Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 7, 2012 at 11:54 AM in reply to: Post Election Blues: Dow -176pts, Nasdaq -39, S&P500 -21 #754017
ucodegen
ParticipantWhat I find interesting is that last night, with only 29% of the vote count.. 30 was losing, 32 was winning, and 39 was losing. While we can declare who won the electoral college on 29% of the vote, the additional 71% of vote completely reversed the status on these propositions. Around 22:25, the secretary of state stopped updating their website. Either there is a very significantly different demographic that got added in, or something is hinky.
Participant[quote=Oni Koroshi]Aside from the small sales tax increase, this won’t affect the income for most of us yet public education will benefit greatly which does affect all of us.[/quote]Problem is that throwing money at it does not mean you get quality. We have too many mixed agendas here.
Participant[quote=AN]Well, at very least, we can probably say we’ll see low mortgage rates for awhile.[/quote]But when they turn around, it is likely to be violent/rapid. (Even more inflationary pressure built up – late Fed response to inflation..)
Participant[quote=flu]I’m happy. GOP maintains House.
So we have a shot at a balanced government when Obama gets re-elected…[/quote]And the effect of QE upon QE upon QE + taxes to support all the new programs, the full effect of Obamacare in 2014,+ all will fall on his watch. Its gonna be a bumpy ride… might want to read article from Pacific Capital – whom Rich Toscano now works with.. try this one: http://www.pcasd.com/content/no-exit-real-danger-feds-easy-money-policies
Participant[quote=SK in CV]Did you find that political term dictionary that explains the difference? Or did you just make it up because it suits your purpose?[/quote]
I use law dictionaries.. not ‘political’ or ‘wish’ dictionaries. The US Code also defines it…
http://terrorism.about.com/od/whatisterroris1/ss/DefineTerrorism_5.htmsection d of full segment below.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2656fParticipant[quote=CA renter]Also, like him or not, Gadaffi was very well respected and loved my many Libyans, largely because he drastically improved the quality of life of the Libyan people.[/quote] True.. but most of these people lived near/around Tripoli or Gaddafi’s home town of Sirte. Gaddafi lavished special attention on those locations.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-16961376
Outside those areas, he was not so well respected.
Participant[quote=Veritas]”Last night, it was revealed that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had ordered more security at the U.S. mission in Benghazi before it was attacked where four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens were murdered by Al-Qaeda, but President Obama denied the request. Klein also said that those same sources said that former President Bill Clinton has been “urging” his wife [Hillary] to release official State Department documents that prove she called for additional security at the compound in Libya, which would almost certainly result in President Obama losing the election.”
http://www.examiner.com/article/clinton-asked-for-more-security-benghazi-obama-said-no%5B/quote%5DRemember what I mentioned about Hilary being shoved under the bus on this…[quote=ucodegen][quote=livinincali]Of course Obama will probably try to shove Hilary under the bus if that happens.[/quote]I think that is already being considered/is in the works..
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57532916/secretary-of-state-hillary-clinton-takes-responsibility-for-benghazi-attack/ [/quote]Participant[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.
Participant[quote=craptcha]Allan’s post in the other thread:
There was an on-going CIA operation to move heavy weapons to Syria and Stevens was providing diplomatic cover for same.
http://piggington.com/obama_intellectual_or_empty_suit#comment-220744%5B/quote%5DInteresting, but if it was caused by this.. then the only group who would do this would be associated with the existing regime in Syria. I don’t think that Assad would want to add US to the mix by attacking diplomatic personnel on foreign soil. Under this scenario, Al Qaeda would not be interested in stopping the heavy arms. They would have more opportunities with Assad gone.
That said, I don’t think it is likely that the diplomats know of CIA operations within the country. It doesn’t always get flowed down to them. Operations are ‘stovepiped’ so there is plausible deniability on the part of the diplomat. The article also said:
there’s evidence that U.S. agents—particularly murdered U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens—were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to Syrian rebels.
which does not state certainty, nor direct involvement.
ParticipantThe 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.
Participant[quote=SK in CV][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.[/quote]
Actually it is right to the point. Read it again. The ref quote indicated:
Allan the ambassador was not just a diplomat, but a facilitator in weapons proliferation scheme. I am showing that the real intent of any action there was not weapons proliferation, but bringing some dangerous weapons back into control and remove them from circulation. I also indicated how these weapons would be used by a terrorist. My news link is backup on the ground to air missile.. since I asked for proof on the insinuation of participation in a weapons proliferation scheme.Participant[quote=CA renter]Yes, I understand that; however, embassies are often the targets of attacks because they are involved in issues that the citizens of that country feel are very much against their best interests.
..
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]Considering that the people in the neighborhood were the ones that extracted the injured from the Embassy and brought them to the hospital, I would have to say that the attackers were the fringe not the core of the people in the area. The US was also partially responsible for helping the Libyans oust Gaddafi. I suspect that real terrorists used the cover of a peaceful protest.
Participant[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.
Participant[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.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/nightmare-libya-20000-surface-air-missiles-missing/story?id=14610199
-
AuthorPosts
