Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Stop. You're confusing the extremists, when you ask them to consider "basic logic." Judging by the din of whining we're reading today, the President was far more successful last evening that I thought he was. I thought he did an excellent job, but ... apparently he was fantastic.
Candidates and parties willing to try to score political points when people were killed- score them with either initial reckless statements without having the facts correct or score them later without having the facts correct and trying to slam a Rose Garden address IS NOT TRIVIAL. People dying isn't trivial, and trying to score political points on people dying with faulty facts and lies isn't either, and continuing to double down on trying to score political points on people dying with faulty facts AND total denial of fact-checking is not trivial either. What it IS is a huge reason why Romney shouldn't be president and why so many of today's Republicans are dirty, lying, vulturous scumbags.
But yet you can't muster the courage to admit that this Administration failed it's foreign ambassador's in hostile territory. It's all about Mitt Romney's comments, and nothing to do with this colossal national security failure.
He just decided to hang out in the Rose Garden and do an impromptu Press conference with the Secretary of State?
The President mentions 9/11 for about 20 seconds from 3:30 to 3:50, then brings the Benghazi attacks back to the point at 3:50 and then leads in to his "act of terror" quote at 4:18.
Obama didn't call the attack on Libya an "act of terror" at that time. How do we know that? Jay Carney's press briefing on September 19th in which the Obama Admin was STILL insisting that the attack was NOT pre-planned or premeditated:
Stop. You're confusing the extremists, when you ask them to consider "basic logic." Judging by the din of whining we're reading today, the President was far more successful last evening that I thought he was. I thought he did an excellent job, but ... apparently he was fantastic.
I would agree that the amount of concentration on this topic is surprising. Candy admitted that she was incorrect.
I'm fairly certain you are aware that the administration didn't agree that it was a terrorist demonstration until weeks afterwards as well and you're trying to antagonize the Republicans on this one. I'd say it's working pretty well, too.
I'd say that it simply wasn't an important issue to begin with: The President didn't have all the facts and didn't want to jump the gun and yell, "Terrorists!" until he did. That makes perfect sense and was the logical thing to do at the time. But let's be fair - He didn't state directly that it was a terrorist act until weeks later. That's what he should have done.
I'd much rather that Obama said, "You're right. I didn't jump the gun and declare that it had to be a terrorist attack until my intelligence officers had the chance to actually determine if it was a terrorist attack."
Instead, Romney claimed Obama was too timid, which he wasn't, and Obama claimed that he roundly denounced it as Terrorism in the first day after, which he didn't.
It was two bits of lying misdirection. Candy just happened to support Obama on his bit of misdirection.
But yet you can't muster the courage to admit that this Administration failed it's foreign ambassador's in hostile territory. It's all about Mitt Romney's comments, and nothing to do with this colossal national security failure.
We see where your allegiances lie. It's shameful.
It's much easier to distract than confront the issues. Their defense amounts to semantics, regardless that everything in the following two weeks completely goes against their claims of what Obama meant by "Acts of Terror" in that moment.
It's a distraction, just as issues like birth control and gay marriage have been used all year long as a smokescreen to hide this administration's complete failure to fix our economy.
That is a bunch of crap! Next you'll be protesting because you want someone to pay for our tampons. As a woman I am very lucky to have been born here in the U.S. I have the opportunity to educate myself and be who I want and have done just that. I don't insist on privileges because of my gender and really think this "fake" war on women is a farce.
Romney is not trying to send us back but Obama is by trying to convince you we are entitled. Stop asking and demanding things that "you" should take care of yourself and don't try to belittle and demean me into entitlements.
Be proud to be a woman! Stop playing helpless because you are a woman.
This is outrageous! Mr president and any woman buying this "malarky", your war on women is a lie and a disgrace!!!
I worked in accounting for over 12 years, mostly in payroll. I saw women with Masters degrees making less than men with only a Bachelor's degree, in the same department. The pay difference was significant. When I brought it up to my immediate supervisor she said "it's been this way since the company started, that's how (the owner) runs things, it's not fair but what can we do?". So you're saying the woman in the same department as my husband with a higher degree should lay down and accept that she is paid considerably less? That makes sense. The sad thing is, she doesn't even know how much less she makes,oh and let me add she had also been working for the company for a longer period of time. Many well educated women work very hard to earn their successes. I don't see entitlement in this equation.
The only way to judge his actions is by the following:
1) How many jobs did he create?(In the sense that, as Keynes was fond of pointing out, even a broken window gives the glass man a job)
2) How much debt did he accrue doing so? - Did these jobs make the average American richer or poorer?
3) How many jobs are sustainable? - If they aren't sustainable, obviously these people will simply be let go when the government ceases paying for them.
4) How many jobs came about regardless of policy? - Obviously, the stimulus package wasn't responsible for a McDonald's opening up, but his policies definitely increased green energy companies and the like.
5) What was inflation like for said president? - Creating money by fiat lowers monetary worth. This reduces net worth for the average person and makes savings that people do have worth less. Was it higher or lower than normal?
Would you say that judging Obama by those factors would be fair? If not, why not and what factors would you say it is fair to judge Obama on?
I'll note that you really have to be careful with 2) and 3) and understand recession economics- meaning during a recession, less money comes in to the government. So IF you put in place, for example, spending on building roads and bridges, ie. infrastructure, it generally HAS to be borrowed money, ie. debt. So to count that deficit spending against a president when that kind of recession spending by definition HAS to be deficit spending would be disingenuous. Likewise, a construction job repairing a particular bridge in a particular city in a particular state is not sustainable- once the bridge is repaired, that job is complete and eliminated. But you can't DISCOUNT that job, it's effect on that employee, and its effect on that local economy just BECAUSE it is temporary. To do so doesn't really make practical sense.
To step back and talk general economics- nations' best practices are to run deficit spending during recessions so that the government makes up the slack for the private sector going into recession, and then, once the recession is over and good strong growth is back, cutting spending and covering the debt that was incurred during the recession. The problem is when nations don't do the cutting in the good years, don't do what Bill Clinton did. But also the problem can be when nations DO the big cutting in the recession years, do what Greece did, and create an even WORSE recession. So I think you can really only hold deficit spending against an administration when that administration happens in the good years but still doesn't reduce those deficits. It's like when you lose your good job and can only find a low wage job, do you slam yourself because you focus on feeding your kids and stop paying much on your credit card debt? No. But when you get that good job back and have money to spare, THAT's when you deserve criticism if you don't pay down your credit card debt.
IMO a person has to understand things like that before they can really talk about "fairness" in analyzing an administration in the arena of the deficit spending and debt.
But yet you can't muster the courage to admit that this Administration failed it's foreign ambassador's in hostile territory. It's all about Mitt Romney's comments, and nothing to do with this colossal national security failure.
Just like nothing constructive came of anybody who said George W. Bush failed just because 9/11/2001 happened, but what WAS constructive was the investigation into what happened, prosecuting justice against those responsible for the attack, and moving forward with new security measures to make sure it doesn't happen again- nothing constructive comes of saying Barack Obama just because 9/11/2012 happened, but what IS constructive is the investigation now into what happened, prosecuting justice against those responsible for the attack, and moving forward with new security measures to make sure it doesn't happen again.
America's problem is that its citizens always look for somebody to blame for something besides the people who carried out the horror. IMO it's all about 4 people having died, and how we as a nation and as individuals respond to it, just like 9/11 was about all the people who died, and how we as a nation and as individuals respond to it. Those of us who take advantage of the deaths to score political points and who want to stand around pointing fingers so we personally look better are a huge disservice to the people who died as well as the people whose job it is to investigate the matter as well as the people whose job it is to implement a plan to prevent further similar events. Political harpees/vultures often stand in the way of and distract from actual progress.
The truth is those radical terrorists failed the true peaceful Islamic faith, just as Bin Laden and his cohorts did, and the respectable response to 9/11/12 is the same as the respectable response to 9/11/01. Political vulturism is simply horribly disrespectful to the memories of those who died.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
