Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Obama deserves a second term


Off-Topic Discussions

651 to 700 of 810 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>

Well as long as they understand it doesn't work. I wasn't sure if they were really cunning and manipulative or really bad at math. I had always assumed the former, and just figured that they were aware that there are enough americans out there bad at math that they can kind of gloss over some of those details.

The impression I've gotten over the recent years is that their whole mantra is about creating their own reality. If you keep saying s#!% over and over, eventually it becomes true.

Too bad the democrats seem like only a marginally better option if that.


Romney for president! Why vote for the lesser evil?

Oh wait, I got that mixed up. It was always-

"Cthulhu for president! Why vote for the lesser evil?"


Quote:

The source of the term is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, The New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush (later attributed to Karl Rove):

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

Yeah, that's pretty much it.

From a slightly different angle, that's part of the problem the current Republican party is facing: For decades now the con-artists have been spinning their lines for the rubes to win elections. Now they've got people coming up through the ranks who've been swimming in those lies their whole careers and they actually believe them. I think a good chunk of the Tea Party Caucus elected in 2010 actually buys into the con. That's why Boehner hasn't been able to keep them under control.


Well let's say you're right and running up a deficit as an excuse to slash various social programs and the like is part of the "plan," where do they see that going long term? Currently, the US's credit is basically maxed out, so running it up much further isn't really an option. Even if they made a ton of cuts to social programs (a lot of which their voters use without even realizing it- they'd sure notice if they disappeared though), they won't be doing enough to tackle the deficit in a significant way.

The only way I see it going is America gets their credit rating downgraded further and eventually defaults on a loan payment. The EU is just barely keeping Greece above water. If the US sinks (which IMO it already is sinking) the rest of the world goes down with it pretty soon after.

If you haven't been doing it for the past several years already it's time to start stalk piling canned food and bottled water in your survival shelter.


The US's credit isn't maxed out. That's their story.

US Treasury's are still going for record low interest rates. For all the sturm and drang about the deficit and about one rating agency dropping our rating a notch (while the Republicans were threatening immediate default), the lenders are offering us free money. Current rates are below inflation.

Taldor

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think the Republican party has a long term plan P.H., unless it's a return to autocratic rule or something.


P.H. Dungeon wrote:
Well as long as they understand it doesn't work. I wasn't sure if they were really cunning and manipulative or really bad at math.

The fact that one is true does not preclude the other from also being true. This is the Republican party we're talking about. A list of their defining traits looks something like the following:

1. Cunning.

2. Manipulative.

3. Really bad at math.


Its funny how you said Bengazi was just a footnote. It led the debate last night and will probably lead next weeks debate. Ask that to the mother of one of the soldiers who stil doesnt know the truth of what happened. Biden came of looking like the Joker from Batman last night to most independents. Check the AP, CNN, etc for their take on his performance. This is Jimmy Carter all over again.

The democrats are the ones really bad at math. If we take the rich and tax them at 100% it funds the government for less than 60 days. It's not the solution. The democrats have no answers and the polls are showing it. Its not just FOX news that shows the race being very close. Romney now winning in Florida, other swing states and very tight in Ohio. Suffulk University polling has stopped polling in what were several swing states due to Romeny now in full control of those states If he takes Florida and Ohio its over. Is it a close race?

The deficit seems to matter to the american people. What people care most about is their money and their security.They see government wasted spending in solar energy, the chevy volt, borrowing from China, a growing deficit, average incomes going down in the last 4 years, high gas prices, etc. True?

They see the middle east a powder keg. They watch the news and see american flags being burned, embassys burning, a cover up and finger pointing in Bengazi. Good luck on trying to see the pyramids now. Looks like i'm crossing that off my bucket list for the forseeable future. They see Iran with nuclear material. For thoe of you with weapons knowledge can Iran do a lot of damage with just the chemicals?

The credit ratings of Moody's matter. Once you lower the top rate its a domino effect. All of the states and then local entities get hurt by your top rating being lowered. If you lose your Moodys rating (check California, Michigan, Rode Island, etc) its due to Moodys seeing you have credit problems. It shows you are riskier to lend to and likley to default. This is the government we are talking about!. the rating didnt get lowered under the evill republicans. How bad is it if cities in California are going bankrupt. What happens to those pople who live in those states who have government jobs, etc or do business with the state. Low interewt rates are not a good sign for the economy. In fact they are just the opposite.

If Romney wins what will your excuse be? Obama was the sitting president, was considered a genius, won the Nobel Peace prize, has a bigger war chest, is loved more than congress, and has Bill Clinton backing him.


wicked cool wrote:
Its funny how you said Bengazi was just a footnote. It led the debate last night and will probably lead next weeks debate. Ask that to the mother of one of the soldiers who stil doesnt know the truth of what happened.

Is that the mother who slammed Romney for using her son as a political weapon?

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
wicked cool wrote:
The democrats are the ones really bad at math. If we take the rich and tax them at 100% it funds the government for less than 60 days. It's not the solution.

Are you including the 13 trillion held in offshore accounts in that math?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
wicked cool wrote:
Its funny how you said Bengazi was just a footnote. It led the debate last night and will probably lead next weeks debate. Ask that to the mother of one of the soldiers who stil doesnt know the truth of what happened. Biden came of looking like the Joker from Batman last night to most independents. Check the AP, CNN, etc for their take on his performance. This is Jimmy Carter all over again.

No, it's not Iran 1979 again. There's no hostages, there's no day xxx of the hostage crisis, there's no ridiculous rescue attempt. There was an incident, mistakes were made, and people died. The Embassy in Teheran and the hostage crisis was a huge deal, the Benghazi Consulate attack is not.

Quote:
The democrats are the ones really bad at math. If we take the rich and tax them at 100% it funds the government for less than 60 days. It's not the solution. The democrats have no answers and the polls are showing it. Its not just FOX news that shows the race being very close. Romney now winning in Florida, other swing states and very tight in Ohio. Suffulk University polling has stopped polling in what were several swing states due to Romeny now in full control of those states If he takes Florida and Ohio its over. Is it a close race?

It is a close race. But to say that the democrats don't have solutions to the economic problems simply isn't giving a fair shake to the president's policies. And nobody is talking about returning to the tax rates of the 1950s.

Quote:
The deficit seems to matter to the american people. What people care most about is their money and their security.They see government wasted spending in solar energy, the chevy volt, borrowing from China, a growing deficit, average incomes going down in the last 4 years, high gas prices, etc. True?

Many people are angry about Solyndra, happy that GM is still around, uncomfortable about the debt to China (although, my perspective is that we are giving them paper and they are giving us stuff, but what do i know), confused about what to do about the deficit, and troubled that they aren't getting ahead. Whether or not they blame Obama for this depends on their individual perspective.

Quote:
They see the middle east a powder keg. They watch the news and see american flags being burned, embassys burning, a cover up and finger pointing in Bengazi. Good luck on trying to see the pyramids now. Looks like i'm crossing that off my bucket list for the forseeable future. They see Iran with nuclear material. For thoe of you with weapons knowledge can Iran do a lot of damage with just the chemicals?

The Middle East, shockingly enough, is transforming for the better. Now that we are out of Iraq, the fact that Arabs are finally resisting their homegrown tyrants is a good thing. As for Iran, what can you do? Nothing as long as the Ayatollahs are in power. Wait until they are overthrown - the new government in Iran will be more than happy to give up its nuclear ambitions in favor of you know... being able to sell oil.

Quote:
The credit ratings of Moody's matter. Once you lower the top rate its a domino effect. All of the states and then local entities get hurt by your top rating being lowered. If you lose your Moodys rating (check California, Michigan, Rode Island, etc) its due to Moodys seeing you have credit problems. It shows you are riskier to lend to and likley to default. This is the government we are...

Yup. But the Ratings Agencies are not the guys who are actually buying the bonds. The enormous bond funds that do these things make independent assessments of risk - they aren't going to make a $100M+ investment because of a letter grade from someone in New York. Yields on US treasury bonds continued to drop after the downgrade.


Yakman wrote:
wicked cool wrote:
Its funny how you said Bengazi was just a footnote. It led the debate last night and will probably lead next weeks debate. Ask that to the mother of one of the soldiers who stil doesnt know the truth of what happened. Biden came of looking like the Joker from Batman last night to most independents. Check the AP, CNN, etc for their take on his performance. This is Jimmy Carter all over again.
No, it's not Iran 1979 again. There's no hostages, there's no day xxx of the hostage crisis, there's no ridiculous rescue attempt. There was an incident, mistakes were made, and people died. The Embassy in Teheran and the hostage crisis was a huge deal, the Benghazi Consulate attack is not.

And hopefully we don't have Romney making off-the-record deals with the attackers. That would make it more like the hostage crisis.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Wicked, every report I'm seeing is showing Biden with arround a 15 point advantage amoung independant voters last night. ~50 pro Biden, ~35 pro Ryan, and ~15 believing it a tie.

Ryan failed to lay out a coherent policy and got his BS called out. You claim the deficit matters to people, but obviously if they are voting for Romney/Ryan it doesn't, since no one can make their math add up without magic.

Romney is polling within 1% in Florida and many other swing states after a debate which gave him a bounce. We will see if he can maintain it, but he has no substance so I'm guessing a lot of people will switch back. If Romney doesn't win Florida, he needs to capture every other swing state.

The last poll I saw, Obama had 68% of early voters. Thats a big gap for Romney to make up. While he can technically win without Ohio, if he doesn't take it he is in trouble.

The race is a lot closer than was predicted prior to the debates, but Romney is still not clearly ahead. Obama probably wont break 300 electoral votes as many were predicting, but he is still the favorite.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Yakman wrote:
wicked cool wrote:
Its funny how you said Bengazi was just a footnote. It led the debate last night and will probably lead next weeks debate. Ask that to the mother of one of the soldiers who stil doesnt know the truth of what happened. Biden came of looking like the Joker from Batman last night to most independents. Check the AP, CNN, etc for their take on his performance. This is Jimmy Carter all over again.
No, it's not Iran 1979 again. There's no hostages, there's no day xxx of the hostage crisis, there's no ridiculous rescue attempt. There was an incident, mistakes were made, and people died. The Embassy in Teheran and the hostage crisis was a huge deal, the Benghazi Consulate attack is not.
And hopefully we don't have Romney making off-the-record deals with the attackers. That would make it more like the hostage crisis.

that is why Ronald Raygun got stuff done.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wicked cool wrote:
They see the middle east a powder keg. They watch the news and see american flags being burned, embassys burning, a cover up and finger pointing in Bengazi. Good luck on trying to see the pyramids now.

Who's got money to go to Egypt?!?


wicked cool wrote:

Its funny how you said Bengazi was just a footnote. It led the debate last night and will probably lead next weeks debate. Ask that to the mother of one of the soldiers who stil doesnt know the truth of what happened. Biden came of looking like the Joker from Batman last night to most independents. Check the AP, CNN, etc for their take on his performance. This is Jimmy Carter all over again.

The democrats are the ones really bad at math. If we take the rich and tax them at 100% it funds the government for less than 60 days. It's not the solution. The democrats have no answers and the polls are showing it. Its not just FOX news that shows the race being very close. Romney now winning in Florida, other swing states and very tight in Ohio. Suffulk University polling has stopped polling in what were several swing states due to Romeny now in full control of those states If he takes Florida and Ohio its over. Is it a close race?

The deficit seems to matter to the american people. What people care most about is their money and their security.They see government wasted spending in solar energy, the chevy volt, borrowing from China, a growing deficit, average incomes going down in the last 4 years, high gas prices, etc. True?

They see the middle east a powder keg. They watch the news and see american flags being burned, embassys burning, a cover up and finger pointing in Bengazi. Good luck on trying to see the pyramids now. Looks like i'm crossing that off my bucket list for the forseeable future. They see Iran with nuclear material. For thoe of you with weapons knowledge can Iran do a lot of damage with just the chemicals?

The credit ratings of Moody's matter. Once you lower the top rate its a domino effect. All of the states and then local entities get hurt by your top rating being lowered. If you lose your Moodys rating (check California, Michigan, Rode Island, etc) its due to Moodys seeing you have credit problems. It shows you are riskier to lend to and likley to default. This is the government we are...

Fear, fear, fear. Don't you guys have anything new?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
wicked cool wrote:

Its funny how you said Bengazi was just a footnote. It led the debate last night and will probably lead next weeks debate. Ask that to the mother of one of the soldiers who stil doesnt know the truth of what happened. Biden came of looking like the Joker from Batman last night to most independents. Check the AP, CNN, etc for their take on his performance. This is Jimmy Carter all over again.

The democrats are the ones really bad at math. If we take the rich and tax them at 100% it funds the government for less than 60 days. It's not the solution. The democrats have no answers and the polls are showing it. Its not just FOX news that shows the race being very close. Romney now winning in Florida, other swing states and very tight in Ohio. Suffulk University polling has stopped polling in what were several swing states due to Romeny now in full control of those states If he takes Florida and Ohio its over. Is it a close race?

The deficit seems to matter to the american people. What people care most about is their money and their security.They see government wasted spending in solar energy, the chevy volt, borrowing from China, a growing deficit, average incomes going down in the last 4 years, high gas prices, etc. True?

They see the middle east a powder keg. They watch the news and see american flags being burned, embassys burning, a cover up and finger pointing in Bengazi. Good luck on trying to see the pyramids now. Looks like i'm crossing that off my bucket list for the forseeable future. They see Iran with nuclear material. For thoe of you with weapons knowledge can Iran do a lot of damage with just the chemicals?

The credit ratings of Moody's matter. Once you lower the top rate its a domino effect. All of the states and then local entities get hurt by your top rating being lowered. If you lose your Moodys rating (check California, Michigan, Rode Island, etc) its due to Moodys seeing you have credit problems. It shows you are riskier to lend to and likley to default. This is

...

it could very well be that he's not trying to scare you but to demonstrate that he is afraid.


Yeah, I don't know what you're talking about.

I'm scared shiznitless.


Yakman wrote:
it could very well be that he's not trying to scare you but to demonstrate that he is afraid.

I'm sure he is; after all, the entire Republican platform is about selling fear. Fear of the deficit. Fear of the Middle East. Fear of the economy. And frankly, fear of having a brown guy in charge.

Thanks, but I'm not buying. On the other hand, if Romney does win, at least we'll know why.


"Ronald Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter."

I think we all remember that. Biden reminded us that Ryan was all for putting 2 unnecessary wars and medicare part D on the credit card. He wasn't worried about the budget then.

He also won't be worried if R$ drums up another war. You know they want to.

Taldor

I liked that our (canadian) small business deduction got mentioned, but the high personal rates and the high provincial / federal sales taxes, high gas taxes, high property taxes, carbon tax etc... that broaden the base enough to allow for a low small business rate got left out :P

*shakes fist* It's not just low rates that matter it is the tax mix!

But I gather they aren't detail oriented folks...


How is it Canada can have socialized health care that works so well and costs less than ours does, and still not live in chains?

I suppose that's just a trivial detail. Why mention it if it doesn't help your argument?


I he loses i would say i was wrong. I hope you can say the same thing if Obama loses. I appreciate the indirect name calling.

Is CNN right leaning is it down the middle? I saw the CNN poll and i agreed with it.

"What people care most about is their money and their security.They see government wasted spending in solar energy, the chevy volt,
That's not an argument you want to start. You will lose it. You will lose it, and you will look like a tool for having tried to bring it up in the first place. Someone did that a few days ago, and the collective smackdown was so thunderous there are reports that it was heard as far away as Rules Questions"- Why is that? What do people really care about? Bring your smackdown!


wicked cool wrote:
I he loses i would say i was wrong. I hope you can say the same thing if Obama loses.

Wrong about what, exactly? I haven't said anything along the lines of, "Obama will definitely win the election." I have said that Obama is a better choice than Romney, many times, but Romney winning the election wouldn't make me wrong.

Quote:
I appreciate the indirect name calling.

I'll be happy to call you a liar the next time you lie, if that's what you'd prefer.

Quote:
Is CNN right leaning is it down the middle? I saw the CNN poll and i agreed with it.

The audience sampled in the CNN poll was in an area of the country more conservative than the country at large; accordingly, it does not generalize well to the nation as a whole. Polls taken from an audience more representative of the country's demographics would generalize better.

As far as "agreeing" with it, no, you didn't. You just got finished trying to push the idea that Biden fumbled the debate. The CNN poll indicates a margin of error high enough that the best we can do is say the two candidates did roughly the same according to the poll's audience. You can't say Biden lost while at the same time saying you agree with a poll that said it was a tie.

Quote:

"What people care most about is their money and their security.They see government wasted spending in solar energy, the chevy volt,

That's not an argument you want to start. You will lose it. You will lose it, and you will look like a tool for having tried to bring it up in the first place. Someone did that a few days ago, and the collective smackdown was so thunderous there are reports that it was heard as far away as Rules Questions"- Why is that? What do people really care about? Bring your smackdown!

There you go. That was the last time someone tried to bring up attacks on the Obama administration's investments in renewable energy.

tl;dr: Most of the companies invested in are fine, the investments bear way more fruit than typical venture capital investments, and misinformation to the contrary is being spread by lying conservatives in a manner that bears a striking resemblance to chain emails that find their way into grandma's inbox.


What is not important about the Benghazi attack? That protection was not offered to the staff after multiple requests or that the WH lied through its teeth for weeks about what happened there?


I think that what is NOT important is performance in debates...there are plenty of scary stuff happening there and I don't see anyone batting an eyelash.

For instance: welcome to Oceania


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thiago Cardozo wrote:
What is not important about the Benghazi attack?

No one is saying that the attack was unimportant. Obviously it is of great import to those directly affected, and has repercussions for politics in the region. It is not, however, a significant enough event (unless a much bigger story develops from it) to warrant more than a brief mention in the history textbooks.

Quote:
That protection was not offered to the staff after multiple requests

Diplomatic security forces were not increased because Republicans blocked funding that was requested by the State Department specifically for enhancing security at diplomatic outposts in turbulent regions. Any Republican who attacks the administration for a lack of security at the Benghazi outpost is a liar and a snake.

Quote:
or that the WH lied through its teeth for weeks about what happened there?

The White House did not lie. The initial assessment by the intelligence community was that the attack was a spontaneous response to Innocence of Muslims. The White House and intelligence communities opened up multiple investigations into the cause for the attacks, and when the intelligence community changed its assessment based on a more complete understanding of what happened, the White House changed its standing as well.

So this is a pretty stupid line of attack. You're saying that the White House should ignore its own intelligence community and come up with snap judgments based on non-existent evidence.

Please don't come in here with this nonsense. It's really, really easy to refute, and it's just going to make you look bad when it gets thrown out. You should know better - and you probably do! - so why try it?


Thiago Cardozo wrote:
I think that what is NOT important is performance in debates...

Performance in debates is responsible, to varying degrees, for helping to determine the winner of the election. Romney's bounce from the first debate was significant.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Thiago Cardozo wrote:
What is not important about the Benghazi attack? That protection was not offered to the staff after multiple requests or that the WH lied through its teeth for weeks about what happened there?

I'm not sure

Requests for additional protection were denied. I'm not sure why that is a big deal. Experts in a field (terrorism, and security) reviewed the situation and came to the conclusion that additional protection was either not necessary or out of the budget. They proved wrong. Mistakes happen. And saying an extra dozen soldiers would have prevented the attack is wishful thinking. We may have even more dead soldiers on our hands instead.

The president has not lied. They said there was not evidence that this was an organized terrorist attack. There isn't. It was committed by an opportunistic terrorist group that used an unexpected protest as cover. They had been planning an attack, but there is no evidence that this was the attack they were planning (that I know of). As far as the request for more troops, is there any evidence this complaint made it up the chain of command to the president? Not everything can be reviewed by 1 man, and if this wasn't deemed important enough it wouldn't come to his desk.

I find it a bigger deal that the Republican charade to drag this out revealed classified CIA information on CNN.


Scott Betts wrote:
Quote:
That protection was not offered to the staff after multiple requests
Diplomatic security forces were not increased because Republicans blocked funding that was requested by the State Department specifically for enhancing security at diplomatic outposts in turbulent regions. Any Republican who attacks the administration for a lack of security at the Benghazi outpost is a liar and a snake.

It's also pretty clear that the extra protection requested would have been insufficient. They wanted a few more security people because they were concerned about exactly the same kind of anti-American sentiment that had nothing to do with the actual attacks.

I also particularly like that, in his eagerness to attack Obama, Rep. Issa basically outed the CIA on live TV.


thejeff wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Quote:
That protection was not offered to the staff after multiple requests
Diplomatic security forces were not increased because Republicans blocked funding that was requested by the State Department specifically for enhancing security at diplomatic outposts in turbulent regions. Any Republican who attacks the administration for a lack of security at the Benghazi outpost is a liar and a snake.

It's also pretty clear that the extra protection requested would have been insufficient. They wanted a few more security people because they were concerned about exactly the same kind of anti-American sentiment that had nothing to do with the actual attacks.

I also particularly like that, in his eagerness to attack Obama, Rep. Issa basically outed the CIA on live TV.

Yeah, that was classy as all hell.

Republicans: Compromising National Security in a Feeble Attempt to Score Bogus Political Points

Shadow Lodge

Thiago Cardozo wrote:
What is not important about the Benghazi attack? That protection was not offered to the staff after multiple requests

Ok, you make it sound like they had no protection. This simply isn't the case. They had ex special forces there guarding the place (thats why the casualties were as low as they are) and the host country has a responsibility to provide most of the security (so that its an embassy, not an army base)

Quote:
or that the WH lied through its teeth for weeks about what happened there?

If the white house had said that the protesters were a separate, unrelated group you'd be complaining about a smell test and how the white house didn't want to admit that the people hated us.


Scott Betts wrote:


Quote:
That protection was not offered to the staff after multiple requests
Diplomatic security forces were not increased because Republicans blocked funding that was requested by the State Department specifically for enhancing security at diplomatic outposts in turbulent regions. Any Republican who attacks the administration for a lack of security at the Benghazi outpost is a liar and a snake.

Who talked anything about Republicans? What about non-republicans? Are they liars and snakes as well?

Quote:
or that the WH lied through its teeth for weeks about what happened there?
Quote:

The White House did not lie. The initial assessment by the intelligence community was that the attack was a spontaneous response to Innocence of Muslims. The White House and intelligence communities opened up multiple investigations into the cause for the attacks, and when the intelligence community changed its assessment based on a more complete understanding of what happened, the White House changed its standing as well.

So this is a pretty stupid line of attack. You're saying that the White House should ignore its own intelligence community and come up with snap judgments based on non-existent evidence.

Please don't come in here with this nonsense. It's really, really easy to refute, and it's just going to make you look bad when it gets thrown out. You should know better - and you probably do! - so why try it?

I'm talking about this cutthroat republican take on WH response...(second section)

I'm talking about this...
and this

VP Biden: "we weren't told they wanted more security there. We did not know they wanted more security there."

So, there is that.


Just to be clear, the point is not that they refused to offer further security...in retrospect it is easy to claim that they should, but one cannot predict things easily like that. The major point is about the attempts to hide this info from the public.

The fact that republicans made it difficult for resources to be assigned to security in these places is of course extremely relevant and is something that must be ponted out, as many critics of the WH did.


Caineach wrote:
Thiago Cardozo wrote:
What is not important about the Benghazi attack? That protection was not offered to the staff after multiple requests or that the WH lied through its teeth for weeks about what happened there?

I'm not sure

Requests for additional protection were denied. I'm not sure why that is a big deal. Experts in a field (terrorism, and security) reviewed the situation and came to the conclusion that additional protection was either not necessary or out of the budget. They proved wrong. Mistakes happen. And saying an extra dozen soldiers would have prevented the attack is wishful thinking. We may have even more dead soldiers on our hands instead.

The president has not lied. They said there was not evidence that this was an organized terrorist attack. There isn't. It was committed by an opportunistic terrorist group that used an unexpected protest as cover. They had been planning an attack, but there is no evidence that this was the attack they were planning (that I know of). As far as the request for more troops, is there any evidence this complaint made it up the chain of command to the president? Not everything can be reviewed by 1 man, and if this wasn't deemed important enough it wouldn't come to his desk.

I find it a bigger deal that the Republican charade to drag this out revealed classified CIA information on CNN.

This is the point, you see? Apparently there was no protest outside the embassy before the attack! There was a protest in CAIRO! Search for Tapper's grilling of the spokesman from the WH and you'll se how he fumbles with this...


Scott Betts wrote:
Thiago Cardozo wrote:
I think that what is NOT important is performance in debates...
Performance in debates is responsible, to varying degrees, for helping to determine the winner of the election. Romney's bounce from the first debate was significant.

Of course it is important for the election results...However, discussing "who won" does not matter, really.

Really grim stuff is happening over there (not sure if you checked the link, but you should) and you guys are worried about the performance on the debate. These are things that should be considered important, yet people ignore them. I cannot understand this.


Obama wasted 4 years of my life, and I'm not going to let him waste another 4 years with his lies and broken promises. He shall not get my vote for he had his chance and he blew it.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
SuperSlayer wrote:
Obama wasted 4 years of my life, and I'm not going to let him waste another 4 years with his lies and broken promises. He shall not get my vote for he had his chance and he blew it.

How exactly did he waste 4 years of your life, and how will one of the other candidates be different?


Thiago Cardozo wrote:
Who talked anything about Republicans?

You did, when you repeated a line of attack started by and perpetuated almost exclusively by Republicans.

Quote:
What about non-republicans? Are they liars and snakes as well?

They can be, if the label fits.

Quote:
I'm talking about this cutthroat republican take on WH response...(second section)

Yes, because an administration having an unclear message across multiple channels of information is exactly the same as them lying.

I'm not telling you they were consistent. It's clear that they were not. But you're accusing them of lying as though they had some larger agenda that they were trying to play up. You don't have any evidence of that. In fact, you have pretty clear evidence of the opposite! If there was in fact some sort of crazy conspiracy cover-up going on, they would have locked down how information was disseminated rather than let five different officials give their own take on what happened.

So I'm not really sure why you seem to want there to be some weird lie of ambiguous motivation going on, but it's pretty clear that there isn't. And the only people who are actively pushing the idea that the White House lied about what happened are the ones trying to score bogus political points. Let's not forget Romney's press conference the night of the attack, hm?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperSlayer wrote:
Obama wasted 4 years of my life, and I'm not going to let him waste another 4 years with his lies and broken promises. He shall not get my vote for he had his chance and he blew it.

I'm sorry that you wasted the last 4 years of your life, but Obama really didn't have anything to do with that.

I'm actually kind of relieved that the sort of person who would vote against Obama is the same sort of person who has no problem blaming the President of the United States for wasting 4 years of their life. At least they are consistently detached from reality.

"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: Oh Lord, make my enemies ridiculous. And God granted it."


Scott Betts wrote:

So I'm not really sure why you seem to want there to be some weird lie of ambiguous motivation going on, but it's pretty clear that there isn't. And the only people who are actively pushing the idea that the White House lied about what happened are the ones trying to score bogus political points. Let's not forget Romney's press conference the night of the attack, hm?

It's all over Fox right now, that's why. They've built their brand the last 4 years playing the "Kenyan communist Muslim who went to a madrassa and never showed his birth certificate" card.

If there's any way to get gullible people to buy the notion that Obama's a sinister anti-American, it goes front and center for days or weeks. I know what Thiago pays attention to by his talking points. Yawn.


The problem was when he was elected he was propped up so high by the majoroity of the media and was considered to be the savior of the free world. Everything was Bush's fault. He then got a majority of all 3 branch's of government for 2 years. He got a huge stimulus that stopped the bleeding but was really only a temporary fix. He said before elected the national debt was unpatriotic. MSNBC couldnt stop drooling over him. He was depicted with a Halo on his head on a magazine cover.Compared to Lincoln and Reagan and other great presidents.

He made outrageous promises and failed to keep a lot of them-unemployment,closing of prison, deficit, bringing people together. He said if he didnt come through on these promises he wouldnt run for a second term-his words not fox news. He's needed Bill clinto several times to help him including the DNC in which clinton had to come out and say he couldnt have done better (i disagree). His defenders say its not his fault just blame congress and fox news for the lies they speak.

I will compare him to great athletes that promise mutiple championships and then struggle/fail to achieve them.

Problem now is he had one of the worst debates performances in history and Romney had a great performance. Romney was dead in the water and even loyal followers (including myself) were thinking the race over.

Some would say thats part of why the last 4 years were wasted. Some would say hillary would have been a better choice.

As a republican/independent i was scared he would dump biden and put her on the ticket. I truly believe it would have been a game changer and this conversation would not be taking place.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

The US's credit isn't maxed out. That's their story.

US Treasury's are still going for record low interest rates. For all the sturm and drang about the deficit and about one rating agency dropping our rating a notch (while the Republicans were threatening immediate default), the lenders are offering us free money. Current rates are below inflation.

There was no threat of default by Republicans. The Democrats and much of the media were pretending that not raising the debt limit would lead to a default, but that was false.

Not raising the debt limit means not borrowing more money. Not borrowing more money done not equal defaulting on debt.

If you max out your credit cards and don't get anymore credit for borrowing that is not the same thing as stopping your monthly payments to those cards.

I explained this all before here and here. The reality is that raising the debt ceiling actually increased the likelihood of a US government default at some point in the future.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Thiago Cardozo wrote:
What is not important about the Benghazi attack? That protection was not offered to the staff after multiple requests
Ok, you make it sound like they had no protection. This simply isn't the case. They had ex special forces there guarding the place (thats why the casualties were as low as they are) and the host country has a responsibility to provide most of the security (so that its an embassy, not an army base)

You're right, I was a little too forceful on my statement there, check my other posts to see what I really mean to point out.

Quote:
or that the WH lied through its teeth for weeks about what happened there?
Quote:
If the white house had said that the protesters were a separate, unrelated group you'd be complaining about a smell test and how the white house didn't want to admit that the people hated us.

Now you're just making a baseless, ad hominem, attack.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed a post. I realize it can be hard in political threads, but try to refrain from calling each other crazy.


Scott Betts wrote:
Thiago Cardozo wrote:
Who talked anything about Republicans?
You did, when you repeated a line of attack started by and perpetuated almost exclusively by Republicans.

Yeah, nice try sticking "republican" to me. If you payed any attention to my comments in these political forums you'd know that my stance is antithetical to the republican agenda in a profound way. One of my gripes with Obama is exactly how well he has been able to advance the republican agenda in foreign policy. The fact that republicans made this "line of attack" is nor relevant to the question of whether there is any degree of veracity to it. But you know that, so why attempt to do such a thing?

Quote:
Quote:
What about non-republicans? Are they liars and snakes as well?
They can be, if the label fits.

Of course they can. What I'm claiming is that the label fits perfectly on Obama. This is just one example.

Quote:
Quote:
I'm talking about this cutthroat republican take on WH response...(second section)
Yes, because an administration having an unclear message across multiple channels of information is exactly the same as them lying.

Have you read the other links? Haven't you heard Joe Biden, after the fact, stating something which is precisely the opposite of what is now known?

Quote:
I'm not telling you they were consistent. It's clear that they were not. But you're accusing them of lying as though they had some larger agenda that they were trying to play up. You don't have any evidence of that. In fact, you have pretty clear evidence of the opposite! If there was in fact some sort of crazy conspiracy cover-up going on, they would have locked down how information was disseminated rather than let five different officials give their own take on what happened.

It is not a "conspiracy". It is just an attempt to obfuscate stuff which they probably calculate could be used against them in the elections. Is this so crazy that you're trying to frame me as some Dan Brown-esque character?

And this is what? A defense by incompetence? "They couldn't be possibly trying to hide it, because they failed at it so miserably?"

Quote:

So I'm not really sure why you seem to want there to be some weird lie of ambiguous motivation going on, but it's pretty clear that there isn't. And the only people who are actively pushing the idea that the White House lied about what happened are the ones trying to score bogus political points. Let's not forget Romney's press conference the night of the attack, hm?

Romney is a ridiculous flip-flopper, and I don't see how this is relevant to the point at hand. The WH has been lying about its foreign policy since forever, but you write as if it is some far-fetched twilight zone scenario.


NPC Dave wrote:
thejeff wrote:

The US's credit isn't maxed out. That's their story.

US Treasury's are still going for record low interest rates. For all the sturm and drang about the deficit and about one rating agency dropping our rating a notch (while the Republicans were threatening immediate default), the lenders are offering us free money. Current rates are below inflation.

There was no threat of default by Republicans. The Democrats and much of the media were pretending that not raising the debt limit would lead to a default, but that was false.

Not raising the debt limit means not borrowing more money. Not borrowing more money done not equal defaulting on debt.

If you max out your credit cards and don't get anymore credit for borrowing that is not the same thing as stopping your monthly payments to those cards.

I explained this all before here and here. The reality is that raising the debt ceiling actually increased the likelihood of a US government default at some point in the future.

The debt ceiling debate is not the budget debate. The debt ceiling vote is about borrowing money that congress has already spent. If the debt calling hadn't been raised, the government would have had to shut down for the remainder of the year because it was literally out of money.

There is no equivalent analogy in household finances. You don't drive the new car home and then call the bank to talk about financing.

Also, our credit wasn't downgraded because we've borrowed too much, it was downgraded because we talked about either defaulting or shutting down the government.


wicked cool wrote:
He got a huge stimulus that stopped the bleeding but was really only a temporary fix.

Yeah, pretty much. Good to see you admit that it stopped the bleeding, despite all the Republican opposition to it. The problem with the stimulus is that it was too small and too weighted towards tax cuts. Which it was largely as a gesture towards that bipartisanship you wanted and to secure the Republican votes needed for cloture in the Senate. (Remember, while he had Senate Majority, he only had a filibuster proof majority for a few months and even that required wheeling Byrd in from his deathbed. Republicans took full advantage of that.)

The current trouble with the economy, at least in the short run, is not that we've spent too much, but that we've cut too much. Largely at the state and local levels, due to the lack of federal support when the stimulus money ran out. Economic projections suggest that had we not cut government jobs, something pretty much unprecedented in a recession, unemployment would be at least a point lower. Thank you, deficit hawks.

wicked cool wrote:
Some would say thats part of why the last 4 years were wasted. Some would say hillary would have been a better choice.

And if Hillary had been chosen, we'd have a slightly different set of problems and some would be saying that Obama would have been a better choice. Yay.

wicked cool wrote:
As a republican/independent i was scared he would dump biden and put her on the ticket. I truly believe it would have been a game changer and this conversation would not be taking place.

But then we wouldn't have got to watch Biden trounce Ryan last night.

Spare me your concern. Dumping Biden would have been hailed as a desperation move and a sign of weakness. There's no need to rehash the 2008 primary wars. Hilary's doing a good job as SoS and they seem to have a good working relationship. If she wants to run in 2016, she can.


wicked cool wrote:
The problem was when he was elected he was propped up so high by the majoroity of the media and was considered to be the savior of the free world.

By whom?

Or is that just a ridiculous right-wing exaggeration of his popularity - popularity, mind you, that was directly fueled by how wildly unpopular the Republican President Bush was - that exists to serve as a straw-man later down the road?

Quote:
Everything was Bush's fault.

Not everything, but a lot.

Quote:
He then got a majority of all 3 branch's of government for 2 years.

He got the majority of the Judicial branch, did he?

Gotta love Republicans who think they know exactly what's happening in politics, while at the same time thinking that the three branches of the U.S. government are the Executive, the House of Representatives, and the Senate.

Quote:
He got a huge stimulus that stopped the bleeding but was really only a temporary fix.

And it appears to be working out pretty well for us in terms of helping us turn the economy around.

Quote:
He said before elected the national debt was unpatriotic. MSNBC couldnt stop drooling over him. He was depicted with a Halo on his head on a magazine cover.

That was this year, not during the run-up to his election. And it wasn't really a halo in the traditional sense. It was rainbow-colored, and used alongside the caption "The First Gay President". More of a gay-lo, really.

Quote:
Compared to Lincoln and Reagan and other great presidents.

And he should be.

Quote:
He made outrageous promises and failed to keep a lot of them-unemployment,closing of prison, deficit, bringing people together. He said if he didnt come through on these promises he wouldnt run for a second term-his words not fox news. He's needed Bill clinto several times to help him including the DNC in which clinton had to come out and say he couldnt have done better (i disagree). His defenders say its not his fault just blame congress and fox news for the lies they speak.

You can go look at the promises Obama has kept versus the ones he has not. They're right here.

Quote:

I will compare him to great athletes that promise mutiple championships and then struggle/fail to achieve them.

Problem now is he had one of the worst debates performances in history and Romney had a great performance. Romney was dead in the water and even loyal followers (including myself) were thinking the race over.

Oh good. You certainly seemed like a run-of-the-mill Republican, but I couldn't be sure.

Quote:
Some would say thats part of why the last 4 years were wasted. Some would say hillary would have been a better choice.

I can't speak to whether Secretary of State Clinton would have been a better choice. But as far as wasting the last four years, that's pretty obviously not the case (obvious, that is, unless you're someone like SuperSlayer).

Quote:
As a republican/independent i was scared he would dump biden and put her on the ticket. I truly believe it would have been a game changer and this conversation would not be taking place.

Right about now, we're actually pretty stoked to have Biden on our team.

651 to 700 of 810 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Obama deserves a second term All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.