So weird. Copy and paste the links below into your browser. It is really, really weird. The guy in these videos LOOKS just like Romney, but ... I dont' get it. He has a totally different message than the Romney that is running for President. Does anybody know if Romney has a twin? These videos must be fakes. Probably done by some anti-Romney people.
You know how some (or most) of the candidates, when asked a question, do not really answer it? They say something like, “Well, the real question should be…” Or, they change the subject or they talk about everything but the question. If you actually read the transcript of the debate, it is obvious what they are doing. They don’t want to answer it. They are afraid to put themselves on the line. Afraid they won’t be pleasing the viewers. They try to play it right down the middle, so as not to lose votes. They rant on and on until their time is up and when they are done, has the question really been answered? Most of the time, no. Romney is good at that. Here is one example:
QUESTION: We have lost 3,400 troops, civilian casualties are even higher, and the Iraqi government does not appear ready to provide for the security of its own country. Knowing everything you know right now, was it a mistake for us to invade Iraq?
ROMNEY: If you're saying let's turn back the clock and Saddam Hussein had opening up his country to IAEA inspectors and they'd come in and they'd found that there were no weapons of mass destruction, had Saddam Hussein therefore not violated United Nations resolutions, we wouldn't be in the conflict we're in.
But he didn't do those things, and we knew what we knew at the point we made the decision to get in.
I supported the president's decision based on what we knew at that time.
By the way, Harry Reid was wrong. We did not lose the war in Iraq. And that's not the sort of thing you say when you have men and women in harm's way.
We did, however, not do a great job after we knocked down Saddam Hussein and won the war to take him down and his military.
And at this stage, the right thing for us to do is to see if we could possibly stabilize the central government in Iraq so that they can have stability, and so we can bring our troops home as soon as possible.
Not to do that adds an enormous potential risk that the whole region could be embroiled in a regional conflict.
MODERATOR: Governor, thank you, but the question was, knowing what you know right now -- not what you knew then, what you know right now -- was it a mistake for the United States to invade Iraq?
More babbling from Romney.
He says we should double Guantanamo, sees nothing wrong with torture, would preemptively attack Iran.
He is truly scary to me. Truly scary. I’m serious.
Did Ron Paul try to evade a question? NOT ONE, NOT A SINGLE ONE!
I don't find that scary at all. In fact I liked the answer and agree that we should double Guantanamo. And we should secure the borders and there should not be amnesty for illegal aliens. He didn't say he would torture, but any smart leader wouldn't rule out taking Iran's nukes out (all though I think bush will do it before he leaves office). They have continuously said they would attack us and Israel. There is a global war on terror whether people admit it or not. What is scary is that people ignore the realities.
And Mom, I don't think Romney does a good job at evading questions. He is horrible at it. It was so obvious in the actual debate; I didn't need transcripts to know he is full of it. When asked a question, he would stand there, recite history and repeat the question until his time was up. Then he would follow that up with a bunch of optimistic sunshine BS. I’m glad Wolf Blitzer called him out on that one. Most let it slide probably because they just want him to stop talking.
Ron Paul didn't have to evade questions because he is telling the truth. When you tell the truth, you don't have to beat around the bush until your time is up.
Why would we need to double Guantanamo? Isn’t it, in fact, a place outside our borders where law and justice don’t apply? It is where we take detainees to extract them from their legal and civil liberties indefinitely. Lady justice does not seem to exist there. It goes against the principles of freedom and justices our legal system is founded upon. That place is scary if you ask me.
Quite frankly since the “War on Terror” is being fought applying the Patriot Act, many of us could potentially be subject to ending up at Guantanamo, for something seemingly benign like tax evasion. That’s how they got Capone.
I think we would be much better served turning Guantanamo into a spa and resort. The cabanas may be a little cramped but I’m sure we could get Halliburton to implement some improvements.
Tavia said: We all admit that there are terrorists. What is scary is when people ignore the realities of WHY.
Drew said: [Guantanamo] is where we take detainees to extract them from their legal and civil liberties indefinitely ... It goes against the principles of freedom and justices our legal system is founded upon.
Anonymous: The reality is that we have made more terrorists by our bungling in Iraq. Talk about unintended consequences! Civil war, death of thousands of Americans, thousands of Iraqis, HUGE financial costs. And, it has eliminated two of Iran’s worst enemies, and placed power in Iraq with Iran’s best friends. Even this apparent failure of policy does nothing to restrain the current march toward a similar confrontation with Iran. What will it take for us to learn from our failures?
Besides Romney’s BS, he doesn’t have command of the facts. He said, if Saddam Hussein had opened up his country to IAEA inspectors, and they'd found that there were no weapons of mass destruction, we wouldn't be in the conflict we're in.
This morning I read, “Romney's suggestion that weapons inspectors were not permitted into Iraq before the war started is, of course, incorrect. Weapons inspectors from UNMOVIC (the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission) returned to Iraq on November 18, 2002. Led by Hans Blix, the inspectors spent months in Iraq, issuing reports on Iraqi compliance that were a crucial part of the debate over whether to invade Iraq”.
The New York Times' Paul Krugman, said Romney had a clear lack of understanding of the events that led us into the Iraq War.
Referring to Romney's error: Begala, on CNN said, "If this were a general election debate, [it] would be a disqualifier."
What is scary to me is that people just see the package, he looks good, and they don’t see he’s all fluff. Or maybe they are just really not listening. He is running for President of the United States, he should know the facts.
If a murderer kills someone does it matter why? If he thinks he has a reason, does that legitimize it, and make it okay? So if you want to accept responcibility and blaim for them wanting to kill us, go right ahead, just don't appologize for me. I'll take the attitude that I wan't to take the fight to them and kill them first. Just don't stand in my way if I chose to defend us.
And, as a matter of fact, there are cases where it does matter "why" someone was killed. For instance, just the other day, a pastor's wife killed him and she got a very lenient sentence because apparently she was abused throughout their marriage.
Neisha, According to Ron Paul, and it is the best explanation I've heard from any candidate so far, they attack because of our crappy foreign policies. For example, we are building an embassy in Iraq larger than the Vatican (isn't the Vatican a country)?
If the Chinese were establishing that type of presence in Washington D.C. Or Phoenix or Elsinore or Berkeley........ We'd be pissed too, good Ron Paul arguments.
Anonymous, how will we regain or retain the respect and support of the rest of the world if we continue to ignore human dignity and civil rights in Cuba. Guantanamo is not a step towards World peace. It is a reason to attack us. It is another reason they hate us.
To anonymous, who asks "If a murderer kills someone, does it matter why"? Sure it matters. Motivation (the reason) is an element in every murder case. It makes sense to ask “why”; sometimes its even a defense. “Self defense” that is. Who is “them” ("I want to take the fight to them and kill them first")?. Even the Pentagon says there is no Iraq - Al Qaeda connection. Anonymous, don’t you get it ? It was all lies. Its all out in the open now. Only those who refuse the believe the truth are still in the dark. Come on out.
Osama bin Laden tells us why (and it has nothing to do with our freedoms):
O American people, I am speaking to tell you about the ideal way to avoid another Manhattan, about war and its causes and results.
I am surprised by you. Despite entering the fourth year after Sept. 11, Bush is still deceiving you and hiding the truth from you and therefore the reasons are still there to repeat what happened.
The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorised and displaced.
I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy.
The situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child, powerless except for his screams. And the whole world saw and heard but it didn't respond.
In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors.
And that day, it was confirmed to me that oppression and the intentional killing of innocent women and children is a deliberate American policy. This means the oppressing and embargoing to death of millions as Bush Sr did in Iraq in the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known, and it means the throwing of millions of pounds of bombs and explosives at millions of children - also in Iraq.
So with these images the events of September 11th came as a reply to those great wrongs. Should a man be blamed for defending? Destruction is freedom and democracy, while resistance is terrorism and intolerance.
Is defending oneself and punishing the aggressor in kind, objectionable terrorism? If it is such, then it is unavoidable for us.
This is the message which I sought to communicate to you in word and deed, repeatedly, for years before September 11th.
And you can read this, if you wish, in my interview with Scott in Time Magazine in 1996, or with Peter Arnett on CNN in 1997. It has been easy for us to provoke and bait this administration. All that we have to do is to send two mujahidin to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies. This is in addition to our having experience in using guerrilla warfare. So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. The wise man doesn't squander his security, wealth and children for the sake of the liar in the White House.
Anonymous. Come on. I need to start my day. I have things to do. I can't sit here refreshing the screen over and over again. I need a response so I can move on.
Anonymous, Thank you for looking at this with an open mind. Now we just have to keep our fingers crossed the rest of America comes around before it is too late. I'd like to send you a copy of Imperial Hubris by Michael Scheuer.
42 comments:
http://mittromney.permissiontv.com/embed.html?showid=65224
So weird. Copy and paste the links below into your browser. It is really, really weird. The guy in these videos LOOKS just like Romney, but ... I dont' get it. He has a totally different message than the Romney that is running for President. Does anybody know if Romney has a twin? These videos must be fakes. Probably done by some anti-Romney people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI
http://www.youtube.com/share?v=P_w9pquznG4&embed=1
It's called "Flip Flop", I do believe.
I bet he likes waffles.
Hey that second link isn't working. Or is it just me?
Okay, sorry, Tavia. Here is the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4&embed=1
Waffles with lots of syrup.
Can anyone say they've never changed their views on anything? Not me.
You know how some (or most) of the candidates, when asked a question, do not really answer it? They say something like, “Well, the real question should be…” Or, they change the subject or they talk about everything but the question. If you actually read the transcript of the debate, it is obvious what they are doing. They don’t want to answer it. They are afraid to put themselves on the line. Afraid they won’t be pleasing the viewers. They try to play it right down the middle, so as not to lose votes. They rant on and on until their time is up and when they are done, has the question really been answered? Most of the time, no. Romney is good at that. Here is one example:
QUESTION: We have lost 3,400 troops, civilian casualties are even higher, and the Iraqi government does not appear ready to provide for the security of its own country. Knowing everything you know right now, was it a mistake for us to invade Iraq?
ROMNEY: If you're saying let's turn back the clock and Saddam Hussein had opening up his country to IAEA inspectors and they'd come in and they'd found that there were no weapons of mass destruction, had Saddam Hussein therefore not violated United Nations resolutions, we wouldn't be in the conflict we're in.
But he didn't do those things, and we knew what we knew at the point we made the decision to get in.
I supported the president's decision based on what we knew at that time.
By the way, Harry Reid was wrong. We did not lose the war in Iraq. And that's not the sort of thing you say when you have men and women in harm's way.
We did, however, not do a great job after we knocked down Saddam Hussein and won the war to take him down and his military.
And at this stage, the right thing for us to do is to see if we could possibly stabilize the central government in Iraq so that they can have stability, and so we can bring our troops home as soon as possible.
Not to do that adds an enormous potential risk that the whole region could be embroiled in a regional conflict.
MODERATOR: Governor, thank you, but the question was, knowing what you know right now -- not what you knew then, what you know right now -- was it a mistake for the United States to invade Iraq?
More babbling from Romney.
He says we should double Guantanamo, sees nothing wrong with torture, would preemptively attack Iran.
He is truly scary to me. Truly scary. I’m serious.
Did Ron Paul try to evade a question? NOT ONE, NOT A SINGLE ONE!
I don't find that scary at all. In fact I liked the answer and agree that we should double Guantanamo. And we should secure the borders and there should not be amnesty for illegal aliens. He didn't say he would torture, but any smart leader wouldn't rule out taking Iran's nukes out (all though I think bush will do it before he leaves office). They have continuously said they would attack us and Israel. There is a global war on terror whether people admit it or not. What is scary is that people ignore the realities.
Anonymous,
We all admit that there are terrorists. What is scary is when people ignore the realities of WHY.
And Mom, I don't think Romney does a good job at evading questions. He is horrible at it. It was so obvious in the actual debate; I didn't need transcripts to know he is full of it. When asked a question, he would stand there, recite history and repeat the question until his time was up. Then he would follow that up with a bunch of optimistic sunshine BS. I’m glad Wolf Blitzer called him out on that one. Most let it slide probably because they just want him to stop talking.
Ron Paul didn't have to evade questions because he is telling the truth. When you tell the truth, you don't have to beat around the bush until your time is up.
Why would we need to double Guantanamo? Isn’t it, in fact, a place outside our borders where law and justice don’t apply? It is where we take detainees to extract them from their legal and civil liberties indefinitely. Lady justice does not seem to exist there. It goes against the principles of freedom and justices our legal system is founded upon. That place is scary if you ask me.
Quite frankly since the “War on Terror” is being fought applying the Patriot Act, many of us could potentially be subject to ending up at Guantanamo, for something seemingly benign like tax evasion. That’s how they got Capone.
I think we would be much better served turning Guantanamo into a spa and resort. The cabanas may be a little cramped but I’m sure we could get Halliburton to implement some improvements.
Tavia said: We all admit that there are terrorists. What is scary is when people ignore the realities of WHY.
Drew said: [Guantanamo] is where we take detainees to extract them from their legal and civil liberties indefinitely ... It goes against the principles of freedom and justices our legal system is founded upon.
Linnette says: Well said!
Anonymous: The reality is that we have made more terrorists by our bungling in Iraq. Talk about unintended consequences! Civil war, death of thousands of Americans, thousands of Iraqis, HUGE financial costs. And, it has eliminated two of Iran’s worst enemies, and placed power in Iraq with Iran’s best friends. Even this apparent failure of policy does nothing to restrain the current march toward a similar confrontation with Iran. What will it take for us to learn from our failures?
Try to have an open mind here.
Tavia said:
"Anonymous,
We all admit that there are terrorists. What is scary is when people ignore the realities of WHY."
I'm curious as to how Anonymous would answer the "why"...
Anonymous, why are terrorists targeting us?
Besides Romney’s BS, he doesn’t have command of the facts. He said, if Saddam Hussein had opened up his country to IAEA inspectors, and they'd found that there were no weapons of mass destruction, we wouldn't be in the conflict we're in.
This morning I read, “Romney's suggestion that weapons inspectors were not permitted into Iraq before the war started is, of course, incorrect. Weapons inspectors from UNMOVIC (the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission) returned to Iraq on November 18, 2002. Led by Hans Blix, the inspectors spent months in Iraq, issuing reports on Iraqi compliance that were a crucial part of the debate over whether to invade Iraq”.
The New York Times' Paul Krugman, said Romney had a clear lack of understanding of the events that led us into the Iraq War.
Referring to Romney's error: Begala, on CNN said, "If this were a general election debate, [it] would be a disqualifier."
What is scary to me is that people just see the package, he looks good, and they don’t see he’s all fluff. Or maybe they are just really not listening. He is running for President of the United States, he should know the facts.
I don't think he looks good. I think he looks and acts like a shyster. He's like a show pony.
(BTW, more videos of Violet, please. Thank you.)
Tavia, regarding the "WHY" question, some people are not ready to let facts get in the way of their beliefs and opinions.
"Isn’t it, in fact, a place outside our borders where law and justice don’t apply?"
Well that is the object, American legal system doesn't and shouldn't apply to combatents that arn't Americans. Military laws apply
If a murderer kills someone does it matter why? If he thinks he has a reason, does that legitimize it, and make it okay? So if you want to accept responcibility and blaim for them wanting to kill us, go right ahead, just don't appologize for me. I'll take the attitude that I wan't to take the fight to them and kill them first. Just don't stand in my way if I chose to defend us.
That answer completely evaded my question...
It's not a trick, I just want to know your opinion as to "why" the U.S. has been targeted by terrorists.
And, as a matter of fact, there are cases where it does matter "why" someone was killed. For instance, just the other day, a pastor's wife killed him and she got a very lenient sentence because apparently she was abused throughout their marriage.
But, back to the bottom line:
Why are terrorists targeting us?
Neisha,
According to Ron Paul, and it is the best explanation I've heard from any candidate so far, they attack because of our crappy foreign policies. For example, we are building an embassy in Iraq larger than the Vatican (isn't the Vatican a country)?
If the Chinese were establishing that type of presence in Washington D.C. Or Phoenix or Elsinore or Berkeley........ We'd be pissed too, good Ron Paul arguments.
Anonymous, how will we regain or retain the respect and support of the rest of the world if we continue to ignore human dignity and civil rights in Cuba. Guantanamo is not a step towards World peace. It is a reason to attack us. It is another reason they hate us.
To anonymous, who asks "If a murderer kills someone, does it matter why"? Sure it matters. Motivation (the reason) is an element in every murder case. It makes sense to ask “why”; sometimes its even a defense. “Self defense” that is. Who is “them” ("I want to take the fight to them and kill them first")?. Even the Pentagon says there is no Iraq - Al Qaeda connection. Anonymous, don’t you get it ? It was all lies. Its all out in the open now. Only those who refuse the believe the truth are still in the dark. Come on out.
Osama bin Laden tells us why (and it has nothing to do with our freedoms):
O American people, I am speaking to tell you about the ideal way to avoid another Manhattan, about war and its causes and results.
I am surprised by you. Despite entering the fourth year after Sept. 11, Bush is still deceiving you and hiding the truth from you and therefore the reasons are still there to repeat what happened.
The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorised and displaced.
I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy.
The situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child, powerless except for his screams. And the whole world saw and heard but it didn't respond.
In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors.
And that day, it was confirmed to me that oppression and the intentional killing of innocent women and children is a deliberate American policy. This means the oppressing and embargoing to death of millions as Bush Sr did in Iraq in the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known, and it means the throwing of millions of pounds of bombs and explosives at millions of children - also in Iraq.
So with these images the events of September 11th came as a reply to those great wrongs. Should a man be blamed for defending? Destruction is freedom and democracy, while resistance is terrorism and intolerance.
Is defending oneself and punishing the aggressor in kind, objectionable terrorism? If it is such, then it is unavoidable for us.
This is the message which I sought to communicate to you in word and deed, repeatedly, for years before September 11th.
And you can read this, if you wish, in my interview with Scott in Time Magazine in 1996, or with Peter Arnett on CNN in 1997.
It has been easy for us to provoke and bait this administration. All that we have to do is to send two mujahidin to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies.
This is in addition to our having experience in using guerrilla warfare. So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy.
The wise man doesn't squander his security, wealth and children for the sake of the liar in the White House.
Neisha's question repeated:
Anonymous, Why are terrorists targeting us?
Anonymous,
Please? I keep refreshing the screen. Where did you go? Please answer.
Why are terrorists targeting us?
Anonymous. Come on. I need to start my day. I have things to do. I can't sit here refreshing the screen over and over again. I need a response so I can move on.
Why are terrorists targeting us?
Tavia, you are a riot! Maybe Anonymous is sleeping in, was probably up late, thinking!
This is no laughing matter, Carol. I've been refreshing the screen all day long.
Waiting......
Yeah anonymous, come on. I cant take Tavia out until we get some feedback. I'm hungry and almost out of booze.
These are Guantanamo-like conditions......
what could this silence mean?
i wonder....
OK, well that settles this one. Anonymous, you are going to vote for Ron Paul now, right?
YES
Anonymous, Thank you for looking at this with an open mind. Now we just have to keep our fingers crossed the rest of America comes around before it is too late. I'd like to send you a copy of Imperial Hubris by Michael Scheuer.
What address should I send it to?
I just ordered that book.
Neisha, Tavia said she is reading it right now and says it is "sooooo good." I'm going to read it next.
THE NEOCON MOVEMENT IS OVER.
Are you sure?
Post a Comment