Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
betsy

"A Bump in the Road" ahead for Obama.

Recommended Posts

Navy SEALS Group To Broadcast Anti-Obama Commercial During National Geographic Bin Laden Film [Video]

A Navy SEALS group will air an anti-Obama ad in swing states during the Osama bin Laden film that debuts on the National Geographic Channel less than 48 hours before the presidential election. The ad from the Special Operations OPSEC Education fund assails the president for playing politics with national security. October 29, 2012

As The Inquisitr has previously reported, eyebrows were raised when it was revealed that SEAL Team Six: The Raid on Osama Bin Laden was apparently re-edited at the behest of movie mogul Harvey Weinstein to make President Obama look better.

US News has further specifics on the ad from the ex-Navy SEALS organization:

“OPSEC’s ad, called ‘A Bump in the Road,’ is narrated by the group’s president Scott Taylor, who says the Obama administration didn’t ‘tell the truth about what happened’ in the attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya in September.”

As The Inquisitr has previously reported, eyebrows were raised when it was revealed that SEAL Team Six: The Raid on Osama Bin Laden was apparently re-edited at the behest of movie mogul Harvey Weinstein to make President Obama look better.

US News has further specifics on the ad from the ex-Navy SEALS organization:

“OPSEC’s ad, called ‘A Bump in the Road,’ is narrated by the group’s president Scott Taylor, who says the Obama administration didn’t ‘tell the truth about what happened’ in the attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya in September.”

Obama referred to the Benghazi terror attacks as “bumps in the road,” which is where the OPSEC ad gets its name.

Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein of the Weinstein Company is bigtime Obama backer and contributor who acquired the rights to the SEAL Team 6 film for about $2.5 million at the Cannes film festival in May.

It was Weinstein’s role that reportedly prompted OPSEC to increase its ad buying according to US News:

“Taylor says OPSEC decided to buy spots for the ad beyond just Ohio and Virginia after realizing Weinstein was involved in the SEAL film, and that the film was airing on National Geographic just two days before the election.”

Read more at

Video available below the article.
Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does a 30 second ad during what is a 60 minute infomercial for the president mean bad news for the president. It has gotten so bad for Republicans they are now saying down is up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It speaks volumes that the Seals can't stand their commander in chief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It speaks volumes that the Seals can't stand their commander in chief.

Accept for the ones who love him. Speaks volume that you think that a few men get to speak for a whole group of them. They don't. Although you are a swift boater aren't you?

Edited by punked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its probably why Romney is beating Obama significantly among the military vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its probably why Romney is beating Obama significantly among the military vote.

Why is Obama beating Romney among Military contributions if they hate him so much Shady? Voting with dollars really speaks volumes about Obama doesn't it?

Edited by punked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is Obama losing by 30 points to Romney with veterans? They hate his guts, with good reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is Obama losing by 30 points to Romney with veterans? They hate his guts, with good reason.

What does that mean about Mitt that is losing by 50+ points with Latinos then Shady? Everyone has their voting groups. Would you say Women hate Romney's guts? He is losing them pretty big as well 15 points in the newest ABC polls.

What a dumb thing to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO it will be a close race, if I were voting I'd have a tough time deciding as I believe Romney would be better for the economy therefore for Canada. I don't like their stance on abortion and birth control, some of the radical statements (even though they are misrepresented ) by Republicans bother me. I'm not a one issue person so I think I would have to put that aside and vote for the economy and jobs... Both sides are misrepresenting issues in ads, but Obama's record IMO isn't that great, to me. and I"m just saying mind.. he's a flim flam man.

I wonder if Obama will still want reforms to the Electoral College if he wins that but not the popular vote...

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/264347-obama-clinton-backed-reforms-to-electoral-college-after-bush-v-gore

More info... Romney has won the endorsement of the papers in Iowa, a swing state, it's possible they could swing the vote to Romney.

He’s won the endorsement of all 4 newspapers in Iowa. Not sure how much these endorsements do to sway voters but there are obvious many who have given it a lot of thought and believe Romney is best for the economy. In other words there are many other views out there then what we get from this forum.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/29/all-four-major-iowa-papers-endorse-romney/

Other papers are also endorsing who previously endorsed Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It speaks volumes that the Seals can't stand their commander in chief.

And that was no doubt your position when military personel were critizing Bush right? (cough cough)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its probably why Romney is beating Obama significantly among the military vote.

Maybe because many people in the military are violence-obsessed hawks who rarely saw a war they didn't like. Gearing down in Iraq and Afghanistan is bad for business for them. People in the military tend to be conservative-leaning anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Derek L

Maybe because many people in the military are violence-obsessed hawks who rarely saw a war they didn't like. Gearing down in Iraq and Afghanistan is bad for business for them. People in the military tend to be conservative-leaning anyways.

I’m certain there’s a hint of sarcasm in your post, but that is generally true………The military personal of western nations (Canada/UK/USA/Australia/Netherlands etc) do generally “lean right” for the simple reason that “conservative” governments tend to finance the military better, understand the ethos of peace through strength and generally “don’t start wars” (As we discussed earlier when looking back at the past 100 years of American conflicts and the administrations in power at the start of each).

Where as “left leaning” governments generally cut the military, well at the same time, not minding sending it into conflicts………..

Who would you “support”?

*For full disclosure, and in the sprit of fairness, the only truly “military friendly” Governments Canada has had have been the current Government and Louis St Laurent’s Liberal Government of the 50s………With an honourable mention to Paul Martin, Mulroney and Borden for at least talking a good game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama accepts 'Osama bin Laden' donations

No block to foreign money – not even from dead terrorists

Published: 11 hours ago

Aaron-Klein_avatar.jpgby Aaron KleinEmail | Archive

Aaron Klein is WND's senior staff reporter and Jerusalem bureau chief. He also hosts "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio" on New York's WABC Radio. Follow Aaron on Twitter and Facebook.More ↓Less ↑

binladen31-275x275.jpg

WASHINGTON – Using a Pakistani Internet Protocol and proxy server, a disposable credit card and a fake address, “Osama bin Laden” has successfully donated twice to Barack Obama’s presidential re-election campaign.

The “Bin Laden” donations, actually made by WND staff, included a listed occupation of “deceased terror chief” and a stated employer of “al-Qaida.”

“Bin Laden” is currently set up on the official campaign website to contribute more to Obama’s campaign. The name is also registered as a volunteer.

Since the “foreign” contribution was sent, “Bin Laden’s” email address has received several solicitations from Obama’s campaign asking for more donations.

The apparently foreign-based contributions were conducted as a test after a flurry of media reports described the ability of foreigners to donate to the Obama campaign but not to Mitt Romney’s site, which has placed safeguards against such efforts.

More.....

http://www.wnd.com/2...aden-donations/

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m certain there’s a hint of sarcasm in your post, but that is generally true………The military personal of western nations (Canada/UK/USA/Australia/Netherlands etc) do generally “lean right” for the simple reason that “conservative” governments tend to finance the military better, understand the ethos of peace through strength and generally “don’t start wars” (As we discussed earlier when looking back at the past 100 years of American conflicts and the administrations in power at the start of each).

Where as “left leaning” governments generally cut the military, well at the same time, not minding sending it into conflicts………..

Who would you “support”?

I don't know what 100-years evidence you're referring to that we "discussed". Saying conservative govs don't start/support wars as much as more left-leaning govs is ridiculous, especially if you're basing this entire assumption on US gov behaviour. Some of it is simply a product of history and timing - FDR didn't choose for Pearl Habour to be bombed, and ANY US admin would have responded with war in that situation.

Modern conservative govs are more hawkish, this isn't even controversial. Take the last 3 US govs of each party - Carter/Clinton/Obama vs Reagan/Bush Sr./Bush Jr. - which would you assume would be likely to start or escalate war given the exact same circumstances? What about Harper vs Chretien vs a hypothetical Layton NDP gov? (Harper stated his support for joining the Iraq coalition in 2003).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Derek L

I don't know what 100-years evidence you're referring to that we "discussed". Saying conservative govs don't start/support wars as much as more left-leaning govs is ridiculous, especially if you're basing this entire assumption on US gov behaviour. Some of it is simply a product of history and timing - FDR didn't choose for Pearl Habour to be bombed, and ANY US admin would have responded with war in that situation.

Modern conservative govs are more hawkish, this isn't even controversial. Take the last 3 US govs of each party - Carter/Clinton/Obama vs Reagan/Bush Sr./Bush Jr. - which would you assume would be likely to start or escalate war given the exact same circumstances? What about Harper vs Chretien vs a hypothetical Layton NDP gov? (Harper stated his support for joining the Iraq coalition in 2003).

Name who was in the white house for the start of each conflict.......simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...