|
|
On October 11 2012 06:17 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 06:14 xDaunt wrote:On October 11 2012 06:05 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 11 2012 05:58 xDaunt wrote:On October 11 2012 05:51 jdseemoreglass wrote:
New Obama administration strategy: Throw Charlene under the bus. Someone has to take the fall, and it can't be Obama.
I'm assuming it would be too much to ask for all those people who were harping on "fact checking" and calling Romney a liar throughout the entire debate to point out how much worse it actually is for a sitting administration to outright lie about the cause for an ambassador's death. This a thousand times. The lies that the administration has been peddling about Libya are outrageous, and it even worse that so few people are aware of it. That's going to change, soon, and it will be hilarious to watch. It wasn't a lie for goodness sake. The State Department made an announcement based on the information they had at the moment, which unfortunately was rather scarce, conflicting, and ultimately incorrect. As you very well know, a lie is deliberate. This was a mistake. There were violent protests over an incendiary film. Using Occam's Razor, it was a pretty natural conclusion (without further information) that the Ambassador's death was due to the same thing rather than a convoluted terrorist plot to assassinate him. This entire situation 1. sucks terribly bad and I feel for everyone who was affected, and 2. has been hyped by Republicans for their own political gain. Its almost as bad as when they tried to impeach Clinton, and I hope the American people see that. This only holds up if you believe that they didn't have intelligence within 24 hours of the incident. It has been repeatedly reported and demonstrated that they did. They have been lying. There's no way around it. Source this, and no partisan hackery please.
Just posted plenty of sources above. 
|
On October 11 2012 06:12 imareaver3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 05:24 xDaunt wrote:I wouldn't limit the damage to just the State Department. Obama is going to eat shit for this one big time. As I mentioned previously, the weeks of lies and dodging the reality that the attack was clearly a terrorist attack is going to bite him in the ass when foreign policy issues come up at the debates. The worst part is that the media at large has tried so hard to cover up this scandal by ignoring it, that most Americans are going to be hearing about this fuck up for the first time during the debates when it will have maximum effect. Okay, three problems with this: 1. Are you actually trying to say that Obama (or any high-level, appointed official) is personally responsible for the security arrangements of every US ambassador? That mistakes by security personnel are the fault of the president? By that logic, Bush was responsible for 9/11, FDR caused Pearl Harbor, and JFK and Lincoln deserved their own assassinations. The president and Secretary of State are not in charge of security, and in the absence of clear policies that lead to a security lapse, that lapse is not their fault.
Of course Obama isn't responsible for every diplomatic security detail. All I am saying is that his administration has been lying about what happened in Libya. It's so bad that even Jon Stewart did a piece on it. When an administration lies about something like this, it begs the question of why they would do it. I don't know what the "why" is. It is hypothesized that the administration is trying to cover up its horrible error in judgment in denying the diplomatic mission in Libya the extra security that it requested. I have also seen other, wilder theories suggesting worse motives. As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out.
2. Your story is that the president blatantly lied and deliberately covered up obvious terrorist activity, naively supposing the media could never find out what actually happened, in order to protect the State Department. The competing hypothesis is that someone just screwed up and the intelligence community didn't realize the attack was Al-Qaeda until after Obama made the announcement that it was spontaneous. Given how hectic the situation was and how many spontaneous protests were occurring, which of these is more likely?
The competing hypothesis has already been proven wrong. The administration and the intelligence community knew within 24 hours what happened. This isn't disputed. They had video of what happened.
3. The NYTimes and Washington Post websites both have headline stories about Libya right now. I know it's convenient to bash the "liberal media," but...
I don't see many demands from the liberal media that the Obama administration explain what happened. Only FoxNews has been holding the administration's feet to the fire.
|
On October 11 2012 06:06 CajunMan wrote:This is a good read its a letter from David Siegel, the owner of Westgate Resorts, to his employees. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ceo-workers-youll-likely-fired-131640914.html That is a link to the page but its just the article read the actual letter in spoilers first then acticle. + Show Spoiler +Subject: Message from David Siegel
Date:Mon, 08 Oct 2012 13:58:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: [David Siegel]
To: [All employees]
To All My Valued Employees,
As most of you know our company, Westgate Resorts, has continued to succeed in spite of a very dismal economy. There is no question that the economy has changed for the worse and we have not seen any improvement over the past four years. In spite of all of the challenges we have faced, the good news is this: The economy doesn't currently pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is another 4 years of the same Presidential administration. Of course, as your employer, I can't tell you whom to vote for, and I certainly wouldn't interfere with your right to vote for whomever you choose. In fact, I encourage you to vote for whomever you think will serve your interests the best.
However, let me share a few facts that might help you decide what is in your best interest.The current administration and members of the press have perpetuated an environment that casts employers against employees. They want you to believe that we live in a class system where the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. They label us the "1%" and imply that we are somehow immune to the challenges that face our country. This could not be further from the truth. Sure, you may have heard about the big home that I'm building. I'm sure many people think that I live a privileged life. However, what you don't see or hear is the true story behind any success that I have achieved.
I started this company over 42 years ago. At that time, I lived in a very modest home. I converted my garage into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you. We didn't eat in fancy restaurants or take expensive vacations because every dollar I made went back into this company. I drove an old used car, and often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business - hard work, discipline, and sacrifice. Meanwhile, many of my friends got regular jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a nice income, and they spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into this business --with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford to buy whatever I wanted. Even to this day, every dime I earn goes back into this company. Over the past four years I have had to stop building my dream house, cut back on all of my expenses, and take my kids out of private schools simply to keep this company strong and to keep you employed.
Just think about this - most of you arrive at work in the morning and leave that afternoon and the rest of your time is yours to do as you please. But not me- there is no "off" button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have that freedom. I eat, live, and breathe this company every minute of the day, every day of the week. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. I know many of you work hard and do a great job, but I'm the one who has to sign every check, pay every expense, and make sure that this company continues to succeed. Unfortunately, what most people see is the nice house and the lavish lifestyle. What the press certainly does not want you to see, is the true story of the hard work and sacrifices I've made.
Now, the economy is falling apart and people like me who made all the right decisions and invested in themselves are being forced to bail out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed 42 years of my life for. Yes, business ownership has its benefits, but the price I've paid is steep and not without wounds. Unfortunately, the costs of running a business have gotten out of control, and let me tell you why: We are being taxed to death and the government thinks we don't pay enough. We pay state taxes, federal taxes, property taxes, sales and use taxes, payroll taxes, workers compensation taxes and unemployment taxes. I even have to hire an entire department to manage all these taxes. The question I have is this: Who is really stimulating the economy? Is it the Government that wants to take money from those who have earned it and give it to those who have not, or is it people like me who built a company out of his garage and directly employs over 7000 people and hosts over 3 million people per year with a great vacation?
Obviously, our present government believes that taking my money is the right economic stimulus for this country. The fact is, if I deducted 50 percent of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? Who wants to get rewarded only 50 percent of their hard work? Well, that's what happens to me.
Here is what most people don't understand and the press and our Government has chosen to ignore - to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Instead of raising my taxes and depositing that money into the Washington black-hole, let me spend it on growing the company, hire more employees, and generate substantial economic growth. My employees will enjoy the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But that is not what our current Government wants you to believe. They want you to believe that it somehow makes sense to take more from those who create wealth and give it to those who do not, and somehow our economy will improve. They don't want you to know that the "1%", as they like to label us, pay more than 31% of all the taxes in this country. Thomas Jefferson, the author of our great Constitution, once said, "democracy" will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate business, not kill it. However, the power brokers in Washington believe redistributing wealth is the essential driver of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change they want.
So where am I going with all this? It's quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company. Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back. This means fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone.
So, when you make your decision to vote, ask yourself, which candidate understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn't? Whose policies will endanger your job? Answer those questions and you should know who might be the one capable of protecting and saving your job. While the media wants to tell you to believe the "1 percenters" are bad, I'm telling you they are not. They create most of the jobs. If you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the "1%"; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country.
You see, I can no longer support a system that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, so will your opportunities. If that happens, you can find me in the Caribbean sitting on the beach, under a palm tree, retired, and with no employees to worry about.
Signed, your boss,
David Siegel
Very interesting from a man who has created his wealth worked hard and still this day is a large business owner. I'm so glad it included one of my favorite quotes too "Democracy" will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." -Thomas Jefferson
This is almost an exact rehash of all the other letters to employees that get written every election period. I remember reading a letter in 2008 almost spelled out exactly like this.
|
On October 11 2012 06:16 jdseemoreglass wrote:I posted this in the Libya thread, but apparently no one cares anymore. (Probably what the administration was counting on.) There was no protest at the compound prior to the attack.Show nested quote +Prior to the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi late in the evening on Sept. 11, there was no protest outside the compound, a senior State Department official confirmed today, contradicting initial administration statements suggesting that the attack was an opportunistic reaction to unrest caused by an anti-Islam video.
In a conference call with reporters Tuesday, two senior State Department officials gave a detailed accounting of the events that lead to the death of Amb. Chris Stevens and three other Americans. The officials said that prior to the massive attack on the Benghazi compound by dozens of militants carrying heavy weaponry, there was no unrest outside the walls of the compound and no protest that anyone inside the compound was aware of.
In fact, Stevens hosted a series of meetings on the compound throughout the day, ending with a meeting with a Turkish diplomat that began at 7:30 in the evening, and all was quiet in the area.
"The ambassador walked guests out at 8:30 or so; there was nobody on the street. Then at 9:40 they saw on the security cameras that there were armed men invading the compound," a senior State Department official said. "Everything is calm at 8:30 pm, there is nothing unusual. There had been nothing unusual during the day outside." Foreign Policy ReportThe State Department denies that it ever claimed it was a protest due to a YouTube video that took place.Show nested quote +The State Department says it never concluded that an attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya was simply a protest gone awry, a statement that places the Obama administration’s own foreign policy arm in sync with Republicans.
That extraordinary message, appearing to question the administration’s initial description of the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, came in a department briefing Tuesday — a day before a hearing on diplomatic security in Libya was to be held by the Republican-led House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
The committee’s chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., has accused the State Department of turning aside pleas from its diplomats in Libya to increase security in the months and weeks before Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans died in the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi. One scheduled witness Wednesday, Eric Nordstrom, is the former chief security officer for U.S. diplomats in Libya who told the committee his pleas for more security were ignored.
Briefing reporters Tuesday ahead of the hearing, department officials were asked about the administration’s initial — and since retracted — explanation linking the violence to protests over an American-made anti-Muslim video circulating on the Internet. One official responded, “That was not our conclusion.” He called it a question for “others” to answer, without specifying. AP ReportPentagon confirms the attack was pre-planned by terrorist organization, Democrats join Republicans in criticizing Obama administration.Show nested quote +Senate Democrats joined Republicans Thursday in questioning the Obama administration's handling of the fatal Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya and why the administration refused for days to acknowledge that it was a terrorist attack linked to al Qaeda.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., circulated a bipartisan letter addressed to Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Nides, asking for an "accounting of the attacks against U.S. missions in Egypt, Libya and Yemen," according to a copy obtained by The Washington Examiner.
The lawmakers are also demanding to know whether the administration had any advance warnings of the Libyan attack and, if so, whether it had shared that information with U.S. personnel on the ground.
President Obama came under intense criticism because the administration's explanation for what happened at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi kept changing. For days, the administration insisted to the public and Congress that the attack was a spontaneous reaction to an American-made anti-Muslim video. As recently as Tuesday, in an address to the United Nations, Obama was blaming the video for inciting the attack.
But as evidence came to light showing that mortar rounds had been fired into the U.S. compound and that the attack had been carefully planned, the administration's explanation changed. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton first suggested in a high-level meeting at the U.N. that there could be a link between al Qaeda and "other violent extremists" and the attack in Benghazi.
On Thursday, the Pentagon confirmed that the attack was the work of a terrorist organization and not related to the anti-Muslim video.
"It was a terrorist attack," Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said at a news conference.
The Obama administration clearly had been hoping that the Libya attack would fade in the public's consciousness, said James Carafano, a defense expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation. With congressional Democrats now also questioning how events unfolded, however, that's not likely to happen.
"Their hope was that on Monday, when the facts started to come out, everyone would have moved on, and that was a miscalculation on their part," Carafano said. "The one thing you can't do is have people intentionally lying to Congress or withholding information from Congress and then think you are not going to pay a price for that." Washington ExaminerClaims are rising that the Obama administration intentionally misled the people regarding attack.Show nested quote +The Obama administration's lies about the Benghazi attack continue to unravel. The President would like us to believe that he and his spokespeople have merely passed on the best intelligence they had as it evolved. But the State Department said yesterday that it never concluded that there was a protest outside the consulate.
For seven days after the attack, the Obama administration clung to its YouTube protest fiction. Then, the White House claimed to have received new information that the attack was terrorism, planned in advance and unrelated to a protest. Yesterday's State Department admission reveals this "evolving intelligence" claim to be yet another lie.
Within 24 hours of the attack, U.S. intelligence suspected that it was terrorism linked to Al Qaeda. At the time, the Obama administration was still claiming it was merely a spontaneous protest that got out of hand.
By September 13, the President had internally designated the attack an act of terrorism so that he would have the legal authority to mobilize military and intelligence assets. But, for the next five days, his spokespeople, most notably Press Secretary Jay Carney and U.N. Ambassador Rice, continued to insist that the attack started as a protest.
The State Department is now saying that, like the intelligence agencies, it never concluded that the attack grew out of a protest. So why did the Obama administration continue to tell the protest lie to the public for a week after the attack?
I'll tell you why.
The President would have been in a tough spot if he had admitted at the time of the attack and murder of a U.S. ambassador that it was Al Qaeda-linked terrorism. After all, he had, only five days earlier, boasted at the Democratic National Convention that "Al-Qaeda is on the path to defeat."
A disaster like the premeditated slaying of a U.S. ambassador would also call into question Obama's entire Libyan adventure. In truth, the very act of toppling Gaddafi made the region less safe, less stable, and less manageable. And responsibility for that lies solely with President Obama, since he failed even to ask Congress for authorization to attack Libya.
To avoid the indignity of being called to account for his own failed policies, the President and his staff concocted a lie. It was a plausible lie, though it rested on the absurd stereotype that Middle Eastern mobs carry mortars with them. But it was a lie and it was designed to direct the public's attentions away from Obama's own failures. Daily News Blog
It's funny that when someone questions conspiracies with relation to 9/11 they get bashed but conspiracies such as the President inditing some false flag in another country or depicting a protest as a terrorist act as a political ploy is completely reasonable. To many double standards, to little time. All I read there was that the writer had assumptions on what went down, if this passes as condemning evidence or even worthy of discussion then I feel the integrity of this discussion is falling ever downward.
EDIT: The letter above
Here is what most people don't understand and the press and our Government has chosen to ignore - to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Instead of raising my taxes and depositing that money into the Washington black-hole, let me spend it on growing the company, hire more employees, and generate substantial economic growth. My employees will enjoy the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But that is not what our current Government wants you to believe. They want you to believe that it somehow makes sense to take more from those who create wealth and give it to those who do not, and somehow our economy will improve. They don't want you to know that the "1%", as they like to label us, pay more than 31% of all the taxes in this country. Thomas Jefferson, the author of our great Constitution, once said, "democracy" will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
The trickle down system has been proven time and time again to not work since Ronald Reagan began really spearheading it through washington. The idea is that the rich or big business owners will get more capital and start sending it down the chain but as you can see in the last 4 decades this frankly hasn't worked.
What I think is odd, and where I disagree with Obama, is that Business (or big business) is being taxed so heavily. Frankly I think the buisness should be taxed less and the rich investment bankers/brokers who sit and watch digits change on a dial all day deserve to be taxed, they're stimulating shit while the person who wrote this letter is employing thousands of people.
|
On October 11 2012 06:18 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 06:17 farvacola wrote:On October 11 2012 06:14 xDaunt wrote:On October 11 2012 06:05 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 11 2012 05:58 xDaunt wrote:On October 11 2012 05:51 jdseemoreglass wrote:
New Obama administration strategy: Throw Charlene under the bus. Someone has to take the fall, and it can't be Obama.
I'm assuming it would be too much to ask for all those people who were harping on "fact checking" and calling Romney a liar throughout the entire debate to point out how much worse it actually is for a sitting administration to outright lie about the cause for an ambassador's death. This a thousand times. The lies that the administration has been peddling about Libya are outrageous, and it even worse that so few people are aware of it. That's going to change, soon, and it will be hilarious to watch. It wasn't a lie for goodness sake. The State Department made an announcement based on the information they had at the moment, which unfortunately was rather scarce, conflicting, and ultimately incorrect. As you very well know, a lie is deliberate. This was a mistake. There were violent protests over an incendiary film. Using Occam's Razor, it was a pretty natural conclusion (without further information) that the Ambassador's death was due to the same thing rather than a convoluted terrorist plot to assassinate him. This entire situation 1. sucks terribly bad and I feel for everyone who was affected, and 2. has been hyped by Republicans for their own political gain. Its almost as bad as when they tried to impeach Clinton, and I hope the American people see that. This only holds up if you believe that they didn't have intelligence within 24 hours of the incident. It has been repeatedly reported and demonstrated that they did. They have been lying. There's no way around it. Source this, and no partisan hackery please. Just posted plenty of sources above.
Nah you posted a blog bereft of direct reference to anything actual, and is in regards to the label given to the attacks afte the fact. xDaunt claims that proof has been given that shows that intel was known before the incident. That's what I want proof of.
Edit: nvm he's merely claiming knowledge within 24 hours. We'll see what pans out.
|
On October 11 2012 06:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 06:05 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 11 2012 05:58 xDaunt wrote:On October 11 2012 05:51 jdseemoreglass wrote:
New Obama administration strategy: Throw Charlene under the bus. Someone has to take the fall, and it can't be Obama.
I'm assuming it would be too much to ask for all those people who were harping on "fact checking" and calling Romney a liar throughout the entire debate to point out how much worse it actually is for a sitting administration to outright lie about the cause for an ambassador's death. This a thousand times. The lies that the administration has been peddling about Libya are outrageous, and it even worse that so few people are aware of it. That's going to change, soon, and it will be hilarious to watch. It wasn't a lie for goodness sake. The State Department made an announcement based on the information they had at the moment, which unfortunately was rather scarce, conflicting, and ultimately incorrect. As you very well know, a lie is deliberate. This was a mistake. There were violent protests over an incendiary film. Using Occam's Razor, it was a pretty natural conclusion (without further information) that the Ambassador's death was due to the same thing rather than a convoluted terrorist plot to assassinate him. This entire situation 1. sucks terribly bad and I feel for everyone who was affected, and 2. has been hyped by Republicans for their own political gain. Its almost as bad as when they tried to impeach Clinton, and I hope the American people see that. This only holds up if you believe that they didn't have intelligence within 24 hours of the incident. It has been repeatedly reported and demonstrated that they did. They have been lying. There's no way around it.
Also, the latest news is that there were no protests during the day or at night in Benghazi . In fact, the streets were clear. Security cameras caught an infiltration into the embassy. Then terrorists ambushed the embassy with little warning using RPG's. These facts were known within 24 hours.
Using Occam Razor's, you would instantly assume a terrorist attack.
What's really fishy is why the UN ambassador would rush to every major network screaming her head off about a reaction to a video when there were no protests in Benghazi.
|
On October 11 2012 06:25 common_cider wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 06:14 xDaunt wrote:On October 11 2012 06:05 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 11 2012 05:58 xDaunt wrote:On October 11 2012 05:51 jdseemoreglass wrote:
New Obama administration strategy: Throw Charlene under the bus. Someone has to take the fall, and it can't be Obama.
I'm assuming it would be too much to ask for all those people who were harping on "fact checking" and calling Romney a liar throughout the entire debate to point out how much worse it actually is for a sitting administration to outright lie about the cause for an ambassador's death. This a thousand times. The lies that the administration has been peddling about Libya are outrageous, and it even worse that so few people are aware of it. That's going to change, soon, and it will be hilarious to watch. It wasn't a lie for goodness sake. The State Department made an announcement based on the information they had at the moment, which unfortunately was rather scarce, conflicting, and ultimately incorrect. As you very well know, a lie is deliberate. This was a mistake. There were violent protests over an incendiary film. Using Occam's Razor, it was a pretty natural conclusion (without further information) that the Ambassador's death was due to the same thing rather than a convoluted terrorist plot to assassinate him. This entire situation 1. sucks terribly bad and I feel for everyone who was affected, and 2. has been hyped by Republicans for their own political gain. Its almost as bad as when they tried to impeach Clinton, and I hope the American people see that. This only holds up if you believe that they didn't have intelligence within 24 hours of the incident. It has been repeatedly reported and demonstrated that they did. They have been lying. There's no way around it. Also, the latest news is that there were no protests during the day or at night in Benghazi . In fact, the streets were clear. Security cameras caught an infiltration into the embassy. Then terrorists ambushed the embassy with little warning using RPG's. These facts were known within 24 hours. Using Occam Razor's, you would instantly assume a terrorist attack. What's really fishy is why the UN ambassador would rush to every major network screaming her head off about a reaction to a video when there were no protests in Benghazi.
As I do believe the idea that this was a false flag is likely, many have asked for there to be proof it was but is there any proof there wasn't? Obviously in a normal argument the accusing must back with claims, which they haven't, but it would be nice to see some evidence supporting that the streets were "clear".
|
On October 11 2012 06:22 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 06:18 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 11 2012 06:17 farvacola wrote:On October 11 2012 06:14 xDaunt wrote:On October 11 2012 06:05 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 11 2012 05:58 xDaunt wrote:On October 11 2012 05:51 jdseemoreglass wrote:
New Obama administration strategy: Throw Charlene under the bus. Someone has to take the fall, and it can't be Obama.
I'm assuming it would be too much to ask for all those people who were harping on "fact checking" and calling Romney a liar throughout the entire debate to point out how much worse it actually is for a sitting administration to outright lie about the cause for an ambassador's death. This a thousand times. The lies that the administration has been peddling about Libya are outrageous, and it even worse that so few people are aware of it. That's going to change, soon, and it will be hilarious to watch. It wasn't a lie for goodness sake. The State Department made an announcement based on the information they had at the moment, which unfortunately was rather scarce, conflicting, and ultimately incorrect. As you very well know, a lie is deliberate. This was a mistake. There were violent protests over an incendiary film. Using Occam's Razor, it was a pretty natural conclusion (without further information) that the Ambassador's death was due to the same thing rather than a convoluted terrorist plot to assassinate him. This entire situation 1. sucks terribly bad and I feel for everyone who was affected, and 2. has been hyped by Republicans for their own political gain. Its almost as bad as when they tried to impeach Clinton, and I hope the American people see that. This only holds up if you believe that they didn't have intelligence within 24 hours of the incident. It has been repeatedly reported and demonstrated that they did. They have been lying. There's no way around it. Source this, and no partisan hackery please. Just posted plenty of sources above. Nah you posted a blog bereft of direct reference to anything actual, and is in regards to the label given to the attacks afte the fact. xDaunt claims that proof has been given that shows that intel was known before the incident. That's what I want proof of.
The State Department and Pentagon: "We never called this a protest."
The Obama administration: "Intelligence told us this was a protest."
I'm not sure what evidence you are actually looking for here. Are you denying that the State Department would communicate with Obama within 24 hours of an attack on our embassy?
Even if we say that the intelligence was wrong in the first 24 hours, the Obama administration stuck to their story for DAYS, which can only be called willful misleading of the public.
|
|
|
On October 11 2012 04:37 farvacola wrote:You mean this is not looking good for Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary for international programs. Nordstrom's pleas for additional security ended with her, and it is becoming clear that her negligence alone is likely at fault. For whatever reason, she deemed additional security unnecessary. But then again, don't let the truth get in the way of monolith bashing. Source
the State Dept. and the Administration both put forward false narratives of the attack, citing intell that doesn't seem to exist. kinda shady if you ask me.
considering that Obama is going to be in a foreign policy debate with Romney soon, this has to be killing him and his campaign team right now.
oh and no, i'm not implying a false flag operation at all. i just think Obama, for whatever reason, was either lying about what happened, or possibly worse, was completely uninformed as to what happened.
|
On October 11 2012 06:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 04:37 farvacola wrote:You mean this is not looking good for Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary for international programs. Nordstrom's pleas for additional security ended with her, and it is becoming clear that her negligence alone is likely at fault. For whatever reason, she deemed additional security unnecessary. But then again, don't let the truth get in the way of monolith bashing. Source the State Dept. and the Administration both put forward false narratives of the attack, citing intell that doesn't seem to exist. kinda shady if you ask me. considering that Obama is going to be in a foreign policy debate with Romney soon, this has to be killing him and his campaign team right now.
Wow, I didn't even think of the foreign policy debate. This is potentially huge ammunition for Romney.
|
On October 11 2012 06:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 04:37 farvacola wrote:You mean this is not looking good for Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary for international programs. Nordstrom's pleas for additional security ended with her, and it is becoming clear that her negligence alone is likely at fault. For whatever reason, she deemed additional security unnecessary. But then again, don't let the truth get in the way of monolith bashing. Source the State Dept. and the Administration both put forward false narratives of the attack, citing intell that doesn't seem to exist. kinda shady if you ask me. considering that Obama is going to be in a foreign policy debate with Romney soon, this has to be killing him and his campaign team right now.
Romney has his own issues that are comparable. He already made a massive political fuck up in his first days of office with Russia and calling them out as #1 geo-political enemy like it was the Cold War era, he condemns China as cheaters and is prepared to fund another 100 billion per year into a military that is eating America up.
That being said Obama has had questionable policy but when it comes to buzz words his foreign policy killed Osama (Although I still frankly think that's all bullshit but that's a conspiracy for another time) and the people will rally behind that foreign policy just like they rallied behind Bush to go into Iraq.
So yeah :D I feel like if Obama comes out swinging he'll win a straight up debate but if he sits back and argues in a calm tone it just won't work. To many people want Romney's aggressive Hollywood style of debating where he yells and banters on instead of arguing hard truths, Obama will have to emulate.
|
On October 10 2012 18:13 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2012 08:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 10 2012 08:23 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 10 2012 07:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 10 2012 07:18 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 10 2012 02:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2012 01:49 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 10 2012 01:24 xDaunt wrote:On October 10 2012 01:11 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 10 2012 01:06 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
You do realize that Ryan's policies don't matter anymore, right? Ryan has to push Romney's policies, which he is doing and has been doing since he was selected as VP.
As for Ryan's policies, I'm always amused by how liberals view conservative policies with such unwarranted and uninformed condescension. It's no more effective than repeatedly bellowing that Romney lied his ass off throughout the entire debate with Obama. That's okay, though. I like it when the other party is running thoroughly off the rails. Clearly, the truth doesn't matter to you. Only the performance, optics, and spin do. Depends upon what "truth" you are talking about: the cartoonish caricature of Romney that the left has been crafting over the past six months or the nearly indefensible record of a four-year, failed presidency? I think it's pretty clear which "truth" matters more to the electorate. Caricature? We've debunked this many times. And we (not you) have discussed this to death on this thread already. Yes, Romney has a plan to cut taxes by 20%, it's on his own website so how is that a caricature? No, it's not possible to make up $5T in loss revenue by closing loopholes. No, Romney's plan does not cover preexisting conditions, it's the same as the current law, he's own aide even said so after the debate. It's hard to pin down Romney's policies, because he keeps flip-flopping. But, again, we (not you) have already gone over this to death. If you had a problem with our characterization of Romney's plan why didn't you say something when we were discussing this? Oh, because you never talk about substance and policy, you just talk about optics and make cocky remarks about Obama being fucked. That's not correct. There are, in fact, enough tax expenditures available to make the 20% cut revenue neutral. Prove it, On October 10 2012 02:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 10 2012 02:09 farvacola wrote:On October 10 2012 01:49 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 10 2012 01:24 xDaunt wrote:On October 10 2012 01:11 paralleluniverse wrote:
[quote]
Clearly, the truth doesn't matter to you. Only the performance, optics, and spin do. Depends upon what "truth" you are talking about: the cartoonish caricature of Romney that the left has been crafting over the past six months or the nearly indefensible record of a four-year, failed presidency? I think it's pretty clear which "truth" matters more to the electorate. Caricature? We've debunked this many times. And we (not you) have discussed this to death on this thread already. Yes, Romney has a plan to cut taxes by 20%, it's on his own website so how is that a caricature? No, it's not possible to make up $5T in loss revenue by closing loopholes. No, Romney's plan does not cover preexisting conditions, it's the same as the current law, he's own aide even said so after the debate. It's hard to pin down Romney's policies, because he keeps flip-flopping. But, again, we (not you) have already gone over this to death. If you had a problem with our characterization of Romney's plan why didn't you say something when we were discussing this? Oh, because you never talk about substance and policy, you just talk about optics and make cocky remarks about Obama being fucked. xDaunt is merely doing his part as he shamelessly imitates the Romney campaigning strategy; deny everything, say nothing of substance, and pile on the assertive fortune telling mixed with sophomoric pejoration. I mean, come on, we got his debate score; all of this hot air falls pretty neatly in line with the Republican platform this cycle. My debate score was pretty damned accurate. If anything, I was generous to Obama compared to what many liberals are saying about his performance. I have offered plenty of substantive commentary. Hell, I even talked about the tax thing. All these studies that democrats keep pushing on Romney's tax plan (like the TPC) are based upon flawed assumptions. This has been discussed ad nauseum already. Again, what all you liberals seem to have forgotten is that this election is referendum on Obama, not Romney. Unsurprisingly, you aren't even really bothering to defend him. What flawed assumptions? There are more studies than the TPC too. Here's one from Brookings which finds the same thing despite accounting for unrealistically large economic growth from Greg Mankiw's model: http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/08/01-tax-reform-brown-gale-looneyAll of these are nonpartisan organizations. The only "studies" that dispute these results are partisan and have been debunked. No, this is not just a referendum on Obama, no matter how much you say it is. For that to be true, we would need to assume that Romney doesn't exist. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/check-math-romneys-tax-plan-doesnt-raise-middle-class-taxes_653485.html?page=1http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/princeton-economist-math-behind-romneys-tax-plan-adds_653618.htmlthese are good places to start. and btw, isn't Brookings the same place that does the TPC reports? We've been over this. Every study in support of Romney is by Republican economists, which Rosen is. That study basically defines above $100,000 as above the middle class. This study has been debunked here: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/09/department-of-huh-harvey-rosen-says-that-the-romney-tax-cuts-will-raise-national-incomes-by-3-5-or-7-percent.htmlHere: Harvey Rosen also says that Romney could pay for it if he retains the Estate Tax--which Romney has promised to eliminate--and massively raises taxes on all households making between $100,000/year and $200,000/year by eliminating all of their deductions as well. And here: Princeton professor Harvey Rosen simply ignores the fact that Romney would repeal the estate tax (which affects only the top 0.3% wealthiest estates) and roll back Medicare taxes for the 2% of families with the highest incomes. In other words, Rosen wishes away roughly one fifth of the tax cuts for the wealthy that are included in Romney’s plan. Rosen also argues that optimistic economic growth assumptions could pay for Romney’s tax plan, but he ignores the fact that the Tax Policy Center study showed that even using research by Romney advisor Greg Mankiw on the impact of tax rates on growth—an approach that wouldn’t be accepted by Treasury, the Congressional Budget Office, or most budget analysts—you can’t make Romney’s plan add up. leaving ad hominem out of it (it doesn't matter if they're Republican or not, we're dealing with math here), you're wrong about one thing. they don't only discuss <$100,000 as middle class, but <$200,000 also. i think we can all agree that above $200,000/yr is bordering on rich. anyway, let's look at Rosen's own reasoning: Another issue that has to be dealt with at the outset is how to define “high-income.” This is not a term of art. Some people would regard a family with an income of $175,000 as being rich, while others would say that it is middle-class. Since who is “high-income” is in the eyes of the beholder, I again do the analysis twice, once for households with $100,000 or more in income, and once only for households with $200,000 or more. now, to the "debunking" this guy doesn't debunk anything, but simply states that the theory that Romney's plan will lead to economic growth is bullshit. but first, let's take Rosen's reasoning in even calculating growth as a part of the equation: Second, and relatedly, in the academic literature, it would not be considered exotic or even mildly controversial to include behavioral effects in analyses of tax policy. There is a long tradition of doing so. Indeed, my guess is that it would be challenging to publish a paper on the distribution of the tax burden in a first-rate academic journal if that paper assumed that no one’s labor or savings behavior differed across various tax regimes. Finally, it seems odd to assume away possible increases in incomes associated with a given tax reform proposal when its explicit goal is to enhance growth. This observation raises another reason that is given for excluding macro-dynamic effects—the impact of taxes on economic growth is uncertain. To be sure, there is a lot of disagreement on this issue among professional economists. But that is not sufficient cause to assume that the right answer is exactly zero. Rather, a more sensible approach is to consider alternative assumptions about how tax reform might affect the size of the economy, and see how they affect the substantive conclusions. As explained in the next section, this is the tack that I take. as we can see, his reasoning for using assumed growth is both valid and desirable for such an analysis. even more important, and pertinent, is the fact that Romney is expecting such growth out of his plan. therefore, even if we were to disagree on the accuracy of that growth, we can reasonably assume that Romney believes the growth will exist, therefore, there is no "flip-flop". just a disagreement on the numbers. now that we've eliminated the "flip-flop" argument, let's move on to the actual numbers, and once again, we will take Rosen's own words: Compute the amount of tax paid by high-income taxpayers under the Romney plan allowing for micro-dynamic behavioral effects, i.e., effects on the tax base that occur because people re-arrange their affairs (but not their labor supply or saving decisions) when tax rates change. As usual, there are differences among economists about the magnitude of these responses. My reading of the literature is that for high-income individuals, this response is substantial. I assume that for every hundred dollars that the government might expect to lose by reducing tax rates on this group, revenues fall by only about $89 because of decreases in various avoidance activities. This is toward the low end of responses that have been estimated by economists. and concerning his figure of 3, 5 and 7% growth: Although both economic theory and historical experience suggest that a tax system with lower marginal rates and a broader base would enhance growth, there is considerable controversy with respect to the quantitative impact. Put another way, the honest answer is that no one knows for sure. Economic behavior is very complicated, and let’s face it, economic forecasters haven’t exactly covered themselves in glory during the past few years. But, as I emphasized above, it by no means follows that a zero response is the right answer. Given the uncertainty that attaches to these types of estimates, it makes sense to see how the results would differ assuming several different values for the growth-induced increase in incomes. I therefore include estimates for 3, 5, and 7 percentage points.
The 5 percent figure is consistent with Diamond’s [2012] analysis, which is the only paper I have seen that embeds the Romney plan in a modern growth model. Diamond’s computations are based on the assumption that the baseline is the law that will apply if the 2001/2003 tax changes are allowed to lapse, at least for high-income taxpayers. I refer to this as the “2013 law.” The 2013 law embodies considerably higher tax rates than the 2012 law, so it is likely that the reform-induced increases in growth would be less with the 2012 than the 2013 baseline. That’s because the more efficient the starting point, the lower are the incremental benefits of introducing a tax system with lower rates and a broader base. Therefore, my guess is that the growth effects using the 2012 baseline are lower than Diamond’s estimate; 3 percentage points seems a reasonable figure. this all seems very legitimate to me. of course, the article that you provided does have a nice incredulous tone, but besides that, it doesn't offer much in the way of numbers to prove his assumptions wrong. as for the Estate Tax... i don't know. i didn't see anything about it in Rosen's paper so... however, even if we do conclude that there are some problems with the numbers, we can still reasonably assume that Romney is not flip-flopping. Yep, so Rosen's analysis works if you ignore the estate tax AND assume large economic growth from tax cuts (lol) AND if you raise taxes paid by those around 100K-200K. Basically showing that you need to raise taxes on the middle class (which is actually defined as 250K or less in most political discourse).
well like i said, the Estate tax aside, i don't see any inconsistency with the numbers. his reasoning for assuming economic growth is valid, especially considering Romney's plan is designed and intended to spur growth.
and, i might have been reading it wrong, but i believe that he said: increased revenue from taxes paid by 100K-200K, not increased taxes.
and even the fact that we're having a discussion means that Romney isn't flip-flopping. he just disagrees with you on whether the numbers will work out or not (concerning growth). or i guess are you arguing that he's going to flip-flop on the Estate Tax issue?
|
On October 11 2012 06:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 04:37 farvacola wrote:You mean this is not looking good for Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary for international programs. Nordstrom's pleas for additional security ended with her, and it is becoming clear that her negligence alone is likely at fault. For whatever reason, she deemed additional security unnecessary. But then again, don't let the truth get in the way of monolith bashing. Source the State Dept. and the Administration both put forward false narratives of the attack, citing intell that doesn't seem to exist. kinda shady if you ask me. considering that Obama is going to be in a foreign policy debate with Romney soon, this has to be killing him and his campaign team right now. oh and no, i'm not implying a false flag operation at all. i just think Obama, for whatever reason, was either lying about what happened, or possibly worse, was completely uninformed as to what happened.
Only because there is a tendency to blow minor issues out of proportion with respect to their intrinsic importance. As if somehow Obama's alleged mishandling of the attack of the American consulate somehow more broadly validates Romney's foreign policy.
|
Here is Special Report's detailed timeline on what happened following the attack. This is from a couple weeks ago, so it is probably omitting some of the stuff that has been reported on since:
http://74.63.51.110/corner/328840/libya-timeline-eliana-johnson
EDIT: After watching this again, I'd forgotten how damning it is.
|
I don't see the Benghazi attack as a real election issue.
What's concerning is that this is a presidential issue and the Obama administration has really messed this up. Why does it matter? For one, Obama gave an eloquent speech to the UN that is now complete drivel given the new facts. This wasn't an attack on freedom of speech or democracy or human rights, it was premeditated murder of American citizens. It has to be alarming that a US consulate in a country torn by civil war didn't get any security beef for the anniversary of 9/11, even after the consulate asked for it twice, citing concerns about rising fanaticism. But where's the outrage? Where are the resolute calls to bring these killers to justice?
I don't think this really helps Romney except by the twisted election logic that anything that's bad for Obama is good for him. But win or lose, this is something that the president has to start to untangle.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
seems like one more way for romney to earn points by ignoring basic reality. par for him.
|
On October 11 2012 07:10 coverpunch wrote:
I don't see the Benghazi attack as a real election issue.
What's concerning is that this is a presidential issue and the Obama administration has really messed this up. Why does it matter? For one, Obama gave an eloquent speech to the UN that is now complete drivel given the new facts. This wasn't an attack on freedom of speech or democracy or human rights, it was premeditated murder of American citizens. It has to be alarming that a US consulate in a country torn by civil war didn't get any security beef for the anniversary of 9/11, even after the consulate asked for it twice, citing concerns about rising fanaticism. But where's the outrage? Where are the resolute calls to bring these killers to justice?
I don't think this really helps Romney except by the twisted election logic that anything that's bad for Obama is good for him. But win or lose, this is something that the president has to start to untangle.
Go read Romney's speech on foreign policy if you don't see how this attack is going to be used against Obama. The issue isn't that it is an isolated attack. The issue isn't even that Obama's administration has been lying about what happened in Benghazi (though this is important). The real issue is that Romney has an opening to attack Obama's entire Middle East policy as an abject failure.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 11 2012 07:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 07:10 coverpunch wrote:
I don't see the Benghazi attack as a real election issue.
What's concerning is that this is a presidential issue and the Obama administration has really messed this up. Why does it matter? For one, Obama gave an eloquent speech to the UN that is now complete drivel given the new facts. This wasn't an attack on freedom of speech or democracy or human rights, it was premeditated murder of American citizens. It has to be alarming that a US consulate in a country torn by civil war didn't get any security beef for the anniversary of 9/11, even after the consulate asked for it twice, citing concerns about rising fanaticism. But where's the outrage? Where are the resolute calls to bring these killers to justice?
I don't think this really helps Romney except by the twisted election logic that anything that's bad for Obama is good for him. But win or lose, this is something that the president has to start to untangle. Go read Romney's speech on foreign policy if you don't see how this attack is going to be used against Obama. The issue isn't that it is an isolated attack. The issue isn't even that Obama's administration has been lying about what happened in Benghazi (though this is important). The real issue is that Romney has an opening to attack Obama's entire Middle East policy as an abject failure.
I actually agree that this whole Libya incident is a gaffe from the Obama administration, but you're gonna be hard-pressed to use this to condemn Obama's entire Middle East policy lol.
|
On October 11 2012 06:41 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 06:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 11 2012 04:37 farvacola wrote:You mean this is not looking good for Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary for international programs. Nordstrom's pleas for additional security ended with her, and it is becoming clear that her negligence alone is likely at fault. For whatever reason, she deemed additional security unnecessary. But then again, don't let the truth get in the way of monolith bashing. Source the State Dept. and the Administration both put forward false narratives of the attack, citing intell that doesn't seem to exist. kinda shady if you ask me. considering that Obama is going to be in a foreign policy debate with Romney soon, this has to be killing him and his campaign team right now. oh and no, i'm not implying a false flag operation at all. i just think Obama, for whatever reason, was either lying about what happened, or possibly worse, was completely uninformed as to what happened. Only because there is a tendency to blow minor issues out of proportion with respect to their intrinsic importance. As if somehow Obama's alleged mishandling of the attack of the American consulate somehow more broadly validates Romney's foreign policy.
Right, because the mishandling of a terrorist ATTACK on an American consulate and the murder of an ambassador are just minor issues that don't reflect on Obama's foreign policy at all...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
