President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Monker]

It's really not that big of a deal. Obama had the opening's and he took them, as he should. For either camp, it was checkmate time and Obama got 'em good. Don't speak as if you're the head spokesman for all Independent's in just the way he handles himself against a fierce competitor because I betchya there's thousands of Independent's that WANTED to see that from the President.

I never said I was the spokes person for anyone or anything...I spoke from my take. Fierce competitor? Sounded like a middle school boy in a childish cut down. It was not relevant, it was stupid, it had nothing to do with facts or how he planned on fixing things. All I heard was dur dur we have ships that go under water. We don't ride horses any more.. We don't use bayonets...which in reality being an ex military wife I know is not true. It was a childish cut that had nothing to do with anything except him being a complete jerk.

It was a point to get across to people who were actually listening that Romney is simply throwing money at a problem, instead of talking to the military and asking what they need. It was Romney who made the comparison of today's military to that of 100yrs ago. THAT is what people should be doing a "What the fuck is that about?" Not the fact that Obama put in context and made Romney look like a fool - which he is for saying such a thing.

When you cut the military to the bone and we get attacked again...which is inevitable if we bury our heads in the sand and weaken our defenses...where will we be? History repeating itself. Do we ever learn.

He's not "cutting the military to the bone". Obviously, you were only listening to Romney. Obama specifically said the budget is the same as it was last year...they are just not getting the $2,000,000,000 increase that Romney wants.

Why is it so hard to understand that Obama met with the military, talked to them about what they need budgeted, and is delivering that...and the discussions they had together did not indicate they need a $2,000,000,000 increase.

Conservatives should applaud that. But, instead they are not "real" conservatives - they are Republicans are are following the party line of BS hatred of Obama and anything he does. And, they (and Romney) are not very serious about the budget.

[The Sushi Hunter]

I don't recall Romney comparing to 100 years ago. I do recall however that it was only a few years or even one decade comparison. Romney did say "x" amount of ships then and "x" amount of ships now. On the other hand, it was Obama who mentioned "horses" and I'm pretty sure America hasn't had horses part of the military arsonal for at least 100 years now.

Dude, we are using horse patrols in Afghanistan as we speak.

Holy shit! Multi purpose equipment. Transportation plus rations if one gets hit.

Everyone here should watch this, awsome story.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/14/secre ... rs-of-911/

If that horse could talk, it would be saying, "Fuck I'm thirsty!" I didn't think about them using horses over there.

[The Sushi Hunter]

So far I've not heard any of the top US Military brass come out publically and say that they don't need the money that Romney is saying he will give them if he becomes President.

[Behshad]

So far I've not heard any of the top US Military brass come out publically and say that they don't need the money that Romney is saying he will give them if he becomes President.

If you haven't heard it , then it is not true.

[Behshad]

Trump has proof that Obama almost divorced Michelle. Twenty years ago

[Behshad]

Trump has proof that Obama almost divorced Michelle. Twenty years ago

20 Years?...If he'd shot her when he wanted to, he'd be out by now.

[The Sushi Hunter]

Trump has proof that Obama almost divorced Michelle. Twenty years ago

Paging Monica L.....you are wanted in the Oooh...val office again.

Did you see Michelle last night after the debate? I'd want a divorce too if I was Obama, you know she's probably got one scary ass fuck face on her at climax, talk about fright night. Think of all the white pussy he can get now that he's been the prez.

[Behshad]

Trump has proof that Obama almost divorced Michelle. Twenty years ago

Paging Monica L.....you are wanted in the Oooh...val office again.

Did you see Michelle last night after the debate? I'd want a divorce too if I was Obama, you know she's probably got one scary ass fuck face, talk about fright night. Think of all the white pussy he can get now that he's been the prez.

Can we be any more racist ?

Wtf does Monica have anything to do with Obama. Twenty years ago.

[The Sushi Hunter]

Trump has proof that Obama almost divorced Michelle. Twenty years ago

Paging Monica L.....you are wanted in the Oooh...val office again.

Did you see Michelle last night after the debate? I'd want a divorce too if I was Obama, you know she's probably got one scary ass fuck face, talk about fright night. Think of all the white pussy he can get now that he's been the prez.

Can we be any more racist ?

Wtf does Monica have anything to do with Obama. Twenty years ago.

Racist in what way?

And your absolutely correct, Monica "blow ho" has absolutely nothing to do with Obama twenty years ago.

[artist4perry]

It's really not that big of a deal. Obama had the opening's and he took them, as he should. For either camp, it was checkmate time and Obama got 'em good. Don't speak as if you're the head spokesman for all Independent's in just the way he handles himself against a fierce competitor because I betchya there's thousands of Independent's that WANTED to see that from the President.

I never said I was the spokes person for anyone or anything...I spoke from my take. Fierce competitor? Sounded like a middle school boy in a childish cut down. It was not relevant, it was stupid, it had nothing to do with facts or how he planned on fixing things. All I heard was dur dur we have ships that go under water. We don't ride horses any more.. We don't use bayonets...which in reality being an ex military wife I know is not true. It was a childish cut that had nothing to do with anything except him being a complete jerk.

It was a point to get across to people who were actually listening that Romney is simply throwing money at a problem, instead of talking to the military and asking what they need. It was Romney who made the comparison of today's military to that of 100yrs ago. THAT is what people should be doing a "What the fuck is that about?" Not the fact that Obama put in context and made Romney look like a fool - which he is for saying such a thing.

When you cut the military to the bone and we get attacked again...which is inevitable if we bury our heads in the sand and weaken our defenses...where will we be? History repeating itself. Do we ever learn.

He's not "cutting the military to the bone". Obviously, you were only listening to Romney. Obama specifically said the budget is the same as it was last year...they are just not getting the $2,000,000,000 increase that Romney wants.

Why is it so hard to understand that Obama met with the military, talked to them about what they need budgeted, and is delivering that...and the discussions they had together did not indicate they need a $2,000,000,000 increase.

Conservatives should applaud that. But, instead they are not "real" conservatives - they are Republicans are are following the party line of BS hatred of Obama and anything he does. And, they (and Romney) are not very serious about the budget.

History repeating itself. They are politicians....put total trust in them and prepare to be reamed tomorrow. Good luck with that Monker If he becomes President I hope he is the great HOPE he has always touted to be. So far the hope is running thin...my son is still working only part time and can't find a decent job. My brother in law was laid off from his good paying job due to cut backs in the economy in the last 2 years. And where are all those unemployed soldiers going to find work when guys who have been pounding the pavement for the last couple of years can't find anything? People are losing their homes, gas prices are up, food is up, utilities is up....up and up we go. Still waiting for that HOPE, and empty promises...I am sick of promises and explanations and excuses. How about fixing things then you won't have to make any excuses? You cannot feed a family on excuses, and promises. We need jobs, real jobs now. Those displaced soldiers he will be cutting back on are coming home where little to no jobs are to be found.
Useless conversation... We will watch and see...so far it has been 4 years of this guy and I am not LOVIN it. I am not feeling the manure and roses he promised the last time. Your party loyal...I am sorry I am not. I don't want to blindly follow any of these guys. Lemmings never live long I am afraid...hopefully you will look at him with objective eyes. I am more scared of lemmings on either side than anything. That cliff can be a doosey.

[slucero]

The government doesn't create jobs.... demand for goods and services does... there is no demand... GDP is proof of that.

The crisis in 2008, which was a crisis of too much debt for banks and consumers.. has not been resolved.. because no de-leveraging of that debt has occured.

The debt laden banks have been bailed out... but banks are still not lending because:

1. Regs for banks regarding reserves are now much more stringent
2. Stricter credit qualification requirements for borrowers
3. A more wary pool of potential borrowers in this economic climate.
4. Its easier and safer for the banks to borrow money at 0% from the Fed and make 2% in the stock market via their trading desks (which were previously banned in Glass-Steagal, but curiously allowed to remain with Dodd-Frank) instead of lending it to the cash strapped public.

In concert, these constrain the banks from leveraging themselves in the way they did previously and over-levering themselves...


Consumers represent 70% of US GDP, and have received no bailouts, and are still levered up in an economy with no ability to continue consuming to feed GDP growth, so:

1. There will be no demand until consumers de-lever or aquire additional money (wage growth) to consume with.
2. There will be no recovery with out demand.

Nothing has changed, except the Federal Reserve's balance sheet... which has grown larger than it ever has.. and will, according to Bernanke, continue to grow in an open ended fashion.. also a 1st for the Fed.

This weeks horrible earnings are reality finally rearing its ugly head.. companies have cut all they can cut to maintain margin and EPS.. and we now have proof that each round of QE from the Fed has a shorter lifespan... and demand has not returned... that even WITH Trillions of dollars in stimulus from the Fed and the government, even the sugar-high stock market can't defy economic gravity.

We're in uncharted waters now... and no President can stop this... This started well before Obama.. and Bush did nothing to stop it.. thinking that Obama could/would... or that Romney could/would is simply proving Einsteins Theory of Insanity.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

The government doesn't create jobs.... demand for goods and services does... there is no demand... GDP is proof of that.

The crisis in 2008, which was a crisis of too much debt for banks and consumers.. has not been resolved.. because no de-leveraging of that debt has occured.

The debt laden banks have been bailed out... but banks are still not lending because:

1. Regs for banks regarding reserves are now much more stringent
2. Stricter credit qualification requirements for borrowers
3. A more wary pool of potential borrowers in this economic climate.
4. Its easier and safer for the banks to borrow money at 0% from the Fed and make 2% in the stock market via their trading desks (which were previously banned in Glass-Steagal, but curiously allowed to remain with Dodd-Frank) instead of lending it to the cash strapped public.

In concert, these constrain the banks from leveraging themselves in the way they did previously and over-levering themselves...


Consumers represent 70% of US GDP, and have received no bailouts, and are still levered up in an economy with no ability to continue consuming to feed GDP growth, so:

1. There will be no demand until consumers de-lever or aquire additional money (wage growth) to consume with.
2. There will be no recovery with out demand.

Nothing has changed, except the Federal Reserve's balance sheet... which has grown larger than it ever has.. and will, according to Bernanke, continue to grow in an open ended fashion.. also a 1st for the Fed.

This weeks horrible earnings are reality finally rearing its ugly head.. companies have cut all they can cut to maintain margin and EPS.. and we now have proof that each round of QE from the Fed has a shorter lifespan... and demand has not returned... that even WITH Trillions of dollars in stimulus from the Fed and the government, even the sugar-high stock market can't defy economic gravity.

We're in uncharted waters now... and no President can stop this... This started well before Obama.. and Bush did nothing to stop it.. thinking that Obama could/would... or that Romney could/would is simply proving Einsteins Theory of Insanity.

As you know I agree with you totally that the Fed and QE1, 2, 3, is the biggest problem holding back our economy, you need to be careful with your statement about demand (at least clarify it) , as you will unwittingly make the underlying case that all of these proponents of the Feds expansionary policy make when you talk about demand and its importance. Yes demand and consumer spending are an important part of the equation, of course they are (however, I would point out that consumption spending often has the effect of transferring money from one agent to another, new savings and capital investment are necessary for growth). But proponents of the nonsensical policies that the Fed follow also make this argument, around demand!

Its quite important to note that the Keynesian argument of boosting demand by government spending and the expansionary monetary interventions of central banks are two sides of an evil coin. Proponents of government spending argue for boosting demand through government spending NEED the expansionary policies of the Fed to inflate away the debt (hence abandonment of gold, partly in 1933 and finally in 1971) . Central bankers NEED folks to accept the argument for aggregate demand and that demand , because their expansionary policies are justified (whether or not their real agenda might be to build their own balance sheets or not ) to enable that and of course QE supposedly makes money more available and drives demand. This is why folks like Ron Paul always talk about the need to audit the FED AND cut 5 government agencies / reduce the government, etc in the same breath- unless you whack both heads of the dragon, that other head will regenerate.

With regard to demand- the problem is not that there is not enough demand in the economy. There is always demand - its just a question of at what PRICE POINT the demand exists. If I came on here advertising a Ferrari for 500k I'd get no demand. If I said I had ten of em and wanted 20k for each one, I'd have about 50 of you demanding one and my price would creep up until I had a demand of 10 buyers for my 10 Ferrari's - Now my argument is is that if you want to build demand in the economy let the business cycle kick in , let markets clear and bad debt dissipate. Furthermore engaging in an expansionary monetary and pursuing govt spending artificially inflates and holds prices up - so you don't have the situation that happened in my Ferrari example going on in the real economy. Thanks to the central bankers and central governments those market mechanisms which sync up the productive side (supply) with the demand side (both sides are necessary)and produce growth are not allowed to work.

If you want recommended reading, this is all put in more complicated (but more effective terms)
in this pdf http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae12_2_4.pdf

[conversationpc]

Looks like Romney supporters share the same mentality as their savior: WEAK.

This is hilarious considering the fervent practical worship that some Obama supporters seem to engage in and especially looking back at the Obama speech in 2008 when he said, referencing his election, that this was the moment the "rise of the oceans began to slow". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2pZSvq9bto

Did you not post the video of the busty blonde chick acting like she wanted an orgy with Romney and Ryan?

There is absolute lusty hero worship with no substance on the Republican side of the fence.

That was a freaking spoof of what Obama Girl did back in 2008, moron.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

He's not "cutting the military to the bone". Obviously, you were only listening to Romney. Obama specifically said the budget is the same as it was last year...they are just not getting the $2,000,000,000 increase that Romney wants.

Why is it so hard to understand that Obama met with the military, talked to them about what they need budgeted, and is delivering that...and the discussions they had together did not indicate they need a $2,000,000,000 increase.

Conservatives should applaud that. But, instead they are not "real" conservatives - they are Republicans are are following the party line of BS hatred of Obama and anything he does. And, they (and Romney) are not very serious about the budget.

I agree with this. We could put cut military spending back to 2006 levels and have not decrease in the level of our security at all. To quote the only Republican Senator with the courage to support some military cuts and call for the auditing of the DoD , Rand Paul, "both sides are going to have to start giving up their sacred cows".

The DoD spends loads and loads of money not on defense, but on social programs and wasteful spending. Drug programs, welfare programs, out reach programs and a ton of stuff duplicated by other agencies. Furthermore their is a ton of spending on weapons systems we don't need. Real conservatives should want military cuts.

[Behshad]

Blimplike airship with Romney ad crash-lands in Florida

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5ZXy5KHJGE

[Memorex]

Trump - What an idiot. Who cares if a marriage hit a bump in the road 12 years ago. Hell, Bill Clinton managed far worse in his marriage. When a person becomes President, things rise above marriage. It's just how it is.

There are a lot of stories of Michelle's unhappiness in the white house and that she didn't want him to run again. But guess what - my wife would feel the same in that frickin fish bowl of a life. She is not getting her wishes and she does not run the country. It's sad that american politics is such that just the nature of things puts a marriage at risk. One would hope that the first few post-white-house years are spent repairing what lingering resentment there may be.

Trump is going to look like an idiot.

Unless of course divorce papers ask for place of birth. Ha ha ha ha. j/k

[Behshad]

Tickets still available for Obama Tampa campaign appearance

You're selling tickets now ?

[slucero]

The government doesn't create jobs.... demand for goods and services does... there is no demand... GDP is proof of that.

The crisis in 2008, which was a crisis of too much debt for banks and consumers.. has not been resolved.. because no de-leveraging of that debt has occured.

The debt laden banks have been bailed out... but banks are still not lending because:

1. Regs for banks regarding reserves are now much more stringent
2. Stricter credit qualification requirements for borrowers
3. A more wary pool of potential borrowers in this economic climate.
4. Its easier and safer for the banks to borrow money at 0% from the Fed and make 2% in the stock market via their trading desks (which were previously banned in Glass-Steagal, but curiously allowed to remain with Dodd-Frank) instead of lending it to the cash strapped public.

In concert, these constrain the banks from leveraging themselves in the way they did previously and over-levering themselves...


Consumers represent 70% of US GDP, and have received no bailouts, and are still levered up in an economy with no ability to continue consuming to feed GDP growth, so:

1. There will be no demand until consumers de-lever or aquire additional money (wage growth) to consume with.
2. There will be no recovery with out demand.

Nothing has changed, except the Federal Reserve's balance sheet... which has grown larger than it ever has.. and will, according to Bernanke, continue to grow in an open ended fashion.. also a 1st for the Fed.

This weeks horrible earnings are reality finally rearing its ugly head.. companies have cut all they can cut to maintain margin and EPS.. and we now have proof that each round of QE from the Fed has a shorter lifespan... and demand has not returned... that even WITH Trillions of dollars in stimulus from the Fed and the government, even the sugar-high stock market can't defy economic gravity.

We're in uncharted waters now... and no President can stop this... This started well before Obama.. and Bush did nothing to stop it.. thinking that Obama could/would... or that Romney could/would is simply proving Einsteins Theory of Insanity.

As you know I agree with you totally that the Fed and QE1, 2, 3, is the biggest problem holding back our economy, you need to be careful with your statement about demand (at least clarify it) , as you will unwittingly make the underlying case that all of these proponents of the Feds expansionary policy make when you talk about demand and its importance. Yes demand and consumer spending are an important part of the equation, of course they are (however, I would point out that consumption spending often has the effect of transferring money from one agent to another, new savings and capital investment are necessary for growth). But proponents of the nonsensical policies that the Fed follow also make this argument, around demand!

Its quite important to note that the Keynesian argument of boosting demand by government spending and the expansionary monetary interventions of central banks are two sides of an evil coin. Proponents of government spending argue for boosting demand through government spending NEED the expansionary policies of the Fed to inflate away the debt (hence abandonment of gold, partly in 1933 and finally in 1971) . Central bankers NEED folks to accept the argument for aggregate demand and that demand , because their expansionary policies are justified (whether or not their real agenda might be to build their own balance sheets or not ) to enable that and of course QE supposedly makes money more available and drives demand. This is why folks like Ron Paul always talk about the need to audit the FED AND cut 5 government agencies / reduce the government, etc in the same breath- unless you whack both heads of the dragon, that other head will regenerate.

With regard to demand- the problem is not that there is not enough demand in the economy. There is always demand - its just a question of at what PRICE POINT the demand exists. If I came on here advertising a Ferrari for 500k I'd get no demand. If I said I had ten of em and wanted 20k for each one, I'd have about 50 of you demanding one and my price would creep up until I had a demand of 10 buyers for my 10 Ferrari's - Now my argument is is that if you want to build demand in the economy let the business cycle kick in , let markets clear and bad debt dissipate. Furthermore engaging in an expansionary monetary and pursuing govt spending artificially inflates and holds prices up - so you don't have the situation that happened in my Ferrari example going on in the real economy. Thanks to the central bankers and central governments those market mechanisms which sync up the productive side (supply) with the demand side (both sides are necessary)and produce growth are not allowed to work.

If you want recommended reading, this is all put in more complicated (but more effective terms)
in this pdf http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae12_2_4.pdf

Dead on mate... and yes I mean naturally occurring demand... via market equilibrium without monetary manipulation.

[brandonx76]

HE KNEW



Emails detail unfolding Benghazi attack on September 11th...

6:07 PM 9/11/12: 'Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility'...

Just trying to understand where the concern is and what Drudge/Reuters is alluding to...they're saying he knew unequivocally? Based on the article could we not not also conclude they had a chaotic situation and a mass of information to sort threw and assess?

From the article:

"It was not known what other messages were received by agencies in Washington from Libya that day about who might have been behind the attacks.

Intelligence experts caution that initial reports from the scene of any attack or disaster are often inaccurate.

By the morning of September 12, the day after the Benghazi attack, Reuters reported that there were indications that members of both Ansar al-Sharia, a militia based in the Benghazi area, and al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the North African affiliate of al Qaeda's faltering central command, may have been involved in organizing the attacks.

One U.S. intelligence official said that during the first classified briefing about Benghazi given to members of Congress, officials "carefully laid out the full range of sparsely available information, relying on the best analysis available at the time."

The official added, however, that the initial analysis of the attack that was presented to legislators was mixed.

"Briefers said extremists were involved in attacks that appeared spontaneous, there may have been a variety of motivating factors, and possible links to groups such as (al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and Ansar al-Sharia) were being looked at closely," the official said."

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Dead on mate... and yes I mean naturally occurring demand... via market equilibrium without monetary manipulation.

I thought that you meant that!, and that I didnt need to worry that you had become part Keynesian overnight. Hell that I would find that the most disappointing news since Perry quit! LOL

[slucero]

Dead on mate... and yes I mean naturally occurring demand... via market equilibrium without monetary manipulation.

I thought that you meant that!, and that I didnt need to worry that you had become part Keynesian overnight. Hell that I would find that the most disappointing news since Perry quit! LOL

[Behshad]

HE KNEW



Emails detail unfolding Benghazi attack on September 11th...

6:07 PM 9/11/12: 'Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility'...

Just trying to understand where the concern is and what Drudge/Reuters is alluding to...they're saying he knew unequivocally? Based on the article could we not not also conclude they had a chaotic situation and a mass of information to sort threw and assess?

From the article:

"It was not known what other messages were received by agencies in Washington from Libya that day about who might have been behind the attacks.

Intelligence experts caution that initial reports from the scene of any attack or disaster are often inaccurate.

By the morning of September 12, the day after the Benghazi attack, Reuters reported that there were indications that members of both Ansar al-Sharia, a militia based in the Benghazi area, and al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the North African affiliate of al Qaeda's faltering central command, may have been involved in organizing the attacks.

One U.S. intelligence official said that during the first classified briefing about Benghazi given to members of Congress, officials "carefully laid out the full range of sparsely available information, relying on the best analysis available at the time."

The official added, however, that the initial analysis of the attack that was presented to legislators was mixed.

"Briefers said extremists were involved in attacks that appeared spontaneous, there may have been a variety of motivating factors, and possible links to groups such as (al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and Ansar al-Sharia) were being looked at closely," the official said."

They knew it wasn't the Movie.

And ?

[Behshad]

[Behshad]

Maybe we would've prevented the Libya attacks , if Romney was in office

[Memorex]

Speaking of Libya - Here is what I want to know. It's very clear now by all accounts that the US knew early on the attack had started and was ongoing. I think you could say real time or within an hour or so. Undisputed fact. The attack went on anywhere between 6 and 8 hours, depending on who is writing about it. Two of the Americans that died did so late in the attack. Ok? All those are facts agreed upon by everyone, regardless of who started it and how it started.

My question is - why did we not send in forces? We were within an hour in any direction with fighter jets, etc. I would like to know what the requests for help were (and there had to be many) and who declined them. Local commanders? The State Department? The President? How can any consulate that we have anywhere in the world be allowed to incur a 6 to 8 hour attack without help? On 9/11 for God's sake.

I know some of you like to mock this Libya issue as if it is no big deal. But when 4 Americans lose their lives in a rough part of the world and are forced to hold back the bad guys for 6 hours or more, that's really quite shitty. Someone had to make a decision to not send fighters. Nothing goes on for that long without decisions being made.

How about this? Set your alarm on your cell phone for 6 hours from now. Then remind yourself each hour that there is a huge attack going on somewhere. Imagine the scramble of intelligence, the calls, the meetings, etc. Imagine the state department, as they said they did, watching the attack in real time. Imagine the CIA monitoring events. And then when your alarm goes off 6 hours later, ask yourself why nothing was done. Not one thing was done to save the lives of some of these Americans. I can't even imagine how that could be. And whoever is responsible for that complete and utter failure should be fired and potentially criminally punished. We should at least find the answers.

And the President of the United States should be asking for heads to roll at whatever level it reaches. He should be pissed as all hell that his departments fucked this up so bad. But instead I see him roll to fund raisers and hanging with celebrities. It's just flat wrong.

[FinnFreak]

True.

Obama should resign immediately.

Imagine.


John -

[Memorex]

True.
Obama should resign immediately.
Imagine.
John -

Not what I am suggesting at all. That would be lame. But he should be leading the charge to figure what the hell went wrong. As far as what went down that day, from the start of the attack until it was done, I have no idea who is at fault. None. Post attack, the president has truly disappointed me. Really for the first time.

I have to say I am a little weirded out by the lack of concern over what happened. It's odd.

[The Sushi Hunter]

My question is - why did we not send in forces? We were within an hour in any direction with fighter jets, etc.

Not sure about ground fources, but with fighter jets, do we know if any of that was called in during the attack on the facility? Maybe they were. And if they are called in, the only thing fighter jets could really do is drop aviation ordnance on the facility. That is something that they just wouldn't do, drop ordnance on a US facility, and with US diplomates and personnel present in the structure.

It is a good point to note the motive mentioned as perhaps the reason why this attack in fact was blamed on a video. I've been searching for the motive for such a coverup and I think that this is the most logical one so far.

[Rick]

True.
Obama should resign immediately.
Imagine.
John -

Not what I am suggesting at all. That would be lame. But he should be leading the charge to figure what the hell went wrong. As far as what went down that day, from the start of the attack until it was done, I have no idea who is at fault. None. Post attack, the president has truly disappointed me. Really for the first time.

I have to say I am a little weirded out by the lack of concern over what happened. It's odd.

Not odd at all, The Won is a Democrat and even more so a flaming liberal. He will be protected by the media and his lemming followers. Had this been W, katy bar the door.

p

You're mental. W did exactly what he wanted the entire 8 years he was in office. Including initiating the Patriot Act, where he referred to the Constitution as just a god rammed piece of paper. Let Obama try something like that and see what happens.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

True.
Obama should resign immediately.
Imagine.
John -

Not what I am suggesting at all. That would be lame. But he should be leading the charge to figure what the hell went wrong. As far as what went down that day, from the start of the attack until it was done, I have no idea who is at fault. None. Post attack, the president has truly disappointed me. Really for the first time.

I have to say I am a little weirded out by the lack of concern over what happened. It's odd.

Not odd at all, The Won is a Democrat and even more so a flaming liberal. He will be protected by the media and his lemming followers. Had this been W, katy bar the door.

p

You're mental. W did exactly what he wanted the entire 8 years he was in office. Including initiating the Patriot Act, where he referred to the Constitution as just a god rammed piece of paper. Let Obama try something like that and see what happens.

I think you find that W and Obama are blood brothers when it comes to trampling on peoples liberties. Bush passed the Patriot act, Obama enthusiastically keeps in in place. When the Congress said it was ok to stick a line in the Natinonal Defence Authorization Act saying it was ok for the American military to detain American citizens on American sail- damn the 4th Amendment, Obama signed it into law. He's increasing drone flights over the US. Bush/ Obama exactly the same as is Romney /Obama.

Want a different choice, vote third party.

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2012 ... nfreepress