreign policy crisis? In the Middle East. On September 11th.
After almost four years in office Obama doesn't have anything to do with the nation's foreign policy and diplomacy. Obama doesn't have anything to do with anything, does he? He's President Dunsel.
I looked through some of the other threads and couldn't find a user named "Chocolate Crackhead"
Who the heck was ChrisInMA referring to?
The more MSM lets their lust show, the less likely we highly selective swing voters will spend any time with you.
The other day, I almost removed MSNBC from the list on my TV so I wouldn't have to see the contorted faces of Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews or Ed Schultz when I was channel surfing. But, every once in a while there is something on MSNBC that I might want to watch for 2-3 minutes.
"This is not easy. Today, many Americans are asking – indeed, I asked myself – how could this happen? How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction?"
I saw this and wondered "Is she serious?! How blind to reality can you be?" Radical Muslims hate us. There is nothing we can do to change this. They're happy to take our guns to kill others, but they still hate us. How long has the Middle East been a place of fighting and killing?
Forever.
It'll take more than anything we can do to change that.
Are AF and Purple really honestly and truly saying that the President and his Administration have no responsibility for public statements issued by a US Embassy in response to a foreign policy crisis?
Can't speak for AF, but I was simply pointing out that despite what was claimed earlier Romney did actually criticize the ObamaAdmin personally. Some folks were claiming that the candidate was only criticizing the statement that was made, and not the folks who made it.
Kerry, like you and like me, has the right to say whatever he wants whenever he wants. I don't expect a choom-addled "constitutional law professor" to understand this, but one would think that those organizations which use the First Amendment as their shield would.
Now I'm really confused. What exactly do you think Ann has got wrong on this one?
Slightly off topic: "U.S. Marines defending the American embassy in Egypt were not permitted by the State Department to carry live ammunition..."
Are you being deliberately obtuse, PP, or are you stumbling around without your second cup of coffee.
Chocolate Crackhead is the feckless idiot in the Oval Office. As is choom-addled "constitutinal law professor."
You tend to be on the ball. Don't devolve into a pants-wetting streetcorner bum like shiloh or garage.
Let me spell it out for you.
In America, we have the freedoms of religion, assembly, and speech.
There is no constitutional right to have your religious beliefs respected.
Exhibit A: PPACA.
I agree with Romney and his timing. He's right.
I'm no longer anti-Obama.
I'm pro-Romney.
Vote Romney.
Save the World.
The cultural jihadists trying to infiltrate and dominate the West try to use hate speech laws to silence critics.
Exhibit A: Canada.
Let's hope we keep SHOUTING our criticisms of Mohammed and Islam in the spirit of FREEDOM.
Dhimmitude?
Over my dead body.
Literally.
Your religion sucks if it leaves you so hypersensitive that it cannot tolerate any scrutiny or criticism, and compels you to murder anyone who leaves it.
MOHAMMED WAS A PEDOPHILE WARMONGERER.
If I were visually artistic, I'd be drawing the cartoons or filming the script now.
ISLAM SUCKS.
Chocolate Crackhead is the feckless idiot in the Oval Office.
The President? I had no idea he had a renowned sweet tooth.
Oh wait. I get it now. You're referring to the color of his skin! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...that's funny stuff right there.
Reminds me of one of my favorite jokes: What do you call a black man flying an airplane?
The pilot, you racist asshole.
"Obama...we are all Osamas!"
The crowd's chant at the embassy.
They were mad at Obama and the DNC harping on killing Osama Bin Laden.
Over and over and over again.
How insensitive.
The timing was so poor.
They hurt the Moozlim's feelings.
People must die.
Obama was criticizing Bush's decisions and their effects. Romney was criticizing a tweet from an embassy employee. And he lied about it and continues lie about it calling it an apology. I challenge anyone to point to any word or construction that is synonymous with "apology" in those statements. So your comparison, Ann, is between someone criticizing the decisions of the sitting president and someone lying about the tweets of an embassy employee. Yep, those are the same and the media are covering it up.
WE ARE ALL RACISTS.
The habituation project continues.
You will get used to this truth, and accept it, and habituate it, until it's just the way things are.
So you don't have to vote for Obama out of the threat of being called racist if you don't.
Plus...we have a secret ballot.
If your life would suck if you told the truth, go ahead and lie.
November 7:
Yeah, I voted for Obama. Pity he lost.
The whole voting age population can claim that. No one will know anybody who voted for Romney.
I will vote for Romney to be sensitive and respectful of his religious diversity. It would be discriminatory and beliefist to not vote for a Mormon. I think we need to give the Mormons this historic moment to make them feel better about themselves.
Romney's statement came out at 10:25 PM Tuesday night.
So even tho he had agreed to do no politicking on Tues, he simply couldn't wait a couple more hours and had to say what he wanted to say right away?
Oh wait. I get it now. You're referring to the color of his skin! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...that's funny stuff right there. Reminds me of one of my favorite jokes: What do you call a black man flying an airplane? The pilot, you racist asshole.
Please enlighten me, PP, how a cream-complexioned Barry O'Bama would have fared in the 2008 elections, considering his abysmal legislative record, his history of unsavory associates and his utter inability to order a waffle without a teleprompter.
Or just yell "RACIST!" Your choice.
So even tho he had agreed to do no politicking on Tues, he simply couldn't wait a couple more hours and had to say what he wanted to say right away?
Romney did no "politicking" on 9/11, expecting Obama would have the same grace. Instead, the SCOAMF sent out fundraising letters. Good for the goose, good for the gander.
Paulio: I believe the best way to view Romney's statement is as one in which he pointed out the absurd priority of the statement from the Embassy which was clearly meant to echo the sentiments of sentimentalists: Islam is a religion of peace and someone in America offended the Prophet. The implication, of course, is that the Prophet being offended naturally results in wall breaching, flag burning and, later and elsewhere, murder. The Islamists, of course, had no other choice.
Obama was criticizing Bush's decisions and their effects. Romney was criticizing a tweet from an embassy employee. And he lied about it and continues lie about it calling it an apology. I challenge anyone to point to any word or construction that is synonymous with "apology" in those statements. So your comparison, Ann, is between someone criticizing the decisions of the sitting president and someone lying about the tweets of an embassy employee. Yep, those are the same and the media are covering it up.
The original tweet, before it was memoryholed:
The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims
– as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.
Except Catholics. And Mormons. And orthodox Jews.
Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.
No, the word "apology" is not in that tweet. But it's as close as saying "kill those who blaspheme Islam!" as any ululating Arab. It was a disgraceful statement purporting to come from a representative of a consitutional republic.
Can't talk about Bain, can't talk about his taxes, now we can't talk about Romney, at all.
Funny, Romney supporters focus on things like the economy, foreign policy, Obama admin members violating the Hatch Act...
Obama supporters focus on --- SQUIRREL!
You do understand that when we talk about the Egyptian Embassy, we actually mean the US Embassy in Egypt, right?
You can't expect a neophyte at management to run the ENTIRE executive branch, can you?
Sure, Bush was expected to know what every soldier out of 300,000 or so were doing at an army base (which he did know and had the DoJ deal with before the press knew anything) --- but expecting Obama to manage a US embassy?
Racist!
Can't speak for AF, but I was simply pointing out that despite what was claimed earlier Romney did actually criticize the ObamaAdmin personally.
...the admin that controls, completely, the embassies, mind you.
Romney was criticizing a tweet from an embassy employee.
If the embassy allows any jackass to run their official twitter feed, then management is a bit of a problem.
I challenge anyone to point to any word or construction that is synonymous with "apology" in those statements.
Been done. Repeatedly. No need to further try to enlighten the intentionally obtuse.
Bush always opposed torture. I bet you never accused him of advocating it. I mean, he SPECIFICALLY said he opposed the exact word torture.
So even tho he had agreed to do no politicking on Tues, he simply couldn't wait a couple more hours and had to say what he wanted to say right away?
Obama broke that cease fire hours earlier. So, no dice. Unilateral disarmament is always a bad idea.
Please enlighten me, PP, how a cream-complexioned Barry O'Bama would have fared in the 2008 elections, considering his abysmal legislative record, his history of unsavory associates and his utter inability to order a waffle without a teleprompter.
Hard to say if his skin color hurt him or helped him...he might've won by an even bigger majority if it wasn't for racist assholes voting against him simply 'cause of the color of his skin or he might have lost if it wasn't for the racist assholes voting for him simply 'cause of the color of his skin.
Both Clinton and Bush (W, that is...dad was smart/talented) prove that people with abysmal legislative/business records and a history of unsavory associates can get elected, so I don't understand why you seem to beleive that an under-qualified person getting elected to office means that you are justified in being a racist asshole.
Or just yell "RACIST!" Your choice.
I didn't yell it, ya lying racist asshole.
Both Clinton and Bush (W, that is...dad was smart/talented) prove that people with abysmal legislative/business records and a history of unsavory associates can get elected, so I don't understand why you seem to beleive that an under-qualified person getting elected to office means that you are justified in being a racist asshole.
Clinton and Bush had experience as governors.
What was Obama's qualification? According to his supporters at the time "Well, he is managing a large political campaign"
Obama broke that cease fire hours earlier
Obama made comments about Romney on Tues?
Mainstream Media, as well as some of the alternative outlets, must be covering that up 'cause I haven't seen such a thing.
I'm interested in learning more, do you have a link?
On a radio interview and he sent Clinton out to rip him.
So,yeah.
"Slightly off topic: "U.S. Marines defending the American embassy in Egypt were not permitted by the State Department to carry live ammunition...""
... Please, dear God, why are we not talking about this incompetency instead of if Romney was too much a meany head?
RE: Dave:
If the Cairo Embassy statement is an "apology" as claimed, for what is the government apologizing? Is it our constitutionally guaranteed rights of free exercise of religion and speech? If so how does calling religious freedom "a cornerstone of American democracy" and refering to the "universal right of free speech" constitute an apology. The statement condemned a "abuse" of free speech it didn't apologize for our constitutional rights. Nor did it say "we're sorry your feelings are hurt."
First, let's make clear that the Obama administration ultimately had a strongly negative reaction to the statement, just as Romney did:
"People at the highest levels both at the State Department and at the White House were not happy with the way the statement went down. There was a lot of anger both about the process and the content," the official said. "Frankly, people here did not understand it. The statement was just tone deaf. It didn't provide adequate balance. We thought the references to the 9/11 attacks were inappropriate, and we strongly advised against the kind of language that talked about ‘continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.'" (emphasis added)
The embassy in Egypt decided to disregard that advice completely and send out the statement anyway. Then they doubled down on it after the embassy was breached.
As a result, the administration has disavowed the statement. There's no substantive grounds to defend the content of the statement that the embassy put out. Everyone agrees it was bad.
All the links to the original statement seem to be broken, at this point, but news reports quote the statement as follows:
The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.
The statement does not contain any affirmative defense of the freedom of speech. It's kind of stupid ("hurt the religious beliefs?). And it demonstrates an inapprorpriate sympathy -- on that day of all days -- with people who use insults to their religious feelings as an excuse for violence. Before protesters stormed the Cairene embassy, this would have been just mildly objectionable, not obscene, since, after all, there's not yet been any violence. Afterwards, when our embassy has been breached, and embassy staff reiterate the statement, it's offensive, because it takes on the character of an apology for how messy free speech is.
Balfegor: You're good! Thanks for your efforts.
This is a great example of the hypocricy of both the left and the media. But it's also a drop in the bucket.
If you turned on the news and watched coverage of every single day of Hurricane Katrina it was politization of a far worse kind, not only daily but hourly.
Not to mention the Iraq War.
In short, fuck you dems and fuck you media.
No worries about Obama's "shoot first" comments involving Egypt, progressives?
It sounds like the Cairo embassy's statement went all the way up to Clinton, who rejected it personally, because she knew it was a foolish statement to be putting out. Unclear whether Obama ever realised this, though.
"Hard to say if his skin color hurt him or helped him"
Now that's hilarious, you ridiculous beaky purple birdbrain. (Raaacism and speciesism and looksism.) It's all the racists who voted FOR him because he's black that put him over the top. The legion of earnest stupids who bought into the "hope and change" (a ridiculous and practically meaningless slogan) in order to feel beddow about themselves. As people. And Birds.
I remember when you first started posting here and were pretending to be all moderate and middle-of-the-road.
Post a Comment