Pres Debate: 10/16/2012

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

The cover up began immediately on September 12 with Hillary Clinton?s statement that ?some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet?.?

White House press secretary, Jay Carney, on September 13: ?The protests we?re seeing around the region are in reaction to this movie. They are not directly in reaction to any policy of the United States or the government of the United States or the people of the United States.?

A senior U.S. official on September 13 is one of the first to contradict the Obama narrative: The Benghazi violence was ?not an innocent mob? The video or 9/11 made a handy excuse and could be fortuitous from their perspective, but this was a clearly planned military-type attack.?

Carney on September 14 continued to deny the obvious: ?We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent.?

Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, on CBS (Sunday September 16) dug the hole deeper:

?We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned?.Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous ? not a premeditated ? response to what had transpired in Cairo? .?

Carney on September 18: ?Our belief based on the information we have is it was the video that caused the unrest in Cairo, and the video and the unrest in Cairo that helped ? that precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi and elsewhere. What other factors were involved is a matter of investigation.?

The Director of National Intelligence before Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (September 19) trashed the Obama narrative under oath: ?They were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy. ? At this point, what I would say is that a number of different elements appear to have been involved in the attack, including individuals connected to militant groups that are prevalent in eastern Libya, particularly the Benghazi area, as well we are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to al Qaeda or al Qaeda affiliates, in particular al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.?

Carney on September 19 continued to plead ignorance: ?? Right now I?m saying we don?t have evidence at this point that this was premeditated or preplanned to coincide on a ? to happen on a specific date or coincide with that anniversary.?

Only on September 20 (nine days after the tragedy) did Carney finally concede: ?It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials.? (Why did the affair become self-evident within one day?)

With his narrative collapsing on all sides, Obama still refused to abandon the video story in a town hall meeting organized by Univision Network on September 20: ?What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.?

142

Remember I said tax cuts do not generate tax revenue so government cannot fix the deficit and debt through cutting taxes to generate more tax revenue

143

[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
I found the most right wing top school in the US for economics the Chicago School (Milton Friedmen) to dispel the point that tax cuts do not generate revenue

http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_2irlrss5UC27YXi

[/quote]

Dude, I don’t give a shit about polls of people’s opinion on what hasn’t happened yet.

Back up your claim that lowering rates doesn’t increase revenues, please us actual numbers, you know from history.

144

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Obama decisively. I am literally astounded that Mitt Romney could somehow have allowed Obama to knock Libya out of the park and end up looking like a castigated child crossed with a stuttering deer in the headlights in the aftermath. I suspect that Crowley’s interjection won’t play well around here, but my view is that Mitt Romney posed the question and she answered it. Correctly. Moderators should be doing a hell of a lot more of that kind of fact-checking, not less (and yes, I agree with all of you that the facts should be checked for both candidates and not just the Republican).

Without the Libya moment, I’d say it was a draw–each side did what it had to, Obama came out like a candidate and not a narcoleptic while Romney continued to hammer away at the numbers and hammer them well.

Again, how in God’s name did Romney end up losing the night on Libya?

What will it mean? A few points and therefor the lead back to Obama. Things could change with the 3rd debate but time is running out and the contours of the electorate are probably already beginning to crystallize.[/quote]

I posted the transcript on the last page. Please show me where he says it was a terror attack? At least remotely close to directly.

EDIT: I’m in no way saying romney didn’t fuck up the libya portion of the night, but she fucking lied for the president. [/quote]

“No acts of terror will…”

It is clear that those words refer to the tragedy at the consulate in Benghazi. Again: the President used the words “act of terror” in his Rose Garden speech. This is indisputable and it is the VERY fact that Romney was challenging. They were the VERBATIM words which Romney challenged Obama on, and they appear VERBATIM in the transcript. He was wrong.

By the way: I understand what you are saying, I understand how malleable the truth is in a case like this, I understand that each side has a legitimate claim in this particular instance. I understand that the above quote is not anything close to an adequately forceful condemnation of the incident. And, while I haven’t judged yet because I don’t do that until I have all or even a few of the facts, I am with PWI on Libya completely–answers need to be given and the timeline needs to be explained.

145

[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
Counting Beans I am neither a leftist or a right winger. [/quote]

Left or right has nothing to do with this.

I disagree with you because I can do math, and have done it on the subject.

You made a claim. You have the burden of proof. If you can’t prove a statement you made as a matter of fact, then I will assume you are pulling it out of your ass.

146

We were here, in this very forum, arguing about Obama’s ‘apologetics’ over this video, which supposedly caused a protest mob to storm the Benghazi consulate. Obama’s view of a protest mob’s attack on the consulate being an ‘act of terror’ or not, isn’t the issue! The issue is that there was no mob! That it was an organized, armed attack, by a terror group! The issue is how long it took to say that!

147

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Obama decisively. I am literally astounded that Mitt Romney could somehow have allowed Obama to knock Libya out of the park and end up looking like a castigated child crossed with a stuttering deer in the headlights in the aftermath. I suspect that Crowley’s interjection won’t play well around here, but my view is that Mitt Romney posed the question and she answered it. Correctly. Moderators should be doing a hell of a lot more of that kind of fact-checking, not less (and yes, I agree with all of you that the facts should be checked for both candidates and not just the Republican).

Without the Libya moment, I’d say it was a draw–each side did what it had to, Obama came out like a candidate and not a narcoleptic while Romney continued to hammer away at the numbers and hammer them well.

Again, how in God’s name did Romney end up losing the night on Libya?

What will it mean? A few points and therefor the lead back to Obama. Things could change with the 3rd debate but time is running out and the contours of the electorate are probably already beginning to crystallize.[/quote]

I posted the transcript on the last page. Please show me where he says it was a terror attack? At least remotely close to directly.

EDIT: I’m in no way saying romney didn’t fuck up the libya portion of the night, but she fucking lied for the president. [/quote]

“No acts of terror will…”

It is clear that those words refer to the tragedy at the consulate in Benghazi. Again: the President used the word “act of terror” in his Rose Garden speech. This is indisputable and it is the VERY fact that Romney was challenging. They were the VERBATIM words which Romney challenged Obama on, and they appear VERBATIM in the transcript. He was wrong.

By the way: I understand what you are saying, I understand how malleable the truth is in a case like this, I understand that each side has a legitimate claim in this particular instance. I understand that the above quote is not anything close to an adequately forceful condemnation of the incident. And, while I haven’t judged yet because I don’t do that until I have all or even a few of the facts, I am with PWI on Libya completely–answers need to be given and the timeline needs to be explained.
[/quote]

Dude, if in fact the attacks were due to that video, Obama would be the first one to claim that “the acts of terror” were not in reference to Libya.

Come on man.

148

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I understand that the above quote is not anything close to an adequately forceful condemnation of the incident.
[/quote]

I can agree to this here.

149

These are the top Phd economists in the country who invested years of their life but just google debt after Reagen for fuck sakes. Dude you are showing whats called cognitive dissonance (an ability to hear anyone else’s opinion or new information but your own). You refuse new information because maybe you think it does not coincide with your experiences and your view on the world. Read a book, take a class, or be a sheep for the rest of your life where your indoctrinated into a certain way of thinking. If the most right wing libertarian economists do not agree with the laffer curve and you still need more evidence then maybe its like convincing you the world is round and not flat.

150

[quote]Sloth wrote:
We were here, in this very forum, arguing about Obama’s ‘apologetics’ over this video, which supposedly caused a protest mob to storm the Benghazi consulate. Obama’s view of a protest mob’s attack on the consulate being an ‘act of terror’ or not, isn’t the issue! The issue is that there was no mob! That it was an organized, armed attack, by a terror group![/quote]

Agreed. I am with you.

But my point here is that on the specific issue in question, Romney was wrong and Obama right. That Romney was unable to pivot to what you just said here does not reflect well upon him.

Again, how in God’s name did he let Libya get away from him? I was truly shocked at the time. I was expecting the decisive blow of the night to be dealt to Obama, and in the end I’m watching Romney stammer and maunder.

151

And yes, Romney blew it on Libya. His handlers need to get him focused on the real problem with this administration’s responses, and for how long they pushed those statements. I’m watching bits and pieces now, but I’ll give it a full viewing tomorrow. Night, folks.

152

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Irish,

You have a GOP devil as your Governor who worked with a Dem legislature to get pension reform done, something we need here.
[/quote]

We do not. Chris Christie is a NJ conservative, which means that in the GOP world, he’s a moderate Democrat.

Christie doesn’t really work with anyone, he actually bullies them and says, “I don’t care what you think, I’m doing it anyway” and then the state gets sued for it because a few times its been illegal. He’s put in some good reforms, but they’re actually pretty small and more or less not that consequential in the overall scheme of things.

Not that I dislike him, mind you, but you can’t characterize him as a “GOP devil.” He’s much further left than the rest of his party.

153

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
We were here, in this very forum, arguing about Obama’s ‘apologetics’ over this video, which supposedly caused a protest mob to storm the Benghazi consulate. Obama’s view of a protest mob’s attack on the consulate being an ‘act of terror’ or not, isn’t the issue! The issue is that there was no mob! That it was an organized, armed attack, by a terror group![/quote]

Agreed. I am with you.

But my point here is that on the specific issue in question, Romney was wrong and Obama right. That Romney was unable to pivot to what you just said here does not reflect well upon him.

Again, how in God’s name did he let Libya get away from him? I was truly shocked at the time. I was expecting the decisive blow of the night to be dealt to Obama, and in the end I’m watching Romney stammer and maunder.[/quote]

No, no. I agree with you. I haven’t watched this in full yet, catching it in bits and pieces at the moment. Romney walked smack dab into that. I have no idea why he was focused on the phrase “act of terror.” The nature of the act, Romney! The nature. Early reports out of the press calling the administrations talking points into question, and finally a belated about face from the administration. Ok, I’m out.

154

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
We were here, in this very forum, arguing about Obama’s ‘apologetics’ over this video, which supposedly caused a protest mob to storm the Benghazi consulate. Obama’s view of a protest mob’s attack on the consulate being an ‘act of terror’ or not, isn’t the issue! The issue is that there was no mob! That it was an organized, armed attack, by a terror group![/quote]

Agreed. I am with you.

But my point here is that on the specific issue in question, Romney was wrong and Obama right. That Romney was unable to pivot to what you just said here does not reflect well upon him.

Again, how in God’s name did he let Libya get away from him? I was truly shocked at the time. I was expecting the decisive blow of the night to be dealt to Obama, and in the end I’m watching Romney stammer and maunder.[/quote]

The CNN focus group is hammering Romny on Libya. Paraphrasing, pretty much everyone on the panel thinks its tough to stop terror attacks in that region, the President took responsibility for a security fuck-up in the debate and some confusion afterwords, its time to move on not politicize it. Romney got his ass handed to him on this one.

155

[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
These are the top Phd economists in the country who invested years of their life but just google debt after Reagen for fuck sakes. [/quote]

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Inlays v outlays

http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm

Appears to me both revenues went up, but so did spending. Common sense then states that the increase in spending above the increase in revenues is what cause the increase in debt.

False. I suffer from this thing called “likes to see factual information, and prefers it comes in the form of numbers”

You, have the following: “ahh”

I am asking you to back up your claims. If you can do it, please do so. If you can’t please stop making wild claims, and using ambiguous phrases like “so-and-so said so” as proof. Because some of us are hear to learn.

156
157

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
We were here, in this very forum, arguing about Obama’s ‘apologetics’ over this video, which supposedly caused a protest mob to storm the Benghazi consulate. Obama’s view of a protest mob’s attack on the consulate being an ‘act of terror’ or not, isn’t the issue! The issue is that there was no mob! That it was an organized, armed attack, by a terror group![/quote]

Agreed. I am with you.

But my point here is that on the specific issue in question, Romney was wrong and Obama right. That Romney was unable to pivot to what you just said here does not reflect well upon him.

Again, how in God’s name did he let Libya get away from him? I was truly shocked at the time. I was expecting the decisive blow of the night to be dealt to Obama, and in the end I’m watching Romney stammer and maunder.[/quote]

The CNN focus group is hammering Romny on Libya. Paraphrasing, pretty much everyone on the panel thinks its tough to stop terror attacks in that region, the President took responsibility for a security fuck-up in the debate and some confusion afterwords, its time to move on not politicize it. Romney got his ass handed to him on this one. [/quote]

Agree

Romney fucked it up. Whatever they were covering up, will die with tonight’s moderator.

158

I don’t see the Libya moment as being the game breaker, I have a focus group on MSNBC and it seems that the economy and jobs are the #1 priority.

159

As soon as you use think tanks who show bias like the Brookings Institute and are not educational institutions you lost your argument and your credibility. Granted your probably are intelligent but you look for facts that confirm your own presumptions. Your not here to learn your here to pontificate, advocate and be an ideologue. Your Republican, you hate taxes, you dislike big government, you support Grover Norquist but what you have not done is ask yourself when I process information I am instantly critical of it because it does not conform to my view of the world and do I dismiss it. Brookings Institute jeez…

160

I am out good night all