At 9/25/12 12:32 AM, TheMason wrote: He ordered the SeALs to kill some pirates and UBL (yay!). But let's face it...after 9/11 that's a call any president would make.
Actually that's not entirely true. McCain went on the record saying he would be against an unauthorized mission in Pakistan if it meant getting Osama, which when you think about just how risky that mission was, it isn't hard to see why anyone would be.
At 9/25/12 12:12 AM, Feoric wrote:At 9/25/12 12:07 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Believe it or not, embassies are US soil. Therefore, US soil was attacked, and an ambassador was killed. And Obama did nothing.First of all it was a consulate, and no, that's a myth. The soil an embassy/consulate is on belongs to the host country.
So, dead ambassador is okay? Religious radicals taking the embassies...that's okay?
At 9/25/12 12:21 PM, LemonCrush wrote: So, dead ambassador is okay? Religious radicals taking the embassies...that's okay?
How exactly do you propose that Obama should have stopped this surprise attack?
At 9/25/12 12:47 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 9/25/12 12:21 PM, LemonCrush wrote: So, dead ambassador is okay? Religious radicals taking the embassies...that's okay?How exactly do you propose that Obama should have stopped this surprise attack?
It wasn't a surprise attack. He knew about the 9/11/2012 attacks in advance, just as Bush knew about the 9/11/2001 attacks ahead of time. And that's straight from the President of Libya and the President of Egypt. This was no surprise attack and if you think it was a coincidence it happened on 9/11 and that it was because of a video, despite the attackers shouting "Obama, Obama, we are all Osama", then you're delusional.
However, you could be right. Let's say it was a surprise attack. Do you think Obama's response (tax dollars spent on Pakistani airwaves denouncing the video and nothing more) was the correct one? Do you think that Obama's response fits the circumstances?
First off, it was a surprise attack. No one saw it coming. Obama didn't know that this "video", which probably does not exist, and he condemned the attack in the first place. I don't know the history behind the whole incident, nor do I care. He said himself he would bring the criminals to justice.
At 9/25/12 03:12 PM, HiryuGouki wrote: First off, it was a surprise attack. No one saw it coming. Obama didn't know that this "video", which probably does not exist, and he condemned the attack in the first place. I don't know the history behind the whole incident, nor do I care. He said himself he would bring the criminals to justice.
No, it wasn't a surprise attack...I don't know why you'd think it wasn't. And yes, Obama was warned. You think presidents are just naive and clueless about plots to attack embassies? Or when there are plots to fly airliners into buildings? Of course they know. We have CIA and spies all over the world. Various governments in the region are saying it was planned out. Obama and his lapdogs are the only people saying otherwise.
Obama is blaming this whole thing on a video...that wasn't the cause no matter how hard his administration wants it to be true, it just wasn't. It was a direct response to his foreign policy, and assassination of Osama Bin Laden.
At 9/25/12 04:20 PM, LemonCrush wrote: And yes, Obama was warned.
Got a source?
At 9/25/12 12:07 AM, LemonCrush wrote:At 9/24/12 02:02 PM, Saen wrote:Believe it or not, embassies are US soil. Therefore, US soil was attacked, and an ambassador was killed. And Obama did nothing.
Well there's a way to completely twist an event towards a biased viewpoint. I interpreted "while our soil is being raided" as a statement implies that U.S. domestic territory is under siege.
You're kidding me right? How can you just pull this shit out from your ass without even thinking?
So CEO's who run the companies aren't qualified to say whether or not the bailouts worked or not? And as I said before, unemployment numbers change with every source, so I don't really find any numbers too reliable...taking them with a grain of salt I suppose. Both sides who report numbers are liars and manipulators of facts, so I see no reason to believe OBama's "facts" or Rush Limbaugh's "facts"
Pretty bold statement to call our entire department of labor a bunch of liars, especially daft to compare to Limbaugh. So economists and civilians shouldn't give any credit to unemployment percentages, demographics, and statistics because they are calculated by the government? I guess the solution is to privatize the department of labor so different companies can compete to produce the most desired unemployment statistics. Obviously their results wouldn't be biased, because they were produced with the sole intention of profit!
And you credit Obama with the *tiny* amount of recovery. That tiny drop in unemployemnt outweighs the skyrocket of debt and spending?
Policies he and most of Congress were in favor of passing contributed to the relatively quick auto industry turnaround and drop in unemployment.
At 9/25/12 04:34 PM, Feoric wrote:At 9/25/12 04:20 PM, LemonCrush wrote: And yes, Obama was warned.Got a source?
At 9/25/12 05:08 PM, Saen wrote:
You're kidding me right? How can you just pull this shit out from your ass without even thinking?
Obama did nothing. An ambassador was killed. Embassies of ours, and our allies were attacked. Obama did NOTHING. Oh, except spend $70k on a video saying the US doesn't stand behind the video. I'm sure religious lunatics give a shit about that considering they hate his guts.
Pretty bold statement to call our entire department of labor a bunch of liars, especially daft to compare to Limbaugh. So economists and civilians shouldn't give any credit to unemployment percentages, demographics, and statistics because they are calculated by the government? I guess the solution is to privatize the department of labor so different companies can compete to produce the most desired unemployment statistics. Obviously their results wouldn't be biased, because they were produced with the sole intention of profit!
Why is that a bold statement? They work for the government, their entire existence and financing is reliant on people thinking things are okay. There's a big conflict of interest there, don't you think?
Policies he and most of Congress were in favor of passing contributed to the relatively quick auto industry turnaround and drop in unemployment.
The auto industry is not the economy. It is ONE industry. But glad to see you're okay with ONE industry doing okay while smaller business and the middle class suffer . Man, I remember in 2008 when Obama said he would do everything he could to SAVE the middle class. How does he do it? By handing all of our tax dollars over to a company who couldn't even stay afloat (still can't), and taking more for a stupid, inefficient healthcare bureaucracy. Way to help the middle class you douche. And just because Congress went along with it, does not make it right. Obama and his entire generation are a bunch of corporatist turds.
People don't seem to learn from history. Artificial propping up of failing businesses have NEVER saved an economy. All it does is stave of the inevitable for a couple years. GM wasn't saved. They were given a cup of water in a forest fire. All the bailout did was put a band-aid on cancer. They will go back to making shitty cars, and breaking their backs to make union shills happy, and golden parachutes for their CEO's, and the whole cycle will be repeated again. That's how it always works and there's no reason to believe it will work this time. Corporatism ALWAYS fails. ALWAYS. The proof is scattered all throughout the 20th century. How many times will it have to crash and burn before they realize rewarding conglomerates for nothing, and protecting them when they fuck up, never works?
At 9/25/12 01:35 PM, LemonCrush wrote:At 9/25/12 12:47 PM, Camarohusky wrote:It wasn't a surprise attack. He knew about the 9/11/2012 attacks in advance, just as Bush knew about the 9/11/2001 attacks ahead of time. And that's straight from the President of Libya and the President of Egypt.At 9/25/12 12:21 PM, LemonCrush wrote: So, dead ambassador is okay? Religious radicals taking the embassies...that's okay?How exactly do you propose that Obama should have stopped this surprise attack?
Wow. They're threats, on 9/11/2001 intelligence agencies had only been given a warning that there was going to be some sort of attack. They weren't told "We are going to be hijacking aircraft and crashing them into the World Trade Centers, the Pentagon and the White House", since up to that the point the only terrorism that was ever done against the US by Muslim militants was by just bombing buildings. It would have been pretty out of the blue to think that would've been the case. This was the same case on the recent 9/11 attacks according to your own links.
At 9/25/12 07:32 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Obama did nothing. An ambassador was killed. Embassies of ours, and our allies were attacked. Obama did NOTHING. Oh, except spend $70k on a video saying the US doesn't stand behind the video. I'm sure religious lunatics give a shit about that considering they hate his guts.
It's easy to think Obama did nothing when you don't even try to research what he did. "I don't know, therefore it doesn't exist".
Why is that a bold statement? They work for the government, their entire existence and financing is reliant on people thinking things are okay. There's a big conflict of interest there, don't you think?
No it's not, their only task is to give out reliable data, if they hand out data that isn't welcoming then nothing is going to happen to them because that's what they're supposed to do.
The auto industry is not the economy. It is ONE industry. But glad to see you're okay with ONE industry doing okay while smaller business and the middle class suffer
The economy is connected. Workers of one company go out and buy products of another. When those workers are fired then they're not buying as many products, this means that business which was taking in that money from those laid off workers now has to close thereby laying off more workers. It's why in the late 20's after the auto and construction industries had to lay off many workers because they had reached peak production the rest of the economy tanked.
Man, I remember in 2008 when Obama said he would do everything he could to SAVE the middle class. How does he do it?
By giving them some of the lowest tax rates ever?
By handing all of our tax dollars over to a company who couldn't even stay afloat (still can't),
Your opinion, part of the auto bailout was forcing the company to adopt new management.
and taking more for a stupid, inefficient healthcare bureaucracy.
We don't know if Obamacare is inefficient because it hasn't been implemented yet.
People don't seem to learn from history. Artificial propping up of failing businesses have NEVER saved an economy. All it does is stave of the inevitable for a couple years. GM wasn't saved. They were given a cup of water in a forest fire. All the bailout did was put a band-aid on cancer. They will go back to making shitty cars, and breaking their backs to make union shills happy, and golden parachutes for their CEO's, and the whole cycle will be repeated again. That's how it always works and there's no reason to believe it will work this time. Corporatism ALWAYS fails. ALWAYS. The proof is scattered all throughout the 20th century. How many times will it have to crash and burn before they realize rewarding conglomerates for nothing, and protecting them when they fuck up, never works?
Do you have any actual example? Because if you look at the causes of the two worst depressions in our history, the Great Depression and the panic of 1893, the government did nothing and the economy tumbled. Had the government saved those first few corporations from completely capsizing then the depression probably wouldn't have happened or it wouldn't have been as bad as it was.
"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.
At 9/25/12 08:29 PM, Warforger wrote: We don't know if Obamacare is inefficient because it hasn't been implemented yet.
Well thats not really true, I think the best thing for america would be to make their health system like ours.
The Election is tight but I think President Obama will win still. I won't be voting for Obama most likely unless he impresses me on Wednesday. If Obama is re-elected, I hope he does do good for our country the next 4 years. Will see tho. You have to cheer for America even if it's not the candidate you voted for, we all should want America to be the best it can be.
Jesus Christ the one True God of Love and Peace.
At 9/25/12 08:29 PM, Warforger wrote: Wow. They're threats, on 9/11/2001 intelligence agencies had only been given a warning that there was going to be some sort of attack. They weren't told "We are going to be hijacking aircraft and crashing them into the World Trade Centers, the Pentagon and the White House", since up to that the point the only terrorism that was ever done against the US by Muslim militants was by just bombing buildings. It would have been pretty out of the blue to think that would've been the case. This was the same case on the recent 9/11 attacks according to your own links.
Here's the thing: 9/11/12 is NOT the same case as 9/11/01. On the morning of 9/11/01 it was a normal day. There was nothing to make anyone think that we would be attacked at a specific time or a specific place.
Fast forward to today.
* 9/11, especially in the Middle East, is a day where the military overseas goes on heightened alert because there is a heightened chance of attack.
* The Ambassador himself was sending communiques up the State Dept chain of command...that were ignored.
* Ayman al-Zwahiri, who is now head of al-Qaida, called for attacks on US interests in Lybia on 9/11!
Furthermore, there is the bogus red-herring video explanation given by the administration. While I am not doubting that this video has been the cause of protests and some degree of violence, there is nothing in the attack on the embassy/consulate in Benghazi that indicates it was the result of a spontaneous protest gone bad. Also, it doesn't matter what pissed someone off enough to comitt terrorism. Terrorism is terrorism. Obama dithering on it and trying to say 'we're investigating' is more proof of just how incompetent the guy is on foreign policy and national security.
The Obama administration bungled this from the beginning. Embassy security should've been strengthened prior to 9/11 in ALL US facilities in the region just as normal security measures. Especially given that we had the major al-Qaida leader calling for attacks against US interests in Lybia.
Speaking as a military member and Natl Security expert...that these things did not happen as a matter of course is nothing but incompetence.
Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress
At 10/2/12 05:22 AM, 24901miles wrote: Agreed with Klown. Even if Romney doesn't win, I hope he puts his hat in the ring to help the nation move through this depression, maybe as a Senator.
Obama's still going to win the presidency. Have you not seen the polls? Do some research for once. YEESH! Anyway, it will take more than a decade to correct what Bush did, so as long as we keep getting Democrats into office during that time, we'll be fine. After all, THEY care about the middle class.
At 10/2/12 06:16 PM, HiryuGouki wrote: Obama's still going to win the presidency. Have you not seen the polls? Do some research for once. YEESH! Anyway, it will take more than a decade to correct what Bush did, so as long as we keep getting Democrats into office during that time, we'll be fine. After all, THEY care about the middle class.
Too true, seems like the democrats push everything forward and the republicans push it all backwards.
At 10/2/12 03:41 PM, TheMason wrote:At 9/25/12 08:29 PM, Warforger wrote: Wow. They're threats, on 9/11/2001 intelligence agencies had only been given a warning that there was going to be some sort of attack. They weren't told "We are going to be hijacking aircraft and crashing them into the World Trade Centers, the Pentagon and the White House", since up to that the point the only terrorism that was ever done against the US by Muslim militants was by just bombing buildings. It would have been pretty out of the blue to think that would've been the case. This was the same case on the recent 9/11 attacks according to your own links.Here's the thing: 9/11/12 is NOT the same case as 9/11/01. On the morning of 9/11/01 it was a normal day. There was nothing to make anyone think that we would be attacked at a specific time or a specific place.
Out of context. I was saying it was the same case in terms of how much the government knew beforehand. Before 9/11/01 a couple of people in the government heard there was some terrorist attack coming, no notion that it was going to be planes being driven into the Twin Towers. While say 9/11/12 probably wouldn't be so obscure or as ambiguous, I doubt there would've been an indication that such a concentrated attack would've happened. Thus how much the government knew beforehand was.
Fast forward to today.
* 9/11, especially in the Middle East, is a day where the military overseas goes on heightened alert because there is a heightened chance of attack.
* The Ambassador himself was sending communiques up the State Dept chain of command...that were ignored.
* Ayman al-Zwahiri, who is now head of al-Qaida, called for attacks on US interests in Lybia on 9/11!
Bin Laden also called for many attacks that never happened, plans for an attack on 9/11/11 were there, threats are constantly made. The thing though is that they tend to be foiled, or at least such a coordinated attack like 9/11/01 impossible because they don't have a good network like they had before. Now it's just random uncoordinated unorganized attacks like say the Fort Hood shooting.
This was another case of that, Al-Qaeda had nothing to do with this, it was an interesting early notion but upon investigation the State department has negated this.
Furthermore, there is the bogus red-herring video explanation given by the administration. While I am not doubting that this video has been the cause of protests and some degree of violence, there is nothing in the attack on the embassy/consulate in Benghazi that indicates it was the result of a spontaneous protest gone bad. Also, it doesn't matter what pissed someone off enough to comitt terrorism. Terrorism is terrorism. Obama dithering on it and trying to say 'we're investigating' is more proof of just how incompetent the guy is on foreign policy and national security.
So you don't know what he did either? He sent more military forces to Libya.
The Obama administration bungled this from the beginning. Embassy security should've been strengthened prior to 9/11 in ALL US facilities in the region just as normal security measures. Especially given that we had the major al-Qaida leader calling for attacks against US interests in Lybia.
It was, the problem though was that in Libya there is no national army but merely a collection of militias which didn't like Gaddaffi. So unless you deploy an entire battalion and take Benghazi over if the militia doesn't like you it's probably going to betray you down the line and kill your ambassador, since you know at the end of the day they control the city and have the army while an embassy doesn't. That was the problem, there was insider intelligence given to the militia group, so they attacked the Safe House where Chris Stevens was hiding.
Speaking as a military member and Natl Security expert...that these things did not happen as a matter of course is nothing but incompetence.
I'm going to guess even if you or a guy you would want to be President was in power this would have happened anyway. I don't think there's anything that could've been done. Honestly it makes me pretty sick how people politicize such crap, it's like saying the 9/11/01 attacks were due to incompetence (which is what LemonCrush was arguing).
"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.
Why do people say I should have my mind made up by now who I will be voting for? I just asked a question on Yahoo answers and people acted like I was an idiot for not having my mind made up on who I will vote for. I think some people don't understand how serious this election is. Why is it weird I want to see the Debates first before my mind is made up? I know my dad thinks I'm definitely voting Republican because he thinks I do what he does but I'm my own person and I want to see which Candidate has the best plan for this country for the next 4 years.
Jesus Christ the one True God of Love and Peace.
At 10/3/12 01:59 AM, TheKlown wrote: Why do people say I should have my mind made up by now who I will be voting for? I just asked a question on Yahoo answers and people acted like I was an idiot for not having my mind made up on who I will vote for.
Because theyre pathetic idiots who like to pretend its some kind of games show competition. Call them all fucking retards for me please.
At 10/2/12 06:16 PM, HiryuGouki wrote: Obama's still going to win the presidency. Have you not seen the polls? Do some research for once.
I suggest you do some research yourself.
On the national level the race is still very tight. Obama's numbers are starting to ebb and Romney's are starting to tick up. This could be some blowback from the Benghazi attack. Also, Bernacke was out there talking about how the economy was not in recession BUT not growing enough to make a dent in unemployment. Furthermore, we've got one more unemployment report coming out for September and there'll be buzz around the election about October's forecast. If these are negative I expect Obama's ebb to continue.
Obama's negative approval rating is about where his positive approval rating is. While 48% is considered the low end of the 'safe zone' for a president to win re-election...typically their negative also lags their positive by a 2 or more pts. That Obama's is about a 0.3% difference is not a good sign for him.
Right now according to the polls; it looks like an Obama win is probable. The bright spot for Obama is Ohio and that it's just outside the margin of error for him.
But the election is not today. So there is time, however history is against Romney. Most of the time by now you can see who is going to win...it's obvious. But this year it is not so clear cut. Check out the predictions of political scientists. It basically comes down to models based on polling indicate that Obama will win, while others that use economic variables (either mixed with poll data or exclusively) predict a Romney victory.
Also you have the ghost of 1980. Carter had a healthy lead over Reagan going into the last week of the election cycle. Then on election day Reagan won handidly. Same thing with Bush v. Gore in 2000 and Truman v. Dewey. Upsets are possible in presidential elections that are this close.
So this year with Obama only having slight leads in these states the debates matter.
Anyway, it will take more than a decade to correct what Bush did, so as long as we keep getting Democrats into office during that time, we'll be fine. After all, THEY care about the middle class.
I suggest you do some research.
* The policy that caused the financial collapse was set in motion by Clinton in 1999.
* Obama's policies did not keep us from sliding into recession. The crash happened in September '08 under Bush. Our entire financial system came within hours of crashing that would sent us spiraling into a depression on par with the Great Depression. While Bush reached out to both McCain and Obama for their input, much of the crisis management was done by his team (SecTreas Paulson and Fed Chair Bernacke). Obama kept Bernanke on as Fed Chair. Furthermore, most of the stabilization and things that kept us from sliding backwards happened under Bush.
* Obama is just a third Bush term! Bush spent wildly and not just on military spending. Medicare Part-D was a huge social spending program. Bush increased the deficit more than any president before him...then Obama stepped in and increased that amount.
Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress
At 10/2/12 07:16 PM, Warforger wrote: Out of context. I was saying it was the same case in terms of how much the government knew beforehand. Before 9/11/01 a couple of people in the government heard there was some terrorist attack coming, no notion that it was going to be planes being driven into the Twin Towers. While say 9/11/12 probably wouldn't be so obscure or as ambiguous, I doubt there would've been an indication that such a concentrated attack would've happened. Thus how much the government knew beforehand was.
Weak, just weak. Sorry, I quoted you directly so you cannot claim 'out of context'.
The point is, overseas you take extra precautions especially on days where local passions tend to be inflamed. You beef up security.
Bin Laden also called for many attacks that never happened, plans for an attack on 9/11/11 were there, threats are constantly made. The thing though is that they tend to be foiled, or at least such a coordinated attack like 9/11/01 impossible because they don't have a good network like they had before. Now it's just random uncoordinated unorganized attacks like say the Fort Hood shooting.
1) You say the plots are foiled. You do realize you're contradicting yourself here. UBL called for attacks and we took these threats seriously and prepared for them. If you look at the security detail in Benghazi, it was woefully inadequate for the locale.
2) They still have a good network in this part of the world. They are organized and involved in the events on the ground from Syria, to Egypt, to Tunisia, to Lybia.
3) We armed the Lybian rebels which were infiltrated in part by al-Qaida operatives, thereby helping re-supply the group.
4) A coordinated attack in the US is not impossible...but highly, highly improbable. In the Middle East, a coordinated attack by al-Qaida is very much a possibility.
This was another case of that, Al-Qaeda had nothing to do with this, it was an interesting early notion but upon investigation the State department has negated this.
Too bad the State Department has limited intel and investigative powers. From the stuff I've seen...al-Qaida had a hand in this.
So you don't know what he did either? He sent more military forces to Libya.
When.
The Obama administration bungled this from the beginning. Embassy security should've been strengthened prior to 9/11 in ALL US facilities in the region just as normal security measures. Especially given that we had the major al-Qaida leader calling for attacks against US interests in Lybia.It was, the problem though was that in Libya there is no national army but merely a collection of militias which didn't like Gaddaffi. So unless you deploy an entire battalion and take Benghazi over if the militia doesn't like you it's probably going to betray you down the line and kill your ambassador, since you know at the end of the day they control the city and have the army while an embassy doesn't. That was the problem, there was insider intelligence given to the militia group, so they attacked the Safe House where Chris Stevens was hiding.
WTF? What part of my statement are you trying to disassemble with that rambling paragraph.
You keep a detachment of Marine guards in an embassy. You keep a helicopter ready in case the government decides they want you gone so you can get out of town. See, when the army turns and the government turns...they usually let the US get their ppl out because they don't want a war with the US.
On the other hand, a detachment of Marines could give the embassy/consulate staff a reasonable chance of surviving a coordinated terrorist attack. Instead Stevens was given a couple of CIA guys for protection.
I'm going to guess even if you or a guy you would want to be President was in power this would have happened anyway. I don't think there's anything that could've been done. Honestly it makes me pretty sick how people politicize such crap, it's like saying the 9/11/01 attacks were due to incompetence (which is what LemonCrush was arguing).
Bad guess. I think Obama made the right choice in taking out the Somali pirates during the Maersk Alabama hostage crisis...and then taking out UBL. In retrospect, I think invading Iraq was a very bad mistake on the part of Bush. Bush sent the military into Iraq without a coherent strategy for winning the post-invasion...Bush bungled Iraq.
In this case the Obama administration displayed their incompetence. When you take this on top of the rest of his history, I don't think the charge of incompetence is that much of a stretch. I think its so obvious it should overcome any bias.
Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress
Unless anything weird happens, all we have got between now and the election are the debates. As it is right now, Obama has a slim lead.
Based on Romney's history with words, I would have to say the debates give a decided advantage to Obama.
The debates can have a chance to make the election for Romney though. What he would need there is to finally give us some details about his policies. That coupled with a few Obama gaffes would be enough to catapult Romney to the front. However, it is quite unlikely that either of these will come to pass. First off, Obama is a very good debater who rarely makes two slip ups in a short time. Second, I don't think Romney is smart enough to do the right talk in the debate, and such policy speak will open him up to being grilled on TV. If you look at the Romney Campaign (makes Dukakis look like Reagan) there have been numerous crucial periods where Romney chose personal control over expertise, experience, and skill. (See RNC where Romney trashed the lauded script writers to write his own speech and for Eastwood). The debates can work like a cross examination in court. That is one of the biggest reasons politicans spend so many words saying nothing. Confusing the masses with policy is bad enough. Doing so AND getting every flaw hammered byt he opponent on national TV is near political suicide.
Aside from the debates, Romney is seriously hoping for something unexpected to happen. Otherwise it might not be a great election for him.
At 10/3/12 10:22 AM, 24901miles wrote:At 10/3/12 10:13 AM, TheMason wrote: * The policy that caused the financial collapse was set in motion by Clinton in 1999.Citation.
A quick google search yields a few people trying to pin "the collapse" on Clinton to bypass the argument that 2000-2008 Bush-Cheney-Congress is at fault.
I've actually posted this link so often on this BBS.
Would a New York Times article written in 1999 (before Bush was even in office), suffice? Clinton is the one that allowed FANNIE MAE and FREDDIE MAC to buy mortgages made to 'subprime' mortgage applicants. This is what set the stage for the financial collapse.
Here's a few highlights from the article:
"In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's."
"''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''"
Clinton essentially caved to demands from both social groups and big finance. But here's the thing...even dealing with a flailing economy...Bush did nothing to defuse the time-bomb this Clinton de-regulation had. So don't think I'm trying to let Bush off the hook here. I'm pointing out that the crash is a result of a policy that Clinton started. Bush I think deserves blame and fault...but not all of it. Nor do I think that the Democrats are the answer given that this is a Clinton-era policy that lead to the collapse.
Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress
At 10/3/12 10:39 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Unless anything weird happens, all we have got between now and the election are the debates. As it is right now, Obama has a slim lead.
Agreed. I think Obama's chance of winning are between 52-54%.
However there are three 'weird' things that have some reason to be expected:
* September unemployment report.
* Benghazi fall-out.
* The Eurozone is starting to percolate.
Based on Romney's history with words, I would have to say the debates give a decided advantage to Obama.
For the most part I agree with you. However, one word of caution: 1980. Going into the debates Reagan was not the Reagan we know today. Political watchers expected him to fail and then Carter would waltz into a second term. Didn't work out that way.
Now, I know Romney has a history that is very much the antithesis of Reagan's communication skills. But I hope that his campaign is competent enough to have him going through strong debate prep.
Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress
It seemed like it would be an easy win for Obama, considering how the hate that's been going around Romney lately, but I looked at some polls and they're actually pretty close, with some people saying that the debate tonight might actually make it or break it for Romney. Obama's a better orator than him, so I'd still say he's got this one in the bag. Romney hasn't supported change that America is striving for, like leaving Afghanistan or legalizing gay marriage.
You know the world's gone crazy when the best rapper's a white guy and the best golfer's a black guy - Chris Rock
At 10/3/12 12:10 PM, Ericho wrote: Obama's a better orator than him, so I'd still say he's got this one in the bag.
I was thinking about this in response to Camaro's post.
Is Obama really that great of an orator? He gives great teleprompter and has great delivery. But tonight he is sharing the stage with a person who wants his job. No teleprompter. No cheering crowds of supporters. But there will be instant feedback. It's not his element. And the last time he had to do it was four years ago.
On the other hand, Romney had to do it only a few months ago. He didn't do that well on the first couple of debates but he was winning them by the end. So Romney may go into this debate with an edge, considering that being the economy is Obama's most vulnerable issue.
Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress
At 10/3/12 10:56 AM, TheMason wrote: But I hope that his campaign is competent enough to have him going through strong debate prep.
Definitely possible, but Romney seems self-depricatingly reluctant to hand control of his campaign to the experts who would be able to achieve such a result.
At 10/3/12 12:56 PM, TheMason wrote:At 10/3/12 12:10 PM, Ericho wrote: Obama's a better orator than him, so I'd still say he's got this one in the bag.I was thinking about this in response to Camaro's post.
Is Obama really that great of an orator? He gives great teleprompter and has great delivery. But tonight he is sharing the stage with a person who wants his job. No teleprompter. No cheering crowds of supporters. But there will be instant feedback. It's not his element. And the last time he had to do it was four years ago.
The whole teleprompter thing is just a myth derived from the Rove Strategy: attack your opponents strengths. Hoover used a teleprompter. LBJ used a teleprompter. Reagan used a teleprompter. Every president since the invention of the damn things has used them. The idea is that somehow Obama is this bumbling idiot who can't form cohesive sentences without them, which is laughably far from the truth. Look at the speeches he gave at the Jefferson Jackson Dinner, candidates are forbidden to use notes or teleprompters in their speeches at the event. Do you really think that before Obama most presidents gave impromptu speeches, or are you going to admit that note cards and teleprompters are essentially the same exact thing?
At 10/3/12 10:34 AM, TheMason wrote: Weak, just weak. Sorry, I quoted you directly so you cannot claim 'out of context'.
And you still managed to take it out of context. You were responding to a comment that supposedly said that nothing was to be expected, that comment however was saying that the White House had little knowledge of a specific attack.
The point is, overseas you take extra precautions especially on days where local passions tend to be inflamed. You beef up security.
To begin with we've had 11 years with no incident, next that doesn't matter when there is insider info to the militia.
1) You say the plots are foiled. You do realize you're contradicting yourself here. UBL called for attacks and we took these threats seriously and prepared for them. If you look at the security detail in Benghazi, it was woefully inadequate for the locale.
No. Bin Laden was unable to do any type of attack outside of Afghanistan because most people in his network were dead. Combined with the heightened intelligence Al-Qaeda itself is unable to commit any attacks directly. Thus many of these "attacks" are committed by groups/individuals who aren't Al-Qaeda.
But Islamic terrorists aren't credible, when the attacks in Oslo Norway happened initially an islamic group in Oslo claimed responsibility for the attack. The militia which attacked the embassy were not in communication with Al-Qaeda. i.e. Islamic terrorist groups constantly threaten, but it's not clear when they're actually realistic.
2) They still have a good network in this part of the world. They are organized and involved in the events on the ground from Syria, to Egypt, to Tunisia, to Lybia.
No they're not. This is why say an attack like 9/11 hasn't occured since, this is why all the terrorist attacks were random; the underwear bomber the Fort Hood shooting the storming of the embassy. Because so many have died the network has been unable to effectively work together. Now they're present of course in certain area's trying to build up grassroots support by joining rebel forces but those groups tend to be formed without any connection to mainstream Al-Qaeda. because of the intense attacks by NATO they're no longer an effective force.
3) We armed the Lybian rebels which were infiltrated in part by al-Qaida operatives, thereby helping re-supply the group.
Oh wow. What a terrible argument. Using this logic Reagan was responsible for 9/11 because he trained Bin Laden. Nevermind the arms leftover by Qaddaffi's army.
4) A coordinated attack in the US is not impossible...but highly, highly improbable. In the Middle East, a coordinated attack by al-Qaida is very much a possibility.
That's what I was saying anyway. My point is that you're acting like it was in some way linked to Al-Qaeda when they're not very reliable.
Too bad the State Department has limited intel and investigative powers. From the stuff I've seen...al-Qaida had a hand in this.
Oh great so you know more about this than the State department.
When.
After the attack?
WTF? What part of my statement are you trying to disassemble with that rambling paragraph.
You keep a detachment of Marine guards in an embassy. You keep a helicopter ready in case the government decides they want you gone so you can get out of town. See, when the army turns and the government turns...they usually let the US get their ppl out because they don't want a war with the US.
....Which doesn't make a difference when the government doesn't have control over the military.
On the other hand, a detachment of Marines could give the embassy/consulate staff a reasonable chance of surviving a coordinated terrorist attack. Instead Stevens was given a couple of CIA guys for protection.
Um he did have that, 4 Americans died 2 of those were Navy SEALS.
Bad guess. I think Obama made the right choice in taking out the Somali pirates during the Maersk Alabama hostage crisis...and then taking out UBL. In retrospect, I think invading Iraq was a very bad mistake on the part of Bush. Bush sent the military into Iraq without a coherent strategy for winning the post-invasion...Bush bungled Iraq.
I didn't say anything about Bush.
In this case the Obama administration displayed their incompetence. When you take this on top of the rest of his history, I don't think the charge of incompetence is that much of a stretch. I think its so obvious it should overcome any bias.
.....What history? I'm not sure what you mean by incompetence. You mean things like Reagan failing to kill Gaddaffi? Invading Iraq? Invading Somalia?
"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.
The President looked really bad tonight, I'm not sure who is going to win the election now.
Jesus Christ the one True God of Love and Peace.
