That's unfair and you are an asshole for posting it. I thought you lefties hold yourself to a higher standard than the "moran" guy but I guess not.
Here are some signs from a demonstration in Libya repudiating the attack on the US embassy. I'm pretty sure he meant "prophet" rather than "profit", but anyway I hope the statement is appreciated and reminds Americans that most Muslims are not like the a-holes who attack foreign embassies and murder people.
Calling out the President regarding a war he chose to start seems just a smidge different than the topic of this thread.
The topic of this thread is the Libya and Egypt attacks. You then brought Romney into it by claiming that he was "politicizing the deaths of Americans abroad." So I responded to your post by showing a video of a previous candidate doing exactly the same.
How is that even remotely similar? It's fair to criticize a president for a war in which you don't believe. That's a policy issue. It's not, however, sporting to criticize a president for condemning religious intolerance in the aftermath of a violent tragedy.
Romney was brought up because he's being a freakin' dick, and anyone with a solid head on their shoulders can see that. The difference here is that Bush started the war himself, thus its fair game to criticize him for his actions. Obama didn't initiate the violence the other day. This isn't a partisan thing with liberals mocking Romney because he's a republican. This is rational thing with level-headed people saying Romney shouldn't politicize a raw tragedy that has literally nothing to do with Obama.
It's possible to criticize a war without bringing up specific deaths of individuals while running a campaign. In fact, the candidate's point probably would have been just as strong without their mention. Mentioning them in that context seems like an attempt to use the emotions of sentimental Americans for political gain. The point is that this is nothing new. Just more political "faux outrage" on both sides.
This is a lame rhetorical trick. You're redefining the outrage to make it about the mention of dead Americans for political gain. So now any time any politician talks about dead Americans to make a point in the course of a campaign, it's all the same thing. You might have a had a point, if: -Romney had waited a remotely appropriate & respectful amount of time after the tragedy before commenting -Romney had waited until the immediate situation on the ground were over before commenting -Romney had waited until all the information was available before commenting -Romney had actually criticized a specific aspect of the President's foreign policy -Romney had used the occasion to illuminate how his own ideas about foreign policy differ from the President's, and what, indeed his own foreign policies would be if he were elected Since Romney did 0 of the 5 basic things required in order for a politician to speak critically about the deaths of Americans abroad, he is now being attacked for his clumsy, inappropriate, ill-timed, un-American remarks. So, no. There's no equivalency, and just because your outrage at Obama is fake doesn't mean other people's outrage is fake in this instance.
Nope. I'm pretty sure the outrage is still just as fake as it's always been. Essentially, the progressive order of thought goes like this. 1) dislike the candidate, 2) look for actions of the candidate to be "outraged" over, 3) devise criteria to make said outrage appear more valid. I do appreciate your sincere attempt at trying to convince us your criticism is not politically-motivated in any way, but rather simply measured objectivity. Unfortunately you can't seem to see that you're engaging in the same political gymnastics that have been played since Washington was in office. Your criticism is little more than a political cliche.
This. I don't associate with either party, I rarely post in this forum, and I can see plain as day that this ploy by Romney was in bad taste. This isn't a partison issue. This is a "have some class" issue.
No one disagrees that the Romney statement was political opportunism. What's amusing though is everyone's "shock" and "outrage" that a candidate would do so. As if this is somehow new.
Demo appears to be busy with others, so I'll work out of my job title: http://www.brighthubeducation.com/english-homework-help/40011-the-use-of-adjectives-as-nouns/
So, a candidate for high office can condemn the actions of the transgressors, but he can't criticize the foreign policy which he believes led to those actions. Makes sense. It's classic politics.
Yes, but 1. It's arguably a funny and clever take on the Dos Equis ads and 2. It ain't nearly as unfair as Romney's statement. When you go THAT far over the line, you're asking for it.
Arguably, but I think the "I don't always..." meme is nearly as tired as "Priceless", even if we forget for a moment that the Dos Equis campaign is a slick repackaging of Chuck Norris facts, which itself is a derivative of the Bill Brasky sketches from SNL.
That's not what Romney did, though. Romney criticized Obama for something he didn't do. Anyway, it's irrelevant whether it's right or wrong (I generally think lying is wrong, but your moral barometer may be calibrated differently), but as far as realpolitiks go, it was clearly reckless and miscalculated. But hey, some people like to see that from a president.