Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 9, 2012 at 9:14 AM in reply to: How does 2nd home get treated with respect to taxes? #754235November 8, 2012 at 8:13 AM in reply to: Post Election Blues: Dow -176pts, Nasdaq -39, S&P500 -21 #754095
SK in CV
Participant[quote=livinincali]
Think about the health care law. We know it’s going to increase demand for health care because more people will be covered but what are we doing about the supply side. Are we building more hospitals, training more doctors, developing cheaper drugs? We’re not and likely won’t be.[/quote]Alas, but yes, we are building new medical schools. Since 2009, at a rate almost 3 times the rate of the previous decade, 11 new medical schools have opened. An additional 23 are in the process of undergoing accreditation and expecting to open in the next few years.
Participant[quote=ucodegen][quote=SK in CV][quote=ucodegen]The difference between a ‘terrorist attack’ and ‘act of terror’ is much like the difference between ‘murder 1’ and ‘manslaughter’. It comes to full intent and planning.[/quote]
Really? Why is that? Terrorism would be a belief in the use of terror. An act of terror would be actually using terror.[/quote] Nope.. try again.. I did not say belief. See the quoted section again.[/quote]
No, I said belief. That’s what “terrorism” means. A belief in the use of terror.
Did you find that political term dictionary that explains the difference? Or did you just make it up because it suits your purpose?
Participant[quote=ucodegen]The difference between a ‘terrorist attack’ and ‘act of terror’ is much like the difference between ‘murder 1’ and ‘manslaughter’. It comes to full intent and planning.[/quote]
Really? Why is that? Terrorism would be a belief in the use of terror. An act of terror would be actually using terror. If anything, I would think that the words would imply that an “act of terror” is much more significant. More like “an act of terror” would be murder 1, and “terrorism” would be attempted murder.
Is there a political words dictionary that defines this somewhere? Or was it just decided by people that wanted to imagine something did not happen when it actually did?
Participant[quote=ucodegen][quote=SK in CV]What is magic about the word “terrorism”? He called it “an act of terror” at least twice in the two days following the attack.[/quote]
Show reference here! What I found shows quite the opposite even though he was informed of it (that it was terrorist in nature) two hours after the occurrence. Obama still wanted it to be attributed to that ‘bad old video’.PS: There is nothing ‘magic’ about the word terrorism. It goes to the intent of the act, which would be to spread fear and attempt control through fear.
[quote=SK in CV]And apparently during the CBS interview, he did not. Is that the lie? Would everything have been just perfect if he’d called it terrorism at every opportunity? Are terrorism and a spontaneous attack mutually exclusive? Does calling it terrorism change anything? If so, what is different?[/quote] As I stated earlier.. it doesn’t look as bad for Obama as it does for CBS. The only parts that look bad for Obama is that it looks like:
- He did not have control of the situation, was not on top of it.
- Obama misrepresented how things went down during the debate.
CBS has a bigger problem going down to their credibility. They tried to justify his statements on the debate when they knew otherwise. CBS should have called him on it. I am much more bothered by CBS’s behavior than Obama’s on this.[/quote]
Obama did not misrepresent anything during the debate. He asserted that he called it an act of terror immediately after the attack. His words from his address the following morning:
As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe. No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
He used almost identical wording the following day.
As to whether it was a “terrorist” attack, do you have any evidence that the intent of the act was to spread fear or attempt to control through fear, as opposed to an attack to kill or harm anyone that was inside the consulate facility? IMHO, the “terrorist” label is stupid. It does nothing to explain anything.
Participant[quote=CAwireman]Interesting Polling data
CNN Electoral Map:
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/ecalculator#?battlegroundPortal for lot’s of exit poll results.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/2012-exit-polls_n_2038617.html
(On the right hand side, under “latest poll updates”, and elsewhere on the Huffington page…)At this point I agree, it’ll be good for this all be be over tonight/tomorrow…..
The race for the white house could be a squeaker but I think Obama has the edge. We’ll see….[/quote]
The CNN map is crap. Unless you ignore the polls, the only states that are a toss-up are CO, VA, NC, FL and possibly NH. The only logical conclusions for that crappy map are:
A: CNN is dumb
B: CNN is biased
C: CNN is more concerned with making money than presenting news.A tight race means more people will watch. The polls haven’t reflected a close race in the EV count for months. It got closer a month ago. But never got close. Obama will get over 300 EV. Most likely 332.
Participant[quote=ucodegen][quote=craptcha]The Benghazi outpost was not an Embassy. And if we are to believe Allan the ambassador was not just a diplomat, but also a facilitator in weapons proliferation scheme.[/quote]Umm.. how about some references to support your contention there? From what I find, it was quite the opposite. There were some weapons, particularly ground to air weapons (ie Stingers) that the US was trying to locate. Remember the empty containers shown on the news? Considering that a 737, 747, 777, A300 etc makes a nice juicy target for a Stinger or similar missile, and it would make a great target/weapon combination for a terrorist.
Did you mean to reply to another post? This comment is entirely non-responsive to the quoted comment.
Participant[quote=CA renter]
What I’d really like to know (and what is really being covered up) is what, specifically, our “diplomats” in Libya were doing over the past ~18-24 months.[/quote]I think that’s an easy one. The were collecting intelligence, and in some cases providing support to various factions that were deemed to further US interests in the region. Don’t expect a detailed report on those activities.
Participant[quote=ucodegen][quote=SK in CV]So we have “an astonishing display of media malpractice” but you can’t even identify what the supposed lie was?
Shouldn’t you have had a BREAKING! tag on this?[/quote]
–SNIP–These are two crucial answers in the big picture. Right after getting out of the Rose Garden, where, according to the second debate and other accounts he definitively called the attack terrorism, Obama is asked point blank about not calling it terrorism. He blinks and does not push back.
Understand that this interview is just hours after he gets out of the Rose Garden.
How after this exchange and the CIA explanation of what was being put up the chain in the intel channels does the Ambassador to the United Nations go on the Sunday shows and say what she says about a spontaneous demonstration sparked by that anti-Islam video? And how does the president deliver a speech to the United Nations 13 days later where he references that anti-Islam video six times when referring to the attack in Benghazi?
There are many questions, and here are a few more.
Why did CBS release a clip that appeared to back up Obama’s claim in the second debate on Oct. 19, a few days before the foreign policy debate, and not release the rest of that interview at the beginning?
–What was being put up the Intel/CIA channel was that this WAS a terrorist attack. What it brings up is the potential lock of impartiality with respect to CBS during an election year, and during a debate for the next president. The purpose of the First Amendment is for the public to know what their elected leaders are doing.. so they can accurately evaluate them during an election and decide. The First Amendment is not so that we know the intimate details of some Hollywood Star’s life.
While this does not look good for the current administration, and look like another case of “Fire!, Ready!, Aim!”.. it brings more questions as to whether CBS is acting more like a PAC(Political Action Committee) than a member of the press.[/quote]
I’ve read this kind of stuff a few dozen times over the last month or so. I don’t get what the issue is. It’s apparently obvious to many but it totally escapes me. What is magic about the word “terrorism”? He called it “an act of terror” at least twice in the two days following the attack. And apparently during the CBS interview, he did not. Is that the lie? Would everything have been just perfect if he’d called it terrorism at every opportunity? Are terrorism and a spontaneous attack mutually exclusive? Does calling it terrorism change anything? If so, what is different?
ParticipantSo we have “an astonishing display of media malpractice” but you can’t even identify what the supposed lie was?
Shouldn’t you have had a BREAKING! tag on this?
Participant[quote=Zeitgeist]More truth, lies and Obama
“In an astonishing display of media malpractice, CBS News quietly released proof–two days before the election, far too late to reach the media and the public–that President Barack Obama lied to the public about the Benghazi attack, as well as about his later claim to have called the attack ‘terrorism’ from the beginning.”
Hilarious. Really. What exactly was the lie?
Not only is there no proof of anything, there’s not even a specific allegation of a lie.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=SK in CV]Chris Stevens had worked for the US foreign service for more than 20 years. Whether or not he really was a spook, we’ll probably never know. But he was privy to the intel. Every bit of it concerning what was going on in Libya. And if the intel said there was going to be an attack on that day, he wouldn’t have been there. It really is that simple.[/quote]
SK: Except that we do now know that he was providing cover for a CIA operation that was moving heavy weapons from Libya to the rebels in Syria: http://www.businessinsider.com/benghazi-stevens-cia-attack-libya-2012-11
So, the Obama Administration was left in the unenviable position of having to play the “plausible deniability” card, which is at the heart of this entire mess.
As to Stevens “not being there” if there were credible intel reports concerning threats to his safety, well, that doesn’t really pass the sniff test, given that he did request help, repeatedly, and it was denied. At that point, it ain’t like he could’ve loaded up the whole group in the family truckster and just headed off into the sunset. Inside the wire at that point is infinitely better than outside the wire.
Bottom line: There was an on-going CIA operation to move heavy weapons to Syria and Stevens was providing diplomatic cover for same. Operation was put at risk and Stevens was sacrificed to prevent potentially larger blowback if evidence of this operation came to light. Now, all involved groups and agencies, including DepState, CIA and the WH are dancing as fast as they can in the hopes that this thing mercifully sinks beneath the waves and the public at large forgets.[/quote]
There’s a disconnect here Alan. I agree with all of it, it’s pretty consistent with what I said. But I can’t figure out how you came to your conclusion that Stevens was sacraficed. In order to get there, you have to beieve that either a: the intelligence community knew the attack was going to happen on that day and did nothing to keep stevens away, or b: a rescue attempt after the attack began would have exposed the Benghazi facility for what it was. Neither of those scenarios would have served any purpose.
A more likely scenario is a combination of two problems. A failure on the part of intel. And the inability of the CIA to deal with the security of their own agents acting under diplomatic cover. It’s sounding more and more like the Benghazi facility had no diplomatic mission and was purely an intel outlet. State provides for security at their facilities. The CIA doesn’t provide that kind of security even for themselves. So I’m guessing the problem was that nobody was in charge of security. Most of the direct quotes alluding to the requests for additional security in the region don’t mention Benghazi specifically. I think this explains why.
Participant[quote=spdrun]Everyone? Not the bumlosers who bought at 200% of current values for sure (and GOOD, f’em).[/quote]
No, not for them. But i was talking about after the crash. Once it happened, virtually every step that was taken both by private industry and the government(s) were done wrong. And the greater good was accomplished. Prices stabalized. And that was a good thing.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=The-Shoveler]Call me a tin foil hat wearing nut Job if you want, but I believe it turned out exactly the way they (TPTB) wanted it to and they knew exactly what they were doing the whole time.[/quote]
Agreed.[/quote]
agree too. Except for the last phrase. I think they had no idea what they were doing (whoever “they” are), screwed up at every turn, didn’t do a single thing right, and it still worked out exactly the way they wanted it to. Which has worked out pretty well for just about everyone.
Participant[quote=CAwireman]Couple of broad points –
This is likely Obama’s 9/11.
It could also be his Watergate in that what actually happened was bad enough, but not coming forward with full details early on, and overall, covering it up could be his undoing, if in hindsight most Americans think we acted wrongly.[/quote]
Yes, because the death of a diplomat, a US foreign service employee and 2 contractors in a foreign country is almost exactly the same as the bombing of the World Trade Center on US soil killing almost 3,000 people.
And given the great bi-partisan support received by President Bush after the 9/11 attack, I’m sure Benghazi will be almost exactly the same.
What exactly was covered up?
-
AuthorPosts
