Suppose we just go on printing and spending money without 'obstructionism' as you say. At what point do you think the downgrade would have happened? Ever?
VA--Save Our Country!!!!
- Thread starter BGI User 348
- Start date
It shouldn't have happened at all. The S&P downgrading was symbolic. It can across as scornful, political, and unnessary (My Opinion). That said....
Even the notion of defaulting on debt obligations or missing debt payments to fix the budget is the very example of "cutting off your nose to spite your face." Does it make sense to fight over past policy, policy thats spent...gone? Focus and budget reductions and tax revevue...in the future!
Even the notion of defaulting on debt obligations or missing debt payments to fix the budget is the very example of "cutting off your nose to spite your face." Does it make sense to fight over past policy, policy thats spent...gone? Focus and budget reductions and tax revevue...in the future!
NY, again, the debate was not about, except on one side, and should not have been about default, it should have been and should be about spending, we would have made our payments on the debt, unlike obama did to GM bondholders, nice move. the only people making that "notion" were dems. no one but dems were crying the debt payments. they were the ones making it so political and crying wolf. if we did not raise the debt ceiling, we would have made payments to bondholders and we would have had to cut spending elsewhere which IS WHAT WE SHOULD DO!! you are living in a dreamworld if you don't understand why our rating was cut and it was hardly a cut, we are or are close to junk. we are a financial mess going down and to think we should have a AAA rating is just silly. PS: NY, obstructionism is on both sides, not one side, dems want raise taxes and will die if they do not, gop wants to cut spending, which is right, where is our problem? you got it, spending so let's go after that, not OBSTRUCT going after spending with some bogus, tax the rich scheme which will not help reduce the deficit.
This post was edited on 11/8 1:06 PM by WebSpinner
This post was edited on 11/8 1:06 PM by WebSpinner
have noticed you do not respond to any specific points. guess since i am not chris matthews or dan rather, you have not heard any other views on these subjects. this is a two-way street not one-way and you have to come to grips with reality.
Oh sorry...responses to your points...ok let me see.
Web, again, the auto bailout was the fault of the GOP, and not just the republicans, but the other party, the right party, but not "right" politically. debt payments are made expect the congress won't. reduce budget, fiscal cliff, makes sense, obama was the reason for the season. if you think we aren't at the end of days, you needs to check a mayan calendar, bond ratings are junk, dems are obstructing, dem bones, which is right, what will congress do, where is our problem, who's on first, what's for dinner. Now wake up out our stupor and agree with me
That's the point. We kicked the can and now we're staring down the barrel of Sequestration.
Will we be able to get compromise or will we kick the can or will we get Sequestration? Will the President actually lead?
It's going to be an interesting 45 days.
My guess is the high earners move to other states with more favorable tax rates and and it ends up being revenue neutral and Gerry Brown or his successor will need more money for schools again before long.
The high earners from deeply blue California will continue to move to other more tax-favorable (formerly Red States) nearby.
This has already happened in Maryland, where the state raised taxes on the "wealthy" to increase revenues only to see the "wealthy" leave the state in droves, thus driving revenue down. Another case of the Law of Unexpected Consequences."
http://www.americanlegislator.org/2012/07/taxpayers-flee-maryland/
http://washingtonexaminer.com/examiner-local-editorial-marylander-taxpayers-head-for-the-hills-and-the-shore/article/2501389#.UJwpMOS5Pj4
The high earners from deeply blue California will continue to move to other more tax-favorable (formerly Red States) nearby.
This has already happened in Maryland, where the state raised taxes on the "wealthy" to increase revenues only to see the "wealthy" leave the state in droves, thus driving revenue down. Another case of the Law of Unexpected Consequences."
http://www.americanlegislator.org/2012/07/taxpayers-flee-maryland/
http://washingtonexaminer.com/examiner-local-editorial-marylander-taxpayers-head-for-the-hills-and-the-shore/article/2501389#.UJwpMOS5Pj4
am not a party guy, will vote for any common sense individual. not blaming any one entity for any or all of it, both parties got us here. you seem to think there is only one party obstructing, to much cnn, abc, cbs, nbc, msnbc, etc. etc. obama did default on the GM bondholders, no question of that and did not solve their core problems with the bailout, kicked it down the road. now will he be strong enough to give as well as take as we come to the cliff. actually feel it would be better to go off the cliff, think that is the only way we will make meaningful cuts as opposed to just saying we are going to cut something over the next ten years, let's raise the debt ceiling and move on and make no mistake, that is what will happen. if you wish to put your head in the sand on this issue, fine, join millions of others who will also and just try and blame others who don't wish to play your game the way you want it played. not sure if you are a financial guy, probably not or an occupier but basic math and economics tells us all, we have take action now not 10 years from now and that action should not be to raise the debt ceiling and move on which is what we have been doing for decades.
Thanks for posting those links and proving my point.
At some point, someone who thinks we can tax our way out of our troubles is going to have to explain to me why the Federal Government's 3 highest years of tax collections on record (inflation adjusted) were the last 3 years of the Bush 43 Administration.
Moliva and Spinner, there are some problems with the "facts" that you cite, but rather than continue this debate further, since the election is decided, I suggest you read the following article from the notoriously conservative Economist. I think it's a pretty even-handed analysis of both leaders, yet they still chose Obama as the best candidate based largely on his economic policies.
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21565623-america-could-do-better-barack-obama-sadly-mitt-romney-does-not-fit-bill-which-one
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21565623-america-could-do-better-barack-obama-sadly-mitt-romney-does-not-fit-bill-which-one
everyone has an opinion, me too. not saying romney would have solved our financial woes, think we are too far gone but know that the current direction is only going to exacerbate an already tenuous situation. when someones' solution is to raise taxes on the "so-called" rich, feel, personally, we are in trouble. hope they can work it out but bet the house it will be cuts down the road and raise the debt ceiling and that is the same old, same old. not saying it would have been different under romney because both parties got us into this mess and both wish to continue big government.
OK, i'll stand down because The Economist, a generally USA hating UK publications endorsed Obama.
Did you actually read the endorsement? It generally stated that the President didn't make the economy and better nor made it worse in his first term. A real ringing endorsement.
What 'facts' stated on this string would The Economist's endorsement refute?
Did you actually read the endorsement? It generally stated that the President didn't make the economy and better nor made it worse in his first term. A real ringing endorsement.
What 'facts' stated on this string would The Economist's endorsement refute?
I really shouldn't weigh into this conversation, but there are lots of things that I shouldn't do and then do. My main observation from this election was the importance of facts.
You had a massive amount of polling data done this election that clearly and conclusively showed Obama in a strong position to take the electoral college. Despite this data, you had certain "media" outlets out there continually driving the narrative that it was neck and neck and other media outlets who were very brazen in their statements that Romney was going to win (i.e. your Fox's, Hannity, Rush, Redstate of the world).
You had outlets like Fox attack the pollsters as biased or put out suppossed facts about the polls that were just untrue (the probably biggest one of them being that the pollsters were oversampling Democrats). Pollsters don't sample party identification, they sample who you are voting for and then ask you your party ID.
Another big position put out was that Romney was winning independents big and thus was going to win the election because of this. Again, all these media sources had to do was do some basic fact checking that most of your tea party folks self identified as Independent voters, not as Republicans, which was why the party ID figures appears so skewed in the samples and also explained why Romney won the Independent vote.
So my observation is why are people so quick to flock back to these same media sources who but a week ago put out quite deliberating misleading and false information on polls and the direction of the race. If these "media" sources will lie or exaggerate something so easily fact checked (by the election) as polls, what other things will they distort to their viewers that is not so easily fact checkable.
I'm not disputing that some of the mainstream media's coverage may have some bias in it (althought the Pew study concluded that the Romney and Obama received roughly the same amount of positive and negative news media coverage)). But instead it is just easier to say the Pew study was biased so we can continue to live in our own little self created worlds of facts.
Call me crazy but if the government puts out a report, I tend to treat that report as truthful. I expect MSNBC to skew that to the left, I expect Fox to skew it to the right, and I expect the CNN, ABC, PBS of the world to give me a general accurate reading of it. Problem as I see it, is that those that listen to Fox view there coverage as accurate and the rest of the coverage as a bunch of liberal hogwash. Hard to have a discussion if that is the starting point.
You had a massive amount of polling data done this election that clearly and conclusively showed Obama in a strong position to take the electoral college. Despite this data, you had certain "media" outlets out there continually driving the narrative that it was neck and neck and other media outlets who were very brazen in their statements that Romney was going to win (i.e. your Fox's, Hannity, Rush, Redstate of the world).
You had outlets like Fox attack the pollsters as biased or put out suppossed facts about the polls that were just untrue (the probably biggest one of them being that the pollsters were oversampling Democrats). Pollsters don't sample party identification, they sample who you are voting for and then ask you your party ID.
Another big position put out was that Romney was winning independents big and thus was going to win the election because of this. Again, all these media sources had to do was do some basic fact checking that most of your tea party folks self identified as Independent voters, not as Republicans, which was why the party ID figures appears so skewed in the samples and also explained why Romney won the Independent vote.
So my observation is why are people so quick to flock back to these same media sources who but a week ago put out quite deliberating misleading and false information on polls and the direction of the race. If these "media" sources will lie or exaggerate something so easily fact checked (by the election) as polls, what other things will they distort to their viewers that is not so easily fact checkable.
I'm not disputing that some of the mainstream media's coverage may have some bias in it (althought the Pew study concluded that the Romney and Obama received roughly the same amount of positive and negative news media coverage)). But instead it is just easier to say the Pew study was biased so we can continue to live in our own little self created worlds of facts.
Call me crazy but if the government puts out a report, I tend to treat that report as truthful. I expect MSNBC to skew that to the left, I expect Fox to skew it to the right, and I expect the CNN, ABC, PBS of the world to give me a general accurate reading of it. Problem as I see it, is that those that listen to Fox view there coverage as accurate and the rest of the coverage as a bunch of liberal hogwash. Hard to have a discussion if that is the starting point.
97, just a few things...
1- I found the polls pretty maddening and caused me to do some self-reflection when it was over with.
2- Have we simply abandoned news media that incorrectly polled elections in the past? It doesn't seem to be the case. If we had, what news media would still be in business?
3- The attached link from the Daily Beast indicates the media was about 25 percent more likely to show a negative story on the Romney Campaign than it was on Obama Campaign. I can't be convinced that's not statistically significant.
4- What instances do you see on this thread where people (presumably Spinner or I) are 'running back to Fox' post election like you suggest?
I'm willing to be proven incorrect. As you can see if you scroll back, I owned up to it on Election Night.
This post was edited on 11/13 5:01 PM by MolivaManiac
Candidate Coverage
i watch no network or cable news on tv. i have been around long enough to see how washington works, that is all.
Mo, First off, I wasn't singling out you or anyone with my comments, but to respond to yours.
1. The polls were pretty much dead on. Yes, there were some bad polls out there but most of those polls were partisan in nature. Nate Silver and has 538 blog got the most attention for dissecting polls but there were several other non partisan sites out there that did a great job at analysing polling data.
2. Most of the MSM did a poor job of analysing polling data. Obviously, places like Fox were really out in left field on their analysis but even CNN and some of the major networks did some cherry picking of polls to promote the idea that was a dead heat. I don't think they did this as bias of any sort, I think they did this to drive their own ratings and actually for them to continue to fight the charge that they are not biased. Had CNN been out there consistenly saying Obama was winning well than the right would have hammered them on being biased, as it was they will still get hammered for being biased.
3. I'll have to find the Pew link again because it did a good job of analysing the news media. The Romney campaign got a lot more negative coverage in late August and September but this corresponded to the 47% video becoming public and their ill advised comments on the Benghazi situation. Similarliy after the first debate when Romney trounced Obama, the study found a surge in positive stories about Romney and some more negative stories about Obama. My point is sometimes the media drives a narrative but more often the candidate and campaign events drive the narrative. If Romney had more negative media well I think that is less evidence of media bias and more evidence of him and his campaign making poor decisions which the media then reported on.
4. It was a general statement not directed at you, Spinner, or anyone on herem but I bet if we look at Fox's ratings over the next couple months they will be just as they were before the election. My issue with Fox is that it isn't media, it is news entertainment network that drives an obvious Republican narrative which far too many people take as news. The network news media gets labeled as having a liberal bias but they are no where close to driving a blatant partisan narrative like Fox.
This is an interesting conversation and why I put it out there hoping would get intelligent feedback, my intention was not to attack anyone though.
1. The polls were pretty much dead on. Yes, there were some bad polls out there but most of those polls were partisan in nature. Nate Silver and has 538 blog got the most attention for dissecting polls but there were several other non partisan sites out there that did a great job at analysing polling data.
2. Most of the MSM did a poor job of analysing polling data. Obviously, places like Fox were really out in left field on their analysis but even CNN and some of the major networks did some cherry picking of polls to promote the idea that was a dead heat. I don't think they did this as bias of any sort, I think they did this to drive their own ratings and actually for them to continue to fight the charge that they are not biased. Had CNN been out there consistenly saying Obama was winning well than the right would have hammered them on being biased, as it was they will still get hammered for being biased.
3. I'll have to find the Pew link again because it did a good job of analysing the news media. The Romney campaign got a lot more negative coverage in late August and September but this corresponded to the 47% video becoming public and their ill advised comments on the Benghazi situation. Similarliy after the first debate when Romney trounced Obama, the study found a surge in positive stories about Romney and some more negative stories about Obama. My point is sometimes the media drives a narrative but more often the candidate and campaign events drive the narrative. If Romney had more negative media well I think that is less evidence of media bias and more evidence of him and his campaign making poor decisions which the media then reported on.
4. It was a general statement not directed at you, Spinner, or anyone on herem but I bet if we look at Fox's ratings over the next couple months they will be just as they were before the election. My issue with Fox is that it isn't media, it is news entertainment network that drives an obvious Republican narrative which far too many people take as news. The network news media gets labeled as having a liberal bias but they are no where close to driving a blatant partisan narrative like Fox.
This is an interesting conversation and why I put it out there hoping would get intelligent feedback, my intention was not to attack anyone though.
good points 97 but dan rather and what he did is an excellent representation of how the major network news outlets are staffed and how they feel and it has been that way for a very long time. read the book by the ex-cbs news guy, bernie goldberg, about the networks and you will obtain a truer picture of how bad it really is and how fake, hypocritical, they truly are.
Spinner, yes the Dan Rather hit piece on W back in 04 was pretty bad. But I do believe the media uncovered that piece pretty quickly and Dan Rather was out of a job with CBS after it was found out. As much as journalists try to be objective every one of them certainly has their own personal political viewpoints. I suspect that more of them than not probably lean more to the left than the right. However, I don't think it is fair to paint all mainstream media as having a liberal bias and to not be trusted as the conservative media has done. It creates a very cynical view on some of our founding principles.
97, what is your opinion of the media's (lack of) coverage and pretty clear protection of Obama on Benghazi?
Yesterday, Obama admitted that the White House put Susan Rice out there on the Sunday Talk Shows several days after 9/11/12 where her talking point was that the amateur film maker caused the middle east unrest.
How do you think that would have worked with the media under Bush 43?
Yesterday, Obama admitted that the White House put Susan Rice out there on the Sunday Talk Shows several days after 9/11/12 where her talking point was that the amateur film maker caused the middle east unrest.
How do you think that would have worked with the media under Bush 43?
On Benghazi, my thought is yes there clearly was some poor communication from the White House regarding the causes of Benghazi attack. However, also believe that in an attack like that if you are the White House you had better have a firm intelligence briefing and understanding of the situation before you go public making accusations as to who attacked our embassy, so I think they were well within their SOP to not immediately come out assigning blame and be immediately frank with the public. It was an attack on our country and their are lots of geopolitcial reasons that could explain why they didn't immediately call it an attack, including waiting for firm intelligence briefings to verify who attacked us, to ensuring that we didn't inflame the situation further or possibly put other oversees personnel at risk by immediately going into attack mode.
Obvioiusly, we had a security lapse and really think that any administration 2 months away from a Presidential election is not going to come out and say, yeah our state department screwed the pooch on security in Libya. That would be political suicide.
With that said, I didn't and still don't understand the uproar from the right on the situation. Yes, the administration misassigned the blame as to the cause of the attack to the public in the early days after the attack. That happens all of the time with a variety of issues on both sides and the other side has to issue a clarification or admit earlier statments were inaccurate. I don't think that was some big impeachable offense that the right seemed to think it was. Within 2 weeks they cleared up any confusion on the cause of the attack. So, I guess I don't see how the media was protecting him other than not calling enough attention to some early misstatements on the cause of the attack.
Now would have that played differently under W in the media. Perhaps, I don't know. I know liberals were pretty ticked that the media didn't shine more of a light on the Iraq War prior to the 04 election. I think both sides of the aisle try to drive political narratives all of the time to create scandals that will tarnish the image of the other side. Some get media traction, most don't.
Obvioiusly, we had a security lapse and really think that any administration 2 months away from a Presidential election is not going to come out and say, yeah our state department screwed the pooch on security in Libya. That would be political suicide.
With that said, I didn't and still don't understand the uproar from the right on the situation. Yes, the administration misassigned the blame as to the cause of the attack to the public in the early days after the attack. That happens all of the time with a variety of issues on both sides and the other side has to issue a clarification or admit earlier statments were inaccurate. I don't think that was some big impeachable offense that the right seemed to think it was. Within 2 weeks they cleared up any confusion on the cause of the attack. So, I guess I don't see how the media was protecting him other than not calling enough attention to some early misstatements on the cause of the attack.
Now would have that played differently under W in the media. Perhaps, I don't know. I know liberals were pretty ticked that the media didn't shine more of a light on the Iraq War prior to the 04 election. I think both sides of the aisle try to drive political narratives all of the time to create scandals that will tarnish the image of the other side. Some get media traction, most don't.
hilarious, bush was skewered by the press over the wars and dems in the house and senate railed, demonstrators cried in the streets. funny how all of that evaporated when we got a dem prez. the press has shielded, protected this guy from day one and he had no vetting from the press when he appeared on the scene four years ago. when palin was nominated, hundreds of journalists descended on alaska to find out, investigate her, that did not happen with obama, he got a free pass which has extended into his presidency. has been that way for my lifetime, look at kennedy and nixon. the kennedys made nixon look like a choir boy yet the press never went after him, he was good friends with ben bradlee who went after nixon with a vengeance. not saying nixon did not deserve it but the kennedys were much worse, the press knew it and they looked the other way on bags full of money, buying the election, the hookers, the STDs, the entire novel. there is a huge difference as to how presidents of the two parties have been and are covered and treated.
There should be uproar from everyone over the situation. We had a consulate that requested more security over a period of months and was denied. We had an ambassador sodomized and killed - first one in 30 years - which is an act of war. We had military assets in the region that could have helped and they were told to stand down.
We knew it was a terrorist attack within 24 hours of it happening but still carried out the false front of the filmmaker in California for weeks afterward.
I don't know if the President knew about this stuff or not. If his subordinates didn't think chain of command required him to be notified, it's probably more damning than if he did know about it.
It's been 60 days. Any word on when the 'investigation' will be over with? Or are we just supposed to stay amused by the Sexcapades at the CIA until we've forgotten about it?
This deal should really piss off all Americans.
This post was edited on 11/15 3:07 PM by MolivaManiac
By the way, would you surmise that the media might 'put their mouth where their money is?'
Donations Tilt to Obama
Donations Tilt to Obama
Spinnner, I will have to take your word on the Kennedy/Nixon thing that was a bit before my time.
As for Obama and Palin, Obama was a U.S. Senator for 4 years prior to running so there was a lot out there on the guy. Palin, while Govenor of Alaska, was basically unknown when she was selected VP. And when the press did some digging they found out some pretty crazy stuff that she said and did in the past, so when that happens, of course they are going to dig more. When someone who is running for V.P. goes on network TV and lists as one of their foreign policy credentials as being able to see Russia from their backyard and can't name the newspapers that they read on a daily basis, of course the press is going to go crazy on that.
I didn't see a massive dig on Paul Ryan this year, again because he was a known quantity. I think a lot of the time there are more straight forward answers to why the press covers certainly stories in certain ways than it being some vast conspricacy against Republicans. Shoot, if Obama had some big skeleton in his closet don't you think Fox, Rush, Breibart would have uncovered it by now and it would be out there.
Did Clinton not get the full press over the Lewinsky affair? And Bush should have been skewered over Iraq, think there is a bit of difference in scale between Iraq and Benghazi.
And again, Spinner/Mo. I do appreciate the back and forth. Different viewpoints for sure and I am not totally invalidating where you are coming from. Hope you can see my side as well
As for Obama and Palin, Obama was a U.S. Senator for 4 years prior to running so there was a lot out there on the guy. Palin, while Govenor of Alaska, was basically unknown when she was selected VP. And when the press did some digging they found out some pretty crazy stuff that she said and did in the past, so when that happens, of course they are going to dig more. When someone who is running for V.P. goes on network TV and lists as one of their foreign policy credentials as being able to see Russia from their backyard and can't name the newspapers that they read on a daily basis, of course the press is going to go crazy on that.
I didn't see a massive dig on Paul Ryan this year, again because he was a known quantity. I think a lot of the time there are more straight forward answers to why the press covers certainly stories in certain ways than it being some vast conspricacy against Republicans. Shoot, if Obama had some big skeleton in his closet don't you think Fox, Rush, Breibart would have uncovered it by now and it would be out there.
Did Clinton not get the full press over the Lewinsky affair? And Bush should have been skewered over Iraq, think there is a bit of difference in scale between Iraq and Benghazi.
And again, Spinner/Mo. I do appreciate the back and forth. Different viewpoints for sure and I am not totally invalidating where you are coming from. Hope you can see my side as well
the clintons were invited to 60 minutes to try and put to rest the womanizing and sat there and just lied their butts off to softball questions. remember one female reporter saying she would give clinton a bj because he was pro abortion. they had to cover the lewinski affair finally and quite frankly am sure that most presidents (broad brush) did their things with women but never heard of any of them doing it in the oval office, that was just rude. kennedy had a swimming pool put in and that is where the hookers lived while jackie was out of town. obama has sealed college records, had no birth certificate for two years into office and no press people did any research other than to read his books which his own ghost writer admitted were full of made up stories. they did not know him them, we do not know him now. i read stories all summer about paul ryan and marathon times, trivial things, which is OK, but i don't know squat about obama to this day. he was given a pass, period. all i would ask is to be fair, treat all candidates the same, do some vetting, don't accept whatever they say as being gospel which they did with clinton and the obama books which was their investigative work.
Mo,
Here is the transcript of what Rice said on CBS morning show you referenced on the Sunday after the incident.
SUSAN RICE...we'll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions. But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy?
BOB SCHIEFFER: Mm-Hm.
SUSAN RICE: ?sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that?in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.
BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?
SUSAN RICE: We do not-- we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you agree or disagree with him that al Qaeda had some part in this?
SUSAN RICE: Well, we'll have to find out that out. I mean I think it's clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we'll have to determine.
So, to me the contention that the administration and Susan Rice were blaming the attack on the video are pretty darn inaccurate.
Here is the transcript of what Rice said on CBS morning show you referenced on the Sunday after the incident.
SUSAN RICE...we'll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions. But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy?
BOB SCHIEFFER: Mm-Hm.
SUSAN RICE: ?sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that?in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.
BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?
SUSAN RICE: We do not-- we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you agree or disagree with him that al Qaeda had some part in this?
SUSAN RICE: Well, we'll have to find out that out. I mean I think it's clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we'll have to determine.
So, to me the contention that the administration and Susan Rice were blaming the attack on the video are pretty darn inaccurate.
certainly that is all that was heard in the press and our apology for the video during the first days after the incident. think we all have to provide time to determine what did happen but in the times we live in, the press wants to know now not later. heck, the guy who made the video remains in jail, at least the last time i heard anything about him and actors in it were crying foul that they did not know what they were doing. the video was the issue, not just on fox or talk radio but in the mainstream press.
the deal about obama's college records was a ploy by one of his classmates in college who was attempting to say if the dems want more of romney's tax returns than he had to release, by law, then obama should release his college records. he was saying this because he was in the same class as obama, the same major as obama and though he knew everyone else in his major by name or sight, had never heard of him, seen him in a class or met him and just wondered who he was. of course at that time obama was utilizing another name, barry something or other. have we ever had a prez who changed his name midway through his life, may have but do not remember it.
there are laws spelling out what must be released and romney met those but the dems wanted him to do more and made a big deal of it, just smoke and politics but it became a big deal when it should not have, he met the requirements of the law. it is a dirty business and guess egos drive those who wish to participate in it.
This post was edited on 11/18 7:10 PM by WebSpinner
the deal about obama's college records was a ploy by one of his classmates in college who was attempting to say if the dems want more of romney's tax returns than he had to release, by law, then obama should release his college records. he was saying this because he was in the same class as obama, the same major as obama and though he knew everyone else in his major by name or sight, had never heard of him, seen him in a class or met him and just wondered who he was. of course at that time obama was utilizing another name, barry something or other. have we ever had a prez who changed his name midway through his life, may have but do not remember it.
there are laws spelling out what must be released and romney met those but the dems wanted him to do more and made a big deal of it, just smoke and politics but it became a big deal when it should not have, he met the requirements of the law. it is a dirty business and guess egos drive those who wish to participate in it.
This post was edited on 11/18 7:10 PM by WebSpinner
Dont have the stomach to read this thread; however all of those Obama lovers that are on board,, if you think your lives are going to get better in the next 4 to how many years, you best start to re-think that and start to protect yourself from what is coming.
Similar threads
