So there's nothing they can do to change the story.

It blew up in Romney's face!

Last edited Sat Oct 20, 2012, 07:49 AM - Edit history (1)

He exploded. It was the single most devastating moment in the night of devastating moments for Flipper.

I had this warm glow descend over me after the moderator smacked down the idiot.

Most dolphins I know are good Dems.

Like me, they eschew partisanship. Then again, they don't like sharks ... like the MittWit.

I understand the context and it was a term I used to use, however I do so no longer.

"bitch" is sexist and degrading. We are better than that. You are better than that.

But if correctly punctuated, bitch-slapped may have diverged significantly from any association with women, that it might stand on its own. If someone is called a bitch, one assumes the party is female. When someone gets bitch-slapped, no gender comes to mind.

To disrespectfully slap someone in the face with an open hand...........term is used figuratively to mean putting someone in their place (or diss) in no uncertain terms.

Of course I can't use the original "word" because the ONLY post I've had hidden in more than 2500 used that word. I get told when someone insults or offends me to "suck it up" and "grow thicker skin" (expressions used a couple of times for why posts I've reported as offensive have not been hidden), yet use that word and one gets chastised.

Bitch has many uses and has been incorporated into slang to have many different meanings.

GET OVER IT!!!

The word "bitch" is sexist and derogatory to women. And yes it does appear to have many different meanings, and almost all are sexist and derogatory to women.

Just like obnoxious "prick" is sexist or derogatory to men. As is the term "dickhead." Again sexist and derogatory.

And in the context of the post I originally replied to: "Bitch-slap," it derives from the way a pimp would slap his whores (female) with an open hand so not to leave a mark and damage his merchandise. And if that is not sexist, I don't know what is.

Those are two entirely different things.

Completely disregarding your take on the "B" word, I have to agree with others here that Obama did indeed Bitch-Slap the corn turd out of Mittens. However that is just my personal take on the issue.

As always, mileage may vary and of course batteries are not included.

Showing up crying over dickhead. They love their dicks. They are proud to own one. They don't give a mitt.

Guess we just keep acting like little girls, throwing fits, showing up, and telling on our peers.

Call the waaahhhhhmbulance.

...in both word and deed is a major reason why this country is so fucked up. There is a war on women in this country, and it is not just the rethuglicans. Women are routinely treated as second class citizens. And it is not right.

In the future I will choose my words better.

Cheers,

Kevin

Cheers back to you!

believe it or not, this isn't from the obvious Mitt mouthpiece Rubin, it's from their "fact-checker" Glenn Kessler!

They should just provide Obama's quote and let people decide for themselves.

"October Surprise" to finish off the election and they were just dealt what I hope was a deathblow.

Enough with the hypocrisy and stop politicizing the issue when rethugs spent 4 years blocking everything the man tried to do!

MR. ROMNEY: Yeah, I — I certainly do. I certainly do. I — I think it’s interesting the president just said something which is that on the day after the attack, he went in the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror. You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror? It was not a spontaneous demonstration.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Please proceed.

MR. ROMNEY: Is that what you’re saying?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Please proceed, Governor.

MR. ROMNEY: I — I — I want to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

-----------------------------------------------

Um, please proceed to eat a dick, Washington Post. Just because Candidate Mitt stepped on his own dick, there's no need to make shit up.

Also, whenever you're ready to distinguish in a coherent manner between an "act of terror" and a "terrorist act," you can go ahead and make that incoherent case as well.

"Read the transcript!"

Which makes this accusation all the more absurd..

Well done!

Playing devil's advocate here....

An "act of terror" need not involve terrorists. A car crash can be an act of terror, an earthquake... in that they are acts that induce terror in others.

I suppose that's what the WPO meant...sorta kinda maybe

But considering the subject matter, to assume that's what it meant in the President's speech is...

stupid dumbfuck disin-fucking-genuous crapola with bells and fucking whistles hanging out its ass.

No one in their right mind would assume such a thing.

Period

You could just see Obama's inner grin light up like f'ing Christmas...

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Please proceed.

MR. ROMNEY: Is that what you’re saying?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Please proceed, Governor.

Where ya been?

...when I realized 90% of my friends are bigots/racists/misogynists, and then Twitter when I realized I'm too verbose.

it works out for ya.

It's very bizarre. If we unpack it all, Romney is correct, in a way. Obama did not define that attack as an attack on terrorism; probably because information was still coming in and he wanted to keep his options over. You know, like an adult. To Team Romney though, I think all Muslims are terrorists until proved otherwise, and thus any time anything bad happens to Americans and there are Muslims in the vincinity, those Muslims are terrorists.

Bryant

No one with any intelligence pays any attention to her

i posted the wrong link, this is from their "fact-checker", Glenn Kessler, the one you're supposedly supposed to go to when you want the straight facts. And he gives you this terror vs. terrorism nonsense.

instead of inflaming the situation! Aha!

Didn't say the exact same words! Aha!

In his address on Sept 21, 2001, he stated, "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there."

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/gen.bush.transcript/

Over the years, he commonly spoke of fighting "terror." During all that time, I don't recall any journalists parsing his meaning under the premise that "terror" indicates somethig fundamentallly different from "terrorism."

Even within the military the acronym "GWOT" is defined interchangeably as "Global War on Terror" or "...Terorism," as in the following:

http://www.dodlive.mil/index.php/tag/global-war-on-terror/

I can't understand this parsing over words. It's like 'he said, she said'. It's actually very childish and desperate on Romney's and his campaign's part. It's actions that count and Romney holding a new conference within hours, without first allowing the intelligence reports to come out, was completely irresponsible, and he was inflaming a dangerous situation - not a smart thing to do for someone who wants to be president.

talk about grasping at straws! Pathetic!!!!

It's beyond INSANE to pretend that his "fire, aim, ready" approach has any virtue whatsoever, but that's EXACTLY what the MittWit is attempting when he 'accuses' Obama of NOT going off half-cocked.

That the so-called media get seduced into such a false narrative is a pitiful commentary on the demise of mature and responsible journalism.

The Rose Garden speech confirms "act of terror". Yet Romney was right because Obama didn't say terrorism? This people are living on another planet. After seeing this spin in real time last night, with them scrambling for excuses, it hit me how big of a blunder this was for Romney.

Apparently that wasn't fast enough.

They are nuts.

Ombudsman:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/patrick-b-pexton/2011/02/24/ABkLhYN_page.html

As the Washington Post ombudsman, Patrick Pexton represents readers who have concerns or complaints on topics including accuracy, fairness, ethics and the newsgathering process. He also serves as The Post’s internal critic and strives to promote public understanding of the newspaper, its Web site and journalism more generally. He operates under a contract with The Post that guarantees him independence. Pexton has been a reporter and editor for 28 years. He came to The Post from National Journal, where he was deputy editor, the No. 2 job at the nonpartisan weekly magazine about politics and government. Before National Journal, Pexton worked for the Army Times Publishing Co., where he was an editor, chief Pentagon correspondent and an investigative reporter. He played a key role in uncovering two national stories about the U.S. Navy: the Tailhook sexual harassment scandal and the widespread cheating by midshipmen at the U.S. Naval Academy. At the beginning of his career, Pexton worked at the Shoreline Times newspapers in Southern Connecticut and the Journal newspapers in the Washington suburbs. A Los Angeles native, Pexton graduated from Claremont McKenna College and earned a master’s degree from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS).

He can be reached at 202.334.7582 or ombudsman@washpost.com.

In fact checking what Obama said in the Rose Garden on 9/12 you make the grave
mistake of paraphrasing what was said in the debate then claiming that your own
words that you attribute to Obama was false. Nowhere in the transcript of the
exchange will you see the use of the word "terrorism" so to inject that word in
your fact check response makes you look extremely foolish. And this is not the
first time WP has paraphrased what was actually said and then fact checked their
own paraphrasing. That is shameful and a disgrace. But let me help you. Here is
the transcript of the actual exchange.

MR. ROMNEY: Yeah, I — I certainly do. I certainly do. I — I think it’s
interesting the president just said something which is that on the day after the
attack, he went in the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror. You
said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror? It was
not a spontaneous demonstration.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Please proceed.

MR. ROMNEY: Is that what you’re saying?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Please proceed, Governor.

MR. ROMNEY: I — I — I want to make sure we get that for the record, because it
took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of
terror.

the esteemed WaPo has fallen.

I think you may have meant "once" esteemed. Esteem vacated The Washington Post years ago.

The Washington Post fact checker operation has a long history of being right wing. Besides, Romney was challenging that Obama did not say it was "an act of terror" so they are not even fact checking based on what was said and instead are paraphrasing then saying their own paraphrase is wrong. That is wrong on so many levels.

about this word play thing.

I think you can see the bias in some reporters and columnists. It seems to me, some in the media has been pushing this story for the GOP on Libya. It is not the public trying to give it some legs. The public is willing to wait on the facts. Information changes in an ongoing investigation. By definition, it was a violent act, which can be described as an "Act of Terror," in criminal investigations regarding national security.

The attacks by the GOP and some in the News Media is disingenuous period, given the natural of investigations. Issa and the representative from Utah, has a motive to start an investigation before the investigation in libya is even completed. That motive is none other than Political because of their relationship to Mitt Romney's campaign. Now, they are trying to find away to attack the President another way. Even after Hillary Clinton's statement. As long as reporters like Andrea Mitchell and Miss Rubin continue to bring it up, the GOP will continue to use them. It is almost as if, they are trying to defeat President Obama. Whether he did not say the word Terrorism or "Acts of Terror," what is really the point? It sounds like gibberish to me, just like the Press arguing over Romney's 5 Trillion dollar tax plan. Until Mitt Romney fills in the Blanks, This is petty.

just throws the gun

It seemed they were making hay out of him apologizing also. I didn't see any apology.

YARGLE BLARGLE!!!!

There is no guaranteed right to a suffix in the Constitution.

So Romney was right, he (President) never said act of terror. 2 weeks later he said act of terrore, When will he finally come and admit that it was act of terrism!

And welcome to DU!

Stupid!

about a terrorist act because that is how I see it. Outside of that, there is a matter of grammatical ambiguity. I won't say more than that. Those who are interested can figure that one out for themselves; I won't spell it out. Look up English grammar - direct object, indirect object, prepositional phrase and put the phrase in question into the different possible orders available. No more said.

and that is not how you lead!

They never said "War on Terrorism" ... so for rMoney, the Washington Post or ANY Repug to say "acts of terror" is not the same as "acts of terrorism" is (as our VP would say) a bunch of malarkey!

Mitt is the master of semantics. Remember all that crap of when he left Bain and when he no longer had any say in business matters. Now Larry Kudlow is covering it on CNBC, and says Crowley has apologized for her error.

Which is why this fact check has made no sense to me today.

He & Romney used the same word. Yet Obama is somehow wrong? Seriously?

when he said "no acts of terror..."? What else could he have been referring to? When Michelle yelled at him for leaving the toilet seat up?

Come on!

LOL
Yeah he must've been speaking that secret Muslim lingo.

there they go again. Any wonder newspapers are failing. The Washington Post makes a great birdcage liner, and kitty litter when shredded.

It's easy, but irresponsible and reckless, for Romney to
come to the conclusion that it was "terrorists" (e.g. Al Qaida)
with hours after it occurred.

The POTUS has to act reasonably and rationally. The proper
response, which is what Obama basically did, is to recognize
it as terror -- but wait until all the evidence is weighed before
making a final conclusion. Of course, republicans are not known
for acting in reasonable or rational ways. They always go for
bloviation and quick political point-scoring.

It was more than reasonable to first conclude it was a
hateful response to that stupid "documentary". Romney
was trying to create an issue out of thin air -- that is the
real issue.

Using "act of terror" in his own argument. Fact checking on what he could have meant instead of what he actually said isn't a fact check at all, its a revision.

The reason they lie so much is to make the fact checkers go tougher on Dems in order to appear neutral. If they didn't, the Repugs would just say "typical liberal media, look how their fact checkers label everything we say as a lie and let Democrats get away with murder".

they know the media think this way and they exploit it. Strategy is exactly right.

Jim Drinkard, an Associated Press (AP) editor who oversees the wire service’s fact-checking work, said, “We had to have a self-imposed Michele Bachmann quota in some of those debates.”

After the session, Drinkard said that there wasn’t an actual numerical quota on Bachmann at the AP. It’s just that if the AP had gone back and vetted all her claims that looked dicey, the result would “overload” the debate story. “Often she was just more prone to statements that just didn’t add up,” said Drinkard.

What do you expect from such a liar as Fred Hiatt?

Really, the Onion is a more credible news source. The Whoreshington Post is just another cog in the Corporate Controlled Conservative Press!

how long did it take Bush to get off the chair? anyone who works in counterterrorism will tell you that they don't KNOW yet so they have to work with what they have. They're acting like it's a matter of stating a fact "it's white bread." when it's an unknown being pieced together.

He said act of terror. Get over it, WaPo -- and grow up, before this country dumbs itself down to the level where we are discussing if act of terror is the same exact thing as terrorism instead of discussing if Mitt Romney's foreign policy would be the END OF US ALL.