In September 2012:
* Obama's Fed chairman has been printing a lot of money, which has directly resulted in another credit downgrade. A couple of years ago, Obama said that a credit downgrade was one of the worst things that could happen, resulting in increased cost of debt and other terrors; now he says of our massively increasing debt that caused all this, we don't have to worry about it short term.
* Our ambassador to Libya and three other American embassy personnel were killed in Libya by terrorists in a coordinated, preplanned attack on September 11, and Obama has several times directly lied to the nation by saying that the only cause of the attack was spontaneous reaction to a video that almost no one had ever seen. He then sent America's top military general to pressure a private citizen to withdraw support for the video, pressured Google to ban the video, and investigated the people involved with the making of the video, all in an attempt to scapegoat law-abiding people in America to redirect blame away from himself by literally and explicitly undermining the right to free speech.
* Obama has done his best to offend our two more important allies in the Middle East, shunning the Prime Minister of Israel (again, lying about why he wouldn't meet with him), and saying Egypt isn't an ally (which his State Department corrected him on later).
* Because of Afghan troops turning on American troops for months, and direct assaults on U.S. bases in Afghanistan last week, the U.S. has ended cooperative training and patrols between U.S. and Afghan forces, that have been central to U.S. plans to leave Afghanistan.
* Far more people dropped out of the workforce than got new jobs, as the number of Americans not working reached historic highs.
* Democrats have still refused to even try to pass a budget, for the third straight year (Fiscal Year 2013 begins October 1, once again starting the year without a budget).
And yet somehow, with all this, it's supposedly interesting that Mitt Romney said some stuff in a video that some people found insulting. The stuff that really matters -- the debt, the budget, dead ambassadors, relationships with our allies in the Middle East, jobs -- is being ignored, and we are instead whining about insults to poor people and a mythical "war on women."
You get the government you deserve, people. If you don't care about the important things when you vote, then neither will your elected officials.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at September 19, 2012 07:33 AM | Email ThisSo let's go back to the gold standard.
"Our ambassador to Libya and three other American embassy personnel were killed in Libya by terrorists..."
Then let's just get out of the Middle East and stop pretending that Israel is our 51st state.
"Obama has done his best to offend our two more important allies in the Middle East, shunning the Prime Minister of Israel..."
This is the same Israel that sent Kevin Pollard to spy on us. Some "ally!"
"Because of Afghan troops turning on American troops for months..."
Another good reason to leave. Tell me Neo-Cons, what exactly have we gotten out of Bush's two ill-planned wars in the Middle East?
"Far more people dropped out of the workforce than got new jobs..."
Is it the responsibility of the government to manage the economy? Is it the responsibility of government to give people jobs in make-work projects?
"Far more people dropped out of the workforce than got new jobs..."
Blame the bailouts of the crony capitalist bankers that started under your boy, GWB.
You may have a lot of complaints against the Dems, but you need to clean up your own house before you go criticizing others.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on September 19, 2012 08:02 AMThe major media outlets should really be confronted by the Tea Party or part of the 51-53% that do pay Federal Income Tax. These people covering the story might as well be wearing hammer & sickle armbands and Obama posters on their foreheads. Too bad these jokers are not able to be threatened with lawsuits in this litigious society. I would enjoy seeing many of these so-called journalists be unemployed soon as newspaper revenues have dropped to their lowest levels since 1950 according to a recent study.
Posted by: KDS on September 19, 2012 09:15 AMJust because the MSM says the film's obscure, you mustn't believe that it wasn't seen. There are many reports (not seen in the Seattle Times) that the State-controlled media in the Arab countries ran that film over and over in the runup to 9/11, and that their viewers knew damn well they were to take visible offense to it.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on September 19, 2012 09:17 AMKDS, you're right, which is why the debates are of critical importance to the election. It's Romney's best chance of getting the message about on all this stuff.
Looks like Mr Locke isn't loved either.
A car carrying the U.S. ambassador to China was mildly damaged after becoming the target of boisterous anti-Japan demonstrators who were expressing outrage over a territorial dispute and marking the 81st anniversary of Japan's invasion of China.
The State Department said in a statement Wednesday that Ambassador Gary Locke was unhurt in Tuesday's incident, and that diplomats have expressed concerns to the Chinese Foreign Ministry.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on September 19, 2012 10:38 AM~ Romney was born March 12, 1947 and is 65 years old.
~ His Father: George W. Romney was a Governor of the State of Michigan
~ He was Raised in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan
~ He is Married Ann Romney since 1969; they have five children
~ Education: B.A. from Brigham Young University , J.D. and M.B.A. from Harvard University and his transcripts are available.
~ Religion: Mormon. aka: The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints
Working Background:
~ After high school, he spent 30 months in France as a Mormon missionary.
~ After going to both Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School simultaneously, he passed the Michigan bar, but never worked as an attorney.
~ In 1984, he co-founded Bain Capital a private equity investment firm, one of the largest such firms in the United States . As a venture-capitalist, Romney's first major business deal involved investing in a start-up office supply company with one store in Massachusetts that sold office supplies. That company, called Staples, now has over 2,000 stores and employs over 90,000 people.
~ In 1994, he ran for Senator of Massachusetts and lost to Teddy Kopechne Kennedy.
~ He was President and C.E.O. of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games.
~ In 2002, he was elected Governor of the State of Massachusetts, where he eliminated a 1.5 billion deficit.
Some More Interesting Facts about Romney:
~ Bain Capital, starting with one small office supply store in Massachusetts, turned it into Staples; now over 2,000 stores employing 90,000 people.
~ Bain Capital also worked to perform the same kinds of business miracles again and again, with companies like Domino's, Sealy, Brookstone, Weather Channel, Burger King, Warner Music Group, Dollarama, Home Depot and many others.
~ He was an unpaid volunteer Mormon missionary in Paris for over 2 years.
~ He was an unpaid volunteer campaign worker for his dad's gubernatorial campaign - 1 year.
~ He was an unpaid intern in his dad's governor's office for eight years.
~ He was an unpaid bishop and president of his church for ten years.
~ He was an unpaid President of the Salt Lake Olympic Committee for three years.
~ He took no salary and was the unpaid Governor of Massachusetts for four years.
~ He gave his entire inheritance (from his father) to charity.
That's a grand total of 28 years of unpaid service to his country and his church.
~ Mitt Romney is a self-made man but has given more back to its citizens in terms of money, service and time than most wealthy people.
~ And in 2011 Mitt Romney gave over $4 million to charity, almost 19% of his income....
~ Obama gave 1%
~ Joe Biden gave $300 or .0013%
And some guy last night said that Romney wasn't qualified.
Posted by: Oscarphone on September 19, 2012 04:11 PMhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdJOo2OWJN8&list=PL17B6D1812674857D&index=1&feature=plcp
Posted by: clarkofkent on September 19, 2012 04:47 PMThe President has to lie and cheat and have teams of media drones protecting and defending him just to keep it a one point race.
The day more people learn the truth about almost anything this President has done, is the day they never vote Democrat again.
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 19, 2012 05:48 PMFace it, Romney has a huge uphill battle fighting against the coordinated attacks from the Obama campaign, every broadcast media outlet in the nation and the preponderance of print. If he wins it will be a true miracle. And we need that miracle.
Posted by: Oscarphone on September 19, 2012 09:45 PMBeing 'unpaid' when you are already sufficiently wealthy or otherwise have your needs met, really isn't at all a big deal. I could probably go to any church, civic group, soup kitchen, whatever and find people with just as much and more 'unpaid' service and far less means of their own. It's not a bad thing that he did several things for no salary, but frankly, its fair to say such would be expected, even if other people with similar means don't always do the same.
I bet a lot of people that couldn't avoid going to Vietnam would have loved to have 'slummed' it for 30 months in an American trust-fundie haven like France. I wouldn't criticize him for that had he not been so arm-chair gung-ho about the war at the time. Sorry, but war is one of those things where if you're going to act like you've got the balls to send other people, you should have the balls to be willing to serve yourself if able and necessary. Considering the draft still existed at the time, if you were the right age, it was necessary.
Don't quote his 2011 charitable donations when he's refusing to disclose much more beyond that. Maybe he's given ~20% his whole life (good for him if he has), but it makes no difference to me because it is immaterial to the job he wants and looks like a cheap trick under the circumstances.
Unpaid intern for dad? How was he paying his expenses then? Allowance/trust/begging on the street? Lot's of interns are unpaid, not generally for as long as eight years, but I'm sure he didn't have to be concerned about that. Even if he wasn't being paid through tax dollars, I'm sure he was doing just fine. Nobody can afford to be unpaid for that long (and at that age) without having some other source of money and/or needs being provided for. Not paid by the taxpayers, doesn't always mean "unpaid".
Same goes for when he was governor... When you're already wealthy enough by other means, it's almost expected to not take a salary whether in certain business situations and certainly in elected positions.
Same goes for his church positions. It's just not impressive at that point that he wouldn't accept payment.
Regarding BC, there really isn't much I can say about that. Regarding the Staples example though (I shop at Staples), another way to look at it is that roughly the same number of jobs that were displaced by Staples are what were "created". It's not as if Staples created a demand for the products that wouldn't have otherwise existed. It certainly brought prices down, but wages likely lead the drop as is normally the case. I'm not knocking him for the rise of Staples, but he didn't exactly do anything that any other similar firm to BC couldn't have also done.
I guess I'm just saying that business prowess (in whatever form) doesn't necessarily equate to sound governance. His political ability should be weighed more accurately by what he did as governor than anything he did in the private sector. The two truly are different and need to be recognized as such no matter what some people would like to believe.
Posted by: Brian on September 20, 2012 11:00 AMFINALLY, the administration came out and said the attacks in Libya weren't because of a stupid video, something anyone with a brain knew already. It's sickening that the media provided cover for Obama on this for an entire week. They have completely sold out to get him re-elected, and it will be a lot to overcome.
Posted by: Palouse on September 20, 2012 11:16 AMNo one said it was a big deal. Then again, he did this when he wasn't wealthy, too.
I bet a lot of people that couldn't avoid going to Vietnam would have loved to have 'slummed' it for 30 months in an American trust-fundie haven like France.
So? That's not what Romney did.
I wouldn't criticize him for that had he not been so arm-chair gung-ho about the war at the time. Sorry, but war is one of those things where if you're going to act like you've got the balls to send other people, you should have the balls to be willing to serve yourself if able and necessary.
Sorry, but no, it's not, in fact.
Considering the draft still existed at the time, if you were the right age, it was necessary.
False. You do not understand how the draft works.
Don't quote his 2011 charitable donations when he's refusing to disclose much more beyond that.
Nonsense.
it makes no difference to me because it is immaterial to the job he wants
So is EVERYTHING on his tax returns. So what?
... and looks like a cheap trick under the circumstances.
No, it doesn't.
roughly the same number of jobs that were displaced by Staples are what were "created"
False.
It's not as if Staples created a demand for the products that wouldn't have otherwise existed. It certainly brought prices down, but wages likely lead the drop as is normally the case.
You're confused. Lower prices means that the CONSUMERS -- mostly businesses -- have more money to spend on THEIR employees.
I'm not knocking him for the rise of Staples, but he didn't exactly do anything that any other similar firm to BC couldn't have also done.
And what has Obama done that any other community organizer couldn't have done? What a bizarre thing for you to say!
I guess I'm just saying that business prowess (in whatever form) doesn't necessarily equate to sound governance.
It depends on what you want done. If you want government treated like a business, lowering costs and being more efficient ... then actually, yeah, it does.
He may not have been independently wealthy during some of the periods that he was "unpaid", but that is still far different from someone that won't have at the very least their needs met by family or other money. I was pointing out that it wasn't a big deal because the poster I was responding to thought that it was a big enough deal to make a character resume of sorts with.
I don't understand how a future draft would work, but I am familiar enough with how the draft at that time worked, I didn't think it was necessary to go into all the details on this forum though, but maybe I was wrong with that belief.
That you disagree that his 2011 donations could look disingenuous when one considers that he refuses to disclose much more beyond that period just means that you disagree... That his tax records (beyond that which is required, which he has disclosed so far) are immaterial, I wasn't arguing.
Simply saying 'false', or 'lying lies of a liar' (to humorously exaggerate a theme here) isn't really an argument.
Lower prices and lower wages are always mutually exclusive, often they go hand in hand. But that wasn't a sticking point for me, just that the Staples example or anything else related to his Bain Capital days is a very risky way to promote him right now.
I wasn't comparing him to Obama...
The business to government comparison has helped get us where we are. Government IS different and should be handled differently. That doesn't mean that cost saving and efficiency measures can't be taken, but that the means of implementing such measures are only tangentially related to that which sound businesses would use to address the same. I'm not saying a good businessman can't succeed as a bureaucrat or politician (obviously even a person that fails at business can), but that such isn't a requirement to be able to be an outstanding politician.
So?
I was pointing out that it wasn't a big deal because the poster I was responding to thought that it was a big enough deal to make a character resume of sorts with.
The fact that he gave much of himself is relevant to most people.
I don't understand how a future draft would work, but I am familiar enough with how the draft at that time worked
Not if you think that being of a certain age meant you were required to go ... that's not how it worked.
That you disagree that his 2011 donations could look disingenuous when one considers that he refuses to disclose much more beyond that period just means that you disagree
He has released what he said he would release, and what other candidates in the past have released. There is literally ZERO reason to think he is hiding anything.
Simply saying 'false', or 'lying lies of a liar' (to humorously exaggerate a theme here) isn't really an argument.
Shrug. I respond with at least the amount of argument required for rebuttal. For example, you say Staples "displaced" more jobs than it created. You offer ZERO evidence for this claim, so I don't have to provide an argument against it more than simply saying "false." The fact that I provided nothing more than that is a clue to you that nothing more was necessary because you didn't back up YOUR argument.
the Staples example or anything else related to his Bain Capital days is a very risky way to promote him right now.
Yes, but only because dishonest people try to distort the facts, and ignorant people believe it. If we could actually stick to the facts, Bain would be nothing but positive for Romney.
I wasn't comparing him to Obama...
My point is that NO ONE is irreplacable. Simply saying other people could have done what Romney did only means Romney is not irreplacable, which we already knew, because he's human.
The business to government comparison has helped get us where we are. Government IS different and should be handled differently.
In some ways, yes. In the ways Romney's been talking about, no.
That doesn't mean that cost saving and efficiency measures can't be taken, but that the means of implementing such measures are only tangentially related to that which sound businesses would use to address the same.
False. (See what I did there?)
I'm not saying a good businessman can't succeed as a bureaucrat or politician (obviously even a person that fails at business can), but that such isn't a requirement to be able to be an outstanding politician.
NO ONE ever implied being a businessman is such a requirement.
But given Obama's incompetence in managing a large organization efficiently, it would be a welcome change.
https://www.google.com/search?q=republican+convention+a+disaster&hl=en&prmd=imvnsu&source=univ&tbm=nws&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=SX9bUJn2DceViAKaxYDAAw&ved=0CCAQqAI&biw=1280&bih=673
Posted by: red hiney monkey on September 20, 2012 01:38 PM"So" is even less useful as an argument than "false" (though I'll concede what you said about that regarding the Staples example). The trouble with the Staples example though is that while it may be "known" to some degree or another, to back it up would involve digging up statistics in every single location affected AND assuming that all jurisdictions handle such data in the same manner. While I don't think it's unreasonable to (admittedly) assume that the rise of Staples displaced workers in other stores, it is still fair to ask for data to back such up...
I'm not going to drag this into a largely irrelevant discussion about the finer points of how the draft worked at the time, but yes, I'm aware that it wasn't as simple as you interpreted my gross summary of it.
Regarding his tax returns, please take this as making it abundantly clear that I don't feel any more than what is legally required is relevant, but the fact that he has let it become such a big deal with such a large portion of people doesn't mean he ISN'T hiding anything either. It will all get leaked in the end anyway if he is elected. Regardless, it IS a problem for him at the moment and a problem he could have avoided had he addressed it better earlier on, appropriate or not.
An infrequent visitor to this site (at the very least) wouldn't get the impression that the Republican party finds a certain level and type of business experience to be absolutely necessary to be 'suitable' for office. To say "NO ONE ever implied" such is ridiculously wrong even if just based on the comments here alone.
Like I said, not comparing him to Obama with this, just pointing out how seriously out of touch, flawed, and apparently willing to lose over sometimes necessary politispeak the poster I was replying to originally is.
Posted by: Brian on September 20, 2012 01:55 PMRe: Staples. When businesses expand they create jobs, some of those jobs are from other places, but many are from people who were not previously employed. It also help creates more jobs for suppliers and maintenance companies (janitors, electricians, plumbers, etc). When those companies are busier, they hire more people too.
Posted by: Palouse on September 20, 2012 02:07 PMFalse.
Posted by: pudge on September 20, 2012 02:23 PMI doubt it's strictly something on the minds of Democrats. Romney has already said that a certain number of people won't vote for him anyway, but the notion is still familiar to people that are on the fence, which are exactly who he needs in addition to every Republican.
You're just not getting the Staples example. I'm not saying your assertion is wrong, just that it and what pudge said doesn't really address it. Sometimes, you have to think in terms of political expedience instead of righteousness or whatever else it is people think they are upholding when ignoring the obvious.
Posted by: Brian on September 20, 2012 02:27 PMIt is very useful at pointing out that you didn't actually make an argument. You said, He may not have been independently wealthy during some of the periods that he was "unpaid", but that is still far different from someone that won't have at the very least their needs met by family or other money.
That's not an argument. It doesn't show anything at all. I was asking you to make an argument: "So?"
While I don't think it's unreasonable to (admittedly) assume that the rise of Staples displaced workers in other stores
That was not your claim. Your claim was that Staples "displaced" roughly the same number of jobs that it created. And that is quite unreasonable.
I'm aware that it wasn't as simple as you interpreted my gross summary of it.
Shrug. You said specifically that "if you were the right age, [serving in war] was necessary." That is simply incorrect. It wasn't a summary, it was an incorrect statement.
... the fact that he has let it become such a big deal with such a large portion of people ...
The only reason it's a big deal is because people are lying about it, and gullible and ignorant people believe those lies. He didn't "let" it become a big deal by conforming to standard practice; it became a big deal because people lied, saying he was not conforming to standard practice, that he paid no income taxes at all, that he had something to hide, and so on. People believed the lies. That's why it's a "big deal."
... doesn't mean he ISN'T hiding anything either.
Have you stopped beating your mother?
An infrequent visitor to this site (at the very least) wouldn't get the impression that the Republican party finds a certain level and type of business experience to be absolutely necessary to be 'suitable' for office.
Yes, they would not get that impression, because no one states or implies that here.
To say "NO ONE ever implied" such is ridiculously wrong even if just based on the comments here alone.
False. (I did it again!)
All we have is your assertion, made up out of thin air. There is nothing to address. You're being dishonest here by pretending that you making baseless accusations somehow puts the burden of proof on the other person.
I'll respect someone more for being able to navigate the mess of a system that we all ultimately love and getting things done after the fact. Considering how likely it is that his records will come out regardless, it's an extremely risky point to make a stand on, and still frankly doesn't look good because of how he's handled it, relevant or not.
Posted by: Brian on September 20, 2012 02:33 PM"Yes, they would not get that impression, because no one states or implies that here."
Hang me on a typo...
I've explained the reason behind, admitted the flaws of, and shown the utility of the Staples example. I get it, you disagree.
Regarding everything, we'll just have to see what happens come election day. I'm no fan of Obama, but Romney seems to have an almost uncanny ability for self-defeating tactics.
For all the opportunity the party had to front somebody that could compete, it sure seems like lately that made the cut can't handle the prime-time. I don't even need to cite examples, just look at what how our own party is criticizing his performance so far. Lest anyone (in addition to the Romney camp) forget, it's all about performance at this stage.
Posted by: Brian on September 20, 2012 02:49 PMNo one said that. We were just pointing out the fact that you were wrong when you said Romney made it an issue.
I've explained the reason behind, admitted the flaws of, and shown the utility of the Staples example.
I could not care less. All I care about is the fact that your "example" was completely invented and has zero evidence backing it up.
I get it, you disagree.
You cannot possibly disagree with what I said. All I said is that you were making it up, and that there's no evidence for your baseless assertion. This is obviously true.
Romney seems to have an almost uncanny ability for self-defeating tactics
False.
For all the opportunity the party had to front somebody that could compete, it sure seems like lately that made the cut can't handle the prime-time
False.
I don't even need to cite examples
False.
Posted by: pudge on September 20, 2012 03:08 PMSince the issue doesn't matter to most people, it won't have anything to do with his election either way. Find some evidence where his tax returns ranks as important on a list of issues and I'll believe you. If people are "on the fence" about voting for him, their votes are not going to be because of his tax returns.
Like Obama said in 2008, when you don't have a record to run on, you make elections about small things. That's basically what the Democrats are doing now with tax returns, contraception, gay marriage, etc, etc, etc. That is not what matters.
Posted by: Palouse on September 20, 2012 03:09 PMExactly. I find it bizarre that when I make this post about how all the important stuff is being ignored and trivial stuff is being focused on, Brian then ignores the important stuff and focuses on the trivial stuff, just like Obama is doing.
Palouse,
Since you're the one that mentioned polls, let's see the one's that cover the spectrum of likely voters that says none of what I've mentioned matters. Like I've said (how many times now?), his returns don't matter to me, but they are definitely getting attention and he could have handled the situation much more deftly. Particularly considering he is basically going through the try-outs for a job where chief diplomat is one of the responsibilities.
Think about this, for the amateur Obama is supposed to be, Romney still can't figure out how to pull ahead. Even the least savvy business owner (that stays in business) I know, can figure out pretty quickly when to suck it up and deal with a changing environment (business or political, just look up campaign donations for a refresher).
I'm fairly convinced you don't even grasp the concept of your latter point. True as it may be, Obama and fellow Democrats HAVE arguably centered this election on those 'smaller' points (with plenty of help from various Republican candidates). That they are 'small points' doesn't matter. Now that they ARE the points that matter, it all comes down to how each candidate addresses them. Romney could have done the same thing himself had the party sorted things out earlier on, it's not like the Republicans don't have the same bag of tricks handy.
Posted by: Brian on September 20, 2012 03:28 PMThat makes no sense at all.
I am saying that a dead ambassador and hundreds of dead soldiers matters more than Romney's tax returns.
No matter what happens in this election, that won't change one bit.
Even if EVERY VOTER was stupid and voted against Mitt Romney because of his tax returns, and doesn't care about all the dead Americans, that doesn't mean the tax returns actually matter more than the dead Americans. It just means voters are stupid.
You've got to be kidding. I was replying to someone that brought up a bunch of trivial and in many ways counter-productive arguments for Romney.
Posted by: Brian on September 20, 2012 03:33 PMThat is a disgusting and deceptive attempt at a distraction/diverting from the discussion. I can hardly believe you would try to make an accusation like that particularly in light of all the details that have come out since.
Wow. You just took it from an engaging discussion/debate to off the rails with one sentence.
It was a pleasure discussing this with you up to that point though (in addition to your other posts). I wish you the best and still look forward to your future posts, but will have to cease on my end for at least some time.
Thanks for everything.
.
I can't even find a poll where that issue is even registered on the list of issues. I checked Rasmussen and Gallup.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/importance_of_issues
Since you are the one claiming it matters, maybe you can actually provide some evidence that it does.
Posted by: Palouse on September 20, 2012 03:45 PMNo they AREN'T points that matter, no matter how many times you and Democrats try to make them so.
Posted by: Palouse on September 20, 2012 03:50 PMHe just gave some highlights of the guy's career etc. You then started bringing up extremely trivial -- and in some cases, false and misleading -- attacks on them.
That is a disgusting and deceptive attempt at a distraction/diverting from the discussion.
Yes, that perfectly describes every comment you've made in this discussion.
I can hardly believe you would try to make an accusation like that particularly in light of all the details that have come out since.
Um. What "details" are you talking about? The only "accusation" I made @31 was obviously true: that you are hyperfocusing on trivialities, when there's far more important issues to discusss ... which is what I wrote this post about, a post you've since embodied perfectly.
False
Posted by: red hiney monkey on September 20, 2012 04:20 PMObama's DOJ filed frivolous lawsuits against states that have voter ID laws the Supreme Court has already upheld.
Obama's Labor Dept. threatened frivolous lawsuits against private companies who did nothing more than hire people in a state that Obama didn't like.
Obama's administration gave out billions of dollars to failing companies like Solyndra for no apparent reason.
Obama's Treasury Dept. didn't save money in case the debt limit wasn't raised, then blamed the Congress for his error.
Obama's Fast and Furious scandal, and the incompetence of the fallout from it, speak for themselves.
Obama's disagreement with his own State Dept. about whether Egypt is an ally is glaring and bizarre.
I could go on like this all day ... but I think I've provided enough evidence to back up my assertion.
FALSE
Obama's Labor Dept. threatened frivolous lawsuits against private companies who did nothing more than hire people in a state that Obama didn't like.
FALSE
Obama's administration gave out billions of dollars to failing companies like Solyndra for no apparent reason.
FALSE
Obama's Treasury Dept. didn't save money in case the debt limit wasn't raised, then blamed the Congress for his error.
FALSE
Obama's Fast and Furious scandal, and the incompetence of the fallout from it, speak for themselves.
FALSE
Obama's disagreement with his own State Dept. about whether Egypt is an ally is glaring and bizarre.
FALSE
I could go on like this all day ... but I think I've provided enough evidence to back up my assertion.
FALSE
You haven't provided any proof whatsoever. What legal training do you possess that gives you the expertise to label lawsuits as frivolous?
But that is beside the point.
Filing and winning lawsuits that you don't agree with is not evidence of an inability to run an organization, infact, it is just the opposite. And labeling the Holder thing a 'scandal' when he's just been absoved of any blame is more proof of the effectiveness of the Obama team even in the face of unfair and unbalanced opposition.
It's Romney who is displaying an inability to run a successful campaign -- and that proves he's not up to the challenges of being president.
People will prefer the calm, smart, effective leadership of Obama as opposed to the cheap shot artist, Romney.
Posted by: red hiney monkey on September 20, 2012 05:30 PMI wonder if you actually think you're making a point, or making me look bad, or making yourself look good, or something.
"What legal training do you possess that gives you the expertise to label lawsuits as frivolous?"
Your premise is flawed. "Legal training" is unnecessary. The ability to read and understand law is sufficient.
For example, I read the law that says Boeing cannot "punish" its union employees. And I see that in opening a new plant in South Carolina, not a single one of them lost their job or got a pay or benefit cut or didn't get a scheduled pay increase or ... anything. There was literally no punishment. Yet the Labor Dept. said there was, even though there simply was no evidence of any punishment anywhere.
It was frivolous, it was bullying, it was a violation of the law and a violation of the nation's trust.
Similarly, I can read Crawford v. Marion County Election Board and see that the Supreme Court already said it is not unconstitutional to require a voter ID. Period. It's constitutional. It was decided just a few years ago (again). Yet Obama's suing, just for political purposes, since he knows he can't win it in court.
Filing and winning lawsuits that you don't agree with is not evidence of an inability to run an organization
You're a liar: I never stated or implied that this was about my disagreement. Stop lying.
labeling the Holder thing a 'scandal' when he's just been absoved of any blame
First, I never mentioned Holder.
Second, stop lying: Holder has not been absolved of "any blame." In the actual program itself, yes, but not in the apparent cover-up.
Third, it is absolutely a scandal. What are you smoking? It's a program, from Obama's administration, that never should have existed, that resulted in serious threats to public safety, including one of the guns being used to kill an American law enforcement officer. How is that NOT a scandal?
... is more proof of the effectiveness of the Obama team even in the face of unfair and unbalanced opposition.
Wow. Intentionally letting guns get into criminal hands and being used to kill Agent Brian Terry is "proof of the effectiveness of the Obama team," according to you.
Wow.
People will prefer the calm, smart, effective leadership of Obama as opposed to the cheap shot artist, Romney.
You're pathetically stupid. Really.
You want us to believe that failing in Afghanistan, lying about what happened in Libya, failing to protect our ambassador, getting our credit degraded, alienating our two major allies in the Middle East, giving us record unemployment, failing to get a budget yet againm and letting guns walk to kill our border patrol agents ... that is all "calm, smart, and erffective."
Meanwhile Obama talks about none of this, and instead spreads lies about Romney and spews hatred toward all conservatives, and somehow *Romney* is the "cheap shot artist."
Your idiotic lies may fly on some web sites, but not here.
Posted by red hiney monkey at September 19, 2012 02:43 PM
Posted by: KDS on September 20, 2012 10:15 PMhttp://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-second-bush-era-gun-smuggling-probe-202043091.html
Posted by: FuriouslyFactual on September 21, 2012 06:30 AMhttp://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2012/09/19/fast-and-furious-report-exonerates-ag-holder/
Posted by: FuriouslyFactual on September 21, 2012 06:43 AMSo tell me how this isn't a scandal that demonstrates Obama's incompetence in managing a large organization efficiently? Your claim that Holder didn't know about it until later only helps prove my point.
You said " It's a program, from Obama's administration, that never should have existed, "
The program of gun walking in the ATF was not from "Obama's administration.
"Earlier this month, it was disclosed that the gun-walking tactic didn't begin under Obama, but was also used in 2006 under his predecessor, George W. Bush. The probe, Operation Wide Receiver, was carried out by ATF's Tucson, Ariz., office and resulted in hundreds of guns being transferred to suspected arms traffickers."
http://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-second-bush-era-gun-smuggling-probe-202043091.html
You said "Second, stop lying: Holder has not been absolved of 'any blame.'"
The investigation found that Attorney General Holder was not informed of the program started under Bush's Attorney General until after its predictable terrible consequences occurred.
"... the investigators found Attorney General Eric Holder didn't know about the controversial operation until after the scandal emerged in the wake of the discovery of two weapons linked to the operation at the scene of the shooting death of a Border Patrol agent in December 2010."
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2012/09/19/fast-and-furious-report-exonerates-ag-holder/
You said "Holder was involved in covering up " and you appear to claim you know this because of ???
Posted by: FuriouslyFactual on September 21, 2012 07:40 AMFalse.
Yes, there was a similar program but different program under Bush, as you quoted. This program was under Obama.
You said "Second, stop lying: Holder has not been absolved of 'any blame.'"
The investigation found that Attorney General Holder was not informed of the program started under Bush's Attorney General until after its predictable terrible consequences occurred.
You're lying. First, this program did not start under Bush. You know this, because you've quoted it twice. It was a different program that used a similar "tactic."
Second, the VERY NEXT SENTENCE I wrote, that you excluded, I said I was talking about the later coverup, not the program itself: Holder has not been absolved of wrongdoing in what happened after the program went public, which culminated in Holder publicly asking Obama to protect him from certain information, that happened during the Congressional investigation, from going public.
You said "Holder was involved in covering up " and you appear to claim you know this because of ???
Because of the fact that Holder lied to Congress for many months, and when he finally corrected the record and Congress asked for MORE information to explain the months of lies, he asked for and got Obama to protect him with executive privilege.
That is what "coverup" means.
Re 16 or thereabouts: There are other examples too of Obama's executive incompetence. Just the shear amount of retractions and explanations of policy statements shows there is quite a bit of, ummm, "freelancing" on policy. I think that the Libya killings are another good example. Because Mr. Obama was MIA at a very large number of security briefings (Bush did them every day), nobody seemed to know enough to alert our embassies of the risk nor supply them with security. Why the anniversary of 9/11 obviously wasn't taken into consideration is beyond me. His handling of the recession is a perfect example. One year after his inauguration he then says: "We're going to look at jobs next month." Seeing as jobs growth is usually the number one consideration in a recession, he has a problem with prioritizing. He also has a problem with leadership. He can't control Harry Reid nor the Senate. Proof would be no budget put forth in well over 1200 days (1240ish I think).
The big problem here is that Obama has never really ever DONE anything. He's worked at a menial job that he hated, community organized and then moved into politics. He was a lecturer but now the scope of that is in question too. Seems he did little of that and not as a "constitutional scholar" like the left likes to blovate. Attendees fleeing his lectures after his first year is telling.
Romney may not be very exciting (". . . let the seas stop their rise and the planet begin to heal!!!) but he's an honest spreadsheet and numbers wonk who has rescued and built organizations. And maybe that's just what this country needs right now.
Posted by: Oscarphone on September 21, 2012 05:42 PMThat sure smells like "coverup" to me. If he has nothing to hide, why even execute the Executive Privilege? And if there are sensitive security type things, they can be redacted before handover. That's the way things are usually handled.
Personally I think that Mr. Obama is a bigger crook than Nixon.
Posted by: Oscarphone on September 21, 2012 05:49 PMAgain, I never said that tactic was used beginning with Obama. I said that this particular program did, and Obama has been out there lying and saying it started under Bush.
President Obama Falsely Claims Fast and Furious Program "Begun Under the Previous Administration"
Note that this article is from ABC News' Jake Tapper, not WND or Fox or something. Obama is out there LYING, as usual.
Posted by: pudge on September 21, 2012 06:13 PMThe entire concept and implementation of the deadly idea began under President Bush's Attorney General Gonzalez and continued under his successor Mukaskey.
"The ATF began Project Gunrunner as a pilot project in Laredo, Texas, in 2005 and expanded it as a national initiative in 2006. Project Gunrunner is also part of the Department of Justice's broader Southwest Border Initiative, which seeks to reduce cross-border drug and firearms trafficking and the high level of violence associated with these activities on both sides of the border."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gunrunner
Regarding who is "LYING", you seem obsessed with the word.
Clearly the Fast and Furious operation should never have started, but it is equally clear that neither should any of the operations conducted under Project Gunrunner which was started in the previous administration.
And let's just note that under Bush the ATF gunwalking project lost control in the Hernandez case in 2007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fast_and_Furious#The_Hernandez_Case
and the Medrano case in 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fast_and_Furious#The_Hernandez_Case
The specific Fast and Furious gunrunner program was started by Obama administration. Even though the Bush administration, started the concept that evolved into Fast and Furious, they rejected the premise of this program. The concept is NOT the same as the program itself and you should know that. You become a liar if you try to double down on your claim any more.
Posted by: KDS on September 22, 2012 11:33 AM"While such an answer may be a viable way to escape pointed questions during an interview, the problem is that Obama's claim is absolutely and demonstrably false.
Here are the facts: there was an operation to crack down on cartel members and border crime under Bush, but it wasn't Fast and Furious, and it was stopped approximately two years after it began because the Bush administration realized there was a loophole in it that could be exploited.
Besides being a completely different operation, "Wide Receiver" was miniscule in comparison to Fast and Furious. It involved only 400 to 450 guns, compared to 2500 in Fast and Furious, and every gun was equipped with a tracing/tracking device. Yet Congressman Paul Gosar (R-AZ) alleges only two guns out of the entire 2500 involved in Fast and Furious had tracing/tracking devices on them.
Moreover, the Mexican government knew about "Wide Receiver," and Mexican agents worked with Phoenix-area ATF when the operation was conducted. Contrast that with Fast and Furious, where Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder did not bother letting the Mexican government know 2500 guns were headed their way.
In fact, after Fast and Furious began in 2009, so many guns flooded into Mexico that the Mexican government thought factions within its country were arming themselves for full-blown civil war.
Ironically, "Wide Receiver" resulted in well over a thousand arrests, whereas Fast and Furious has resulted in a few at best (and most of those were made by the Mexican government once they figured out what was happening).
The differences between "Wide Receiver" and Fast and Furious are legion, and the goals of both programs appear markedly divergent as well. "Wide Receiver" was actually aimed at arresting criminals while Fast and Furious was simply designed to cause chaos.
Here's the bottom line: Fast and Furious did not begin under George W. Bush."
Once again, Obama lied & a border agent died. Anyone gullible enough to believe what this president says deserves to live in a rogue nation under totalitarian dictatorship for several years. That would help shock some sense into your frontal lobes.
Posted by: KDS on September 22, 2012 08:08 PM