|
|
I just had to post this, as it is a perfect example of how the Benghazi affair has drawn out the partisan bullshit from Republicans in a profound manner.
Due to what his office called a "scheduling error," McCain accompanied Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., at 11:30 a.m., Wednesday to demand before reporters a select committee of Congress to investigate the violence in Libya, rather than attend the scheduled 11 a.m. closed-door briefing for members of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. At his press conference, McCain continued to rail on the president and his administration - including U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice - for botched handling of information in the aftermath of the attack.
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, the ranking Republican on the committee, reneged slightly from a report today that she was critical of McCain for missing the meeting, but maintained it's important he's fully briefed on intelligence, and disagreed with his call for a select committee.
"All I was trying to point out is that he's a very valuable member of our committee," she told CBS News. "He would be involved in all the briefings and the hearings and the investigation, and thus I don't think that it's necessary to create a whole new separate committee."
McCain told CBS News he hadn't yet viewed the thousands of pages of classified emails, telegrams, and intelligence reports that the State Department made available to the committee. As a member, he can access the documents by visiting a secure room on the Hill. Collins hasn't requested that viewing either but attended the briefing and viewed whatever documents were presented there.
When asked about the scheduling flap Thursday, McCain reportedly grew angry at a CNN producer and refused to answer the question.
Meanwhile, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., another member of the Homeland Security committee, also missed the briefing, but did an interview on CNN the same day attacking Mr. Obama for his handling of the Benghazi attack, and, at one point, admitting, "I don't know enough of the details."
Source
|
On November 16 2012 06:41 mordek wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:28 Souma wrote:
This is such a liberal circle-jerk right now. :p I was trying to provide a little balance  Can you expand on people not existing prior to situations samizdat? I'm not sure I'm understanding what you're getting at. Enlighten me! Ok, I'm just going to play the other side, please entertain me. Play the perfect game to get up a rung. I guess if you don't want to get up a rung don't worry about it? Don't complain if you'd rather have the pleasures to stand a miserable life I guess. If working up leaves you just as miserable... what's the point. Why are we fighting for people that make this choice. Call it puritanism, I can see that. You can make the choice. Is the counter to that some people don't have to make that choice? They get success and pleasures? I'll admit guys, I'm someone who's been saving money and as cheap and thrifty as they come since I was ten years old. Told my parents to buy a bond with what little money I had because I wanted to make interest on it until I needed it for college. I guess this comes down to my environment/nurturing? It's just hard to stomach people complaining when they blow a huge percentage of their income on cigarettes and alchohol. I think it's a priority between the now and the future. It's choice, better housing or get to party on the weekends.
It's not that you improve your social status with the "perfect game," but that it's only a chance. We see this in college education returns and dwindling union participation. At one point, just playing the game and making long term investments paid off and were relatively low cost. Even if a college education didn't land you a better job, you could have easily paid it off in a few years working some normal job. Even if you weren't exceptional at your career, experience and loyalty would have automatically paid benefits in the form of union promotions and benefits (like pensions and healthcare).
Those things are gone now, but the blight of the people are their vices and entertainment, which are actually cheaper and more accessible than ever.
|
On November 16 2012 09:24 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:41 mordek wrote:On November 16 2012 06:28 Souma wrote:
This is such a liberal circle-jerk right now. :p I was trying to provide a little balance Can you expand on people not existing prior to situations samizdat? I'm not sure I'm understanding what you're getting at. Enlighten me! Ok, I'm just going to play the other side, please entertain me. Play the perfect game to get up a rung. I guess if you don't want to get up a rung don't worry about it? Don't complain if you'd rather have the pleasures to stand a miserable life I guess. If working up leaves you just as miserable... what's the point. Why are we fighting for people that make this choice. Call it puritanism, I can see that. You can make the choice. Is the counter to that some people don't have to make that choice? They get success and pleasures? I'll admit guys, I'm someone who's been saving money and as cheap and thrifty as they come since I was ten years old. Told my parents to buy a bond with what little money I had because I wanted to make interest on it until I needed it for college. I guess this comes down to my environment/nurturing? It's just hard to stomach people complaining when they blow a huge percentage of their income on cigarettes and alchohol. I think it's a priority between the now and the future. It's choice, better housing or get to party on the weekends. It's not that you improve your social status with the "perfect game," but that it's only a chance. We see this in college education returns and dwindling union participation. At one point, just playing the game and making long term investments paid off and were relatively low cost. Even if a college education didn't land you a better job, you could have easily paid it off in a few years working some normal job. Even if you weren't exceptional at your career, experience and loyalty would have automatically paid benefits in the form of union promotions and benefits (like pensions and healthcare). Those things are gone now, but the blight of the people are their vices and entertainment, which are actually cheaper and more accessible than ever.
I can see that. Is it college costing too much, not enough worthwhile jobs?
This was starting to turn into a rant from me because sometimes I just can't fathom how people afford to spend as much as they do on drinking etc. sorry 
When do entitlements become more of an enabler than something that empowers? I'm out of my league on this one, thought occurred to me as I was thinking while cooking dinner.
|
On November 16 2012 09:40 mordek wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 09:24 aksfjh wrote:On November 16 2012 06:41 mordek wrote:On November 16 2012 06:28 Souma wrote:
This is such a liberal circle-jerk right now. :p I was trying to provide a little balance Can you expand on people not existing prior to situations samizdat? I'm not sure I'm understanding what you're getting at. Enlighten me! Ok, I'm just going to play the other side, please entertain me. Play the perfect game to get up a rung. I guess if you don't want to get up a rung don't worry about it? Don't complain if you'd rather have the pleasures to stand a miserable life I guess. If working up leaves you just as miserable... what's the point. Why are we fighting for people that make this choice. Call it puritanism, I can see that. You can make the choice. Is the counter to that some people don't have to make that choice? They get success and pleasures? I'll admit guys, I'm someone who's been saving money and as cheap and thrifty as they come since I was ten years old. Told my parents to buy a bond with what little money I had because I wanted to make interest on it until I needed it for college. I guess this comes down to my environment/nurturing? It's just hard to stomach people complaining when they blow a huge percentage of their income on cigarettes and alchohol. I think it's a priority between the now and the future. It's choice, better housing or get to party on the weekends. It's not that you improve your social status with the "perfect game," but that it's only a chance. We see this in college education returns and dwindling union participation. At one point, just playing the game and making long term investments paid off and were relatively low cost. Even if a college education didn't land you a better job, you could have easily paid it off in a few years working some normal job. Even if you weren't exceptional at your career, experience and loyalty would have automatically paid benefits in the form of union promotions and benefits (like pensions and healthcare). Those things are gone now, but the blight of the people are their vices and entertainment, which are actually cheaper and more accessible than ever. I can see that. Is it college costing too much, not enough worthwhile jobs? This was starting to turn into a rant from me because sometimes I just can't fathom how people afford to spend as much as they do on drinking etc. sorry When do entitlements become more of an enabler than something that empowers? I'm out of my league on this one, thought occurred to me as I was thinking while cooking dinner.
To make the question even more complicated, we must acknowledge the incredible variance in potential propriety when discussing the societal impact of entitlement programs. At what value do we leverage the possible waste of enabling against the positivity of empowering? And in what quantities do we perceive them to exist in society? Can we even measure such a thing? I'm not entirely sure on any of these, but when the economy is suffering and the numbers indicate a burgeoning weight on the middle and lower classes, I'm going to opt for whatever benefits them. Just consider for a moment how incredibly defective our society has become in order to allow major corporations to continue accruing in some cases record breaking profits during a time of incredible contraction. Call me unorthodox, but I'd prefer we live in a society in which at the very least, we all feel the pains of our economy together; in that case, entitlements would be far less consequential. In the meantime, with those with little means taking the biggest hits over and over again, food stamps and the like can be the difference between sinking and floating.
|
On November 16 2012 06:41 mordek wrote:
It's choice, better housing or get to party on the weekends.
idk, I'd like to live in an America where people can have a house AND a party
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Houses are overrated! But alas... since when did we, the middle class and above, become so industrious that we could criticize the working poor for indulging in some simple pleasures? We are human, not robots. Whether it be a television, a pack of cigarettes, the nightly can of beer, or so on and so forth, one can only carry on for so long before some kind of stress relief is necessary.
My indulgence? It is, sadly, you guys. (You guys aren't doing a good job relieving my stress though imo :p)
|
On November 16 2012 10:50 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:41 mordek wrote:
It's choice, better housing or get to party on the weekends.
idk, I'd like to live in an America where people can have a house AND a party
I'll start. I'm Rod and I like to party.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
They're attributing a necessary portion of Romney's Election Day loss to a "failed real-time poll monitoring system," that somehow this failed technological system/contraption led voters to elect Obama instead. Seriously? Am I understanding that correctly?
|
On November 16 2012 13:44 cLAN.Anax wrote:They're attributing a necessary portion of Romney's Election Day loss to a "failed real-time poll monitoring system," that somehow this failed technological system/contraption led voters to elect Obama instead. Seriously? Am I understanding that correctly?
It's not that it led voters to elect Obama, it's that their volunteer organization was lacking and overly emphasized this ORCA technology. The system was so inefficient and jumbled that it led to confusion and frustration for Romney volunteers, which would make their "get out the vote" efforts less effective. Their focus on technology just didn't pan out for them:
"It appears that in its singular focus on competing technologically with the Obama campaign, the Romney team neglected to adequately account for and organize the essential human element necessary to any grassroots undertaking. Thus when its technological efforts failed, the campaign was left without a Plan B, and its volunteers were forced to fly blind at the moment the campaign needed them most.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/romney-project-orca-election-day-collapse-2012-11#ixzz2CMHO61TP "
|
On November 16 2012 13:44 cLAN.Anax wrote:They're attributing a necessary portion of Romney's Election Day loss to a "failed real-time poll monitoring system," that somehow this failed technological system/contraption led voters to elect Obama instead. Seriously? Am I understanding that correctly?
It's true. Karl Rove wouldn't have made an idiot of himself on air if Project Orca was working.
From the link about Orca within the article:
Working primarily as a web developer, I had some serious questions. Things like "Has this been stress tested?", "Is there redundancy in place?" and "What steps have been taken to combat a coordinated DDOS attack or the like?", among others. These types of questions were brushed aside (truth be told, they never took one of my questions). They assured us that the system had been relentlessly tested and would be a tremendous success.
Actually - go read it too. It's hilarious: http://www.businessinsider.com/romney-project-orca-disaster-2012-11
|
"The entire purpose of this project was to digitize the decades-old practice of strike lists. The old way was to sit with your paper and mark off people that have voted and every hour or so, someone from the campaign would come get your list and take it back to local headquarters. Then, they'd begin contacting people that hadn't voted yet and encourage them to head to the polls. It's worked for years."
Heck, on election day, I made sure I asked every one of my friends and classmates, "Hey, bro, you go vote yet?" Many said they did or were going to, but there were still a fair number that gave excuses like, "The deadline for absentee ballots passed me up," or, "I forgot all about it," or, "I just don't care." m-(
I should really be more proactive about encouraging eligible voters to exercise this amazing right, but I fear it wouldn't matter in the end because many simply will not do so. If voters are so lazy or apathetic that they can't sort out where they'll go or how they'll send in their ballot by or on the day of the election, then I say we deserve what we got....
|
On November 16 2012 07:30 farvacola wrote:I just had to post this, as it is a perfect example of how the Benghazi affair has drawn out the partisan bullshit from Republicans in a profound manner. Show nested quote +Due to what his office called a "scheduling error," McCain accompanied Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., at 11:30 a.m., Wednesday to demand before reporters a select committee of Congress to investigate the violence in Libya, rather than attend the scheduled 11 a.m. closed-door briefing for members of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. At his press conference, McCain continued to rail on the president and his administration - including U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice - for botched handling of information in the aftermath of the attack.
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, the ranking Republican on the committee, reneged slightly from a report today that she was critical of McCain for missing the meeting, but maintained it's important he's fully briefed on intelligence, and disagreed with his call for a select committee.
"All I was trying to point out is that he's a very valuable member of our committee," she told CBS News. "He would be involved in all the briefings and the hearings and the investigation, and thus I don't think that it's necessary to create a whole new separate committee."
McCain told CBS News he hadn't yet viewed the thousands of pages of classified emails, telegrams, and intelligence reports that the State Department made available to the committee. As a member, he can access the documents by visiting a secure room on the Hill. Collins hasn't requested that viewing either but attended the briefing and viewed whatever documents were presented there.
When asked about the scheduling flap Thursday, McCain reportedly grew angry at a CNN producer and refused to answer the question.
Meanwhile, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., another member of the Homeland Security committee, also missed the briefing, but did an interview on CNN the same day attacking Mr. Obama for his handling of the Benghazi attack, and, at one point, admitting, "I don't know enough of the details." Source
Partisan or not, people want more answers. Just seems like a poor handling and deserves to get attention, especially for blaming it on the video. I don't know enough of the actual details, but it isn't just Republicans who think that the video was used to cover up something they knew was terrorism. Some argue that Obama implied it was terrorism in a speech, but it is still speculative he was talking about 9/11. Either way, the video scapegoat was still used and I understand why people are mad.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
If they wanted more answers they should have attended that meeting is what I believe to be the crucial point here. Scheduling error or not, it just makes them look even dumber.
|
On November 16 2012 15:28 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 07:30 farvacola wrote:I just had to post this, as it is a perfect example of how the Benghazi affair has drawn out the partisan bullshit from Republicans in a profound manner. Due to what his office called a "scheduling error," McCain accompanied Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., at 11:30 a.m., Wednesday to demand before reporters a select committee of Congress to investigate the violence in Libya, rather than attend the scheduled 11 a.m. closed-door briefing for members of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. At his press conference, McCain continued to rail on the president and his administration - including U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice - for botched handling of information in the aftermath of the attack.
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, the ranking Republican on the committee, reneged slightly from a report today that she was critical of McCain for missing the meeting, but maintained it's important he's fully briefed on intelligence, and disagreed with his call for a select committee.
"All I was trying to point out is that he's a very valuable member of our committee," she told CBS News. "He would be involved in all the briefings and the hearings and the investigation, and thus I don't think that it's necessary to create a whole new separate committee."
McCain told CBS News he hadn't yet viewed the thousands of pages of classified emails, telegrams, and intelligence reports that the State Department made available to the committee. As a member, he can access the documents by visiting a secure room on the Hill. Collins hasn't requested that viewing either but attended the briefing and viewed whatever documents were presented there.
When asked about the scheduling flap Thursday, McCain reportedly grew angry at a CNN producer and refused to answer the question.
Meanwhile, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., another member of the Homeland Security committee, also missed the briefing, but did an interview on CNN the same day attacking Mr. Obama for his handling of the Benghazi attack, and, at one point, admitting, "I don't know enough of the details." Source Partisan or not, people want more answers. Just seems like a poor handling and deserves to get attention, especially for blaming it on the video. I don't know enough of the actual details, but it isn't just Republicans who think that the video was used to cover up something they knew was terrorism. Some argue that Obama implied it was terrorism in a speech, but it is still speculative he was talking about 9/11. Either way, the video scapegoat was still used and I understand why people are mad.
The FBI is conducting an investigation, the House is holding a hearing, what more do you want?
It's hilarious watching Republicans self-KO on Benghazi. First, Romney made himself look like a fool in the 2nd debate. Now John McCain missed an intelligence briefing to hold a press conference to criticize Obama. Then he got angry and pissed when reporters questioned him on it. It makes him look like a senile idiot.
|
On November 17 2012 00:12 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 15:28 kmillz wrote:On November 16 2012 07:30 farvacola wrote:I just had to post this, as it is a perfect example of how the Benghazi affair has drawn out the partisan bullshit from Republicans in a profound manner. Due to what his office called a "scheduling error," McCain accompanied Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., at 11:30 a.m., Wednesday to demand before reporters a select committee of Congress to investigate the violence in Libya, rather than attend the scheduled 11 a.m. closed-door briefing for members of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. At his press conference, McCain continued to rail on the president and his administration - including U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice - for botched handling of information in the aftermath of the attack.
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, the ranking Republican on the committee, reneged slightly from a report today that she was critical of McCain for missing the meeting, but maintained it's important he's fully briefed on intelligence, and disagreed with his call for a select committee.
"All I was trying to point out is that he's a very valuable member of our committee," she told CBS News. "He would be involved in all the briefings and the hearings and the investigation, and thus I don't think that it's necessary to create a whole new separate committee."
McCain told CBS News he hadn't yet viewed the thousands of pages of classified emails, telegrams, and intelligence reports that the State Department made available to the committee. As a member, he can access the documents by visiting a secure room on the Hill. Collins hasn't requested that viewing either but attended the briefing and viewed whatever documents were presented there.
When asked about the scheduling flap Thursday, McCain reportedly grew angry at a CNN producer and refused to answer the question.
Meanwhile, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., another member of the Homeland Security committee, also missed the briefing, but did an interview on CNN the same day attacking Mr. Obama for his handling of the Benghazi attack, and, at one point, admitting, "I don't know enough of the details." Source Partisan or not, people want more answers. Just seems like a poor handling and deserves to get attention, especially for blaming it on the video. I don't know enough of the actual details, but it isn't just Republicans who think that the video was used to cover up something they knew was terrorism. Some argue that Obama implied it was terrorism in a speech, but it is still speculative he was talking about 9/11. Either way, the video scapegoat was still used and I understand why people are mad. The FBI is conducting an investigation, the House is holding a hearing, what more do you want? It's hilarious watching Republicans self-KO on Benghazi. First, Romney made himself look like a fool in the 2nd debate. Now John McCain missed an intelligence briefing to hold a press conference to criticize Obama. Then he got angry and pissed when reporters questioned him on it. It makes him look like a senile idiot.
I don't like John McCain or Lindsey Graham anyway, they are, as far as I know, two of the biggest proponents for the National Defense Authorization Act..which is in my opinion the worst bill to ever get passed in my lifetime (that I know of). I think McCain would have been a worse President than Mitt Romney.
|
On November 17 2012 00:12 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 15:28 kmillz wrote:On November 16 2012 07:30 farvacola wrote:I just had to post this, as it is a perfect example of how the Benghazi affair has drawn out the partisan bullshit from Republicans in a profound manner. Due to what his office called a "scheduling error," McCain accompanied Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., at 11:30 a.m., Wednesday to demand before reporters a select committee of Congress to investigate the violence in Libya, rather than attend the scheduled 11 a.m. closed-door briefing for members of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. At his press conference, McCain continued to rail on the president and his administration - including U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice - for botched handling of information in the aftermath of the attack.
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, the ranking Republican on the committee, reneged slightly from a report today that she was critical of McCain for missing the meeting, but maintained it's important he's fully briefed on intelligence, and disagreed with his call for a select committee.
"All I was trying to point out is that he's a very valuable member of our committee," she told CBS News. "He would be involved in all the briefings and the hearings and the investigation, and thus I don't think that it's necessary to create a whole new separate committee."
McCain told CBS News he hadn't yet viewed the thousands of pages of classified emails, telegrams, and intelligence reports that the State Department made available to the committee. As a member, he can access the documents by visiting a secure room on the Hill. Collins hasn't requested that viewing either but attended the briefing and viewed whatever documents were presented there.
When asked about the scheduling flap Thursday, McCain reportedly grew angry at a CNN producer and refused to answer the question.
Meanwhile, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., another member of the Homeland Security committee, also missed the briefing, but did an interview on CNN the same day attacking Mr. Obama for his handling of the Benghazi attack, and, at one point, admitting, "I don't know enough of the details." Source Partisan or not, people want more answers. Just seems like a poor handling and deserves to get attention, especially for blaming it on the video. I don't know enough of the actual details, but it isn't just Republicans who think that the video was used to cover up something they knew was terrorism. Some argue that Obama implied it was terrorism in a speech, but it is still speculative he was talking about 9/11. Either way, the video scapegoat was still used and I understand why people are mad. The FBI is conducting an investigation, the House is holding a hearing, what more do you want? It's hilarious watching Republicans self-KO on Benghazi. First, Romney made himself look like a fool in the 2nd debate. Now John McCain missed an intelligence briefing to hold a press conference to criticize Obama. Then he got angry and pissed when reporters questioned him on it. It makes him look like a senile idiot.
Yeah, the GOP really overplayed Libya during the election. Surprised they're still on this so hard. Is it really hard to believe that there was a lot of conflicting intelligence that came in after the attack? Remember the Twitter/FB post where a group claimed responsibility? Yea, Fox was all over that shit but how did that turn out?
Give it up, there's already enough investigations going on for this. Focus on what really matters in America right now.
|
Another analysis of some of the ad spending by Obama + supporters and Romney + supporters in battleground states, which shows that's it's not because you spend more that you're going to win the election:
Source
|
http://news.yahoo.com/why-republicans-want-mitt-romney-hike-064500727.html
Romney is being shown the door by his own party, despite campaigning on the standard Republican platform. On the one hand, it's very cynical for Republicans to attempt to whitewash their platform and image. What do all those true conservatives on display during the primary season think of this?
But, more importantly, it's very very satisfying to see Romney get kicked to the curb by his own party. Let's not forget his endless bold face lies (which are well documented in this thread), utter contempt for the facts, and that secret 47% comment. This is a guy who tried to say anything in order to win. He continually used bullshit arguments like "look, I ran a business, trust me, I know how to fix the economy". And now he blames Obama's gifts, like "free healthcare", for his loss, despite doing exactly the same as governor. What a hypocrite.
Romney is a genuine dickhead. Seriously.
And it makes me feel good that he's getting disowned and rejected by his own party.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
he's probably saying soemthing even worse in private.
his own strat is basically gifting too. 20% tax cuts to hook the middle and professional class, military spending to hook military families. with no idea of how to pay for it.
it worked too with higher middle class white % and turnout. but, not well enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
