• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

APNewsBreak: No 'Stand Down' Order in Benghazi

iguanaman said:
You don't believe "The Guardian"? I thought that was you prime source of news. There was a last minute rescue attempt by the CIA that failed, you should at least know that.

Protests in Cairo and Benghazi over American film | World news | theguardian.com
Click to expand...

Another Lie.

The Cairo Embassy attack was a bunch of jihadists demanding the release of the Blind Shiek.

It had NOTHING to do with the Video.

Don't you remember when some unnamed Embassy employee put out a disconnected press release apologizing for a video ?

Remember how it made NO sense ? I do.

Because everyone with the exception of dishonest partisan Obama apologist KNEW that the Cairo Embassy attack had nothing to do with a stupid You Tube video.
 
Grant said:
There is a long inquiry but it might serve you well just to watch this five minutes of testimony from the highest ranking official in Benghazi at the time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct_PHtLkgWw
Click to expand...

Since he was not present in Bengahazi, I would disregard anything he says about it, the CIA was present and believed the video was an instigator for the attack. and now that we do know that Ansar al Sharia had no involvement in the Benghazi incident, it turns out that he was upset that false statements were NOT made at the time. What a dufus and he reeks of bitter fired employee partisanship besides. No wonder he got fired.
 
iguanaman said:
Since he was not present in Bengahazi, I would disregard anything he says about it, the CIA was present and believed the video was an instigator for the attack. and now that we do know that Ansar al Sharia had no involvement in the Benghazi incident, it turns out that he was upset that false statements were NOT made at the time. What a dufus and he reeks of bitter fired employee partisanship besides. No wonder he got fired.
Click to expand...

So you watched the video?
 
Grant said:
How was Barrack Obama a better anything? He never ran a village, city, county state or business. All he learned was in the faculty lounge and from his far left friends. He is a Chance the Gardener, a man of little accomplishment, who was in the right place at the right time.

Mitt Romney was successful in whatever he did, and was far the better candidate. Most Americans now recognize that and have a deep suffering of buyers remorse, as they should. Now the world is recognizing, with the exception of the American left, just how lame and dangerous this guy really is.
Click to expand...

He ran a better campaign. He understood his audience better. Romney even made Obama appear stronger by bending to try and appease the more radical elements of the conservative party. Running a country isn't running a business. Until you understand that, you will fail by thinking a business person is what is needed.
 
Boo Radley said:
Yet, he won and your man lost.
Click to expand...

Of course, when votes were cast going on two years ago, nobody was aware that the buffoon was thinking about opening the borders to free-flow walk-ins or providing buses at the border to pick them up. This must have been one of the things the buffoon was talking about when this open mic video with Medvedev picked up his "more flexibility" comment unbeknownst. And then asking old Med to relay the info to Putin. The buffoon is a communist.
 
Boo Radley said:
He ran a better campaign. He understood his audience better. Romney even made Obama appear stronger by bending to try and appease the more radical elements of the conservative party. Running a country isn't running a business. Until you understand that, you will fail by thinking a business person is what is needed.
Click to expand...

Obviously an Academic is not what this country needs either....;)
 
HogWash said:


Of course, when votes were cast going on two years ago, nobody was aware that the buffoon was thinking about opening the borders to free-flow walk-ins or providing buses at the border to pick them up. This must have been one of the things the buffoon was talking about when this open mic video with Medvedev picked up his "more flexibility" comment unbeknownst. And then asking old Med to relay the info to Putin. The buffoon is a communist.
Click to expand...


The border situation hasn't changed. You're dealing with more misinformation. The problem was here long before he became president and will be long after he is gone.
 
j-mac said:
Obviously an Academic is not what this country needs either....;)
Click to expand...

I know there is hatred of anyone knowing anything, the anti-science, anti-education vibe is strong on the right. But once you get beyond the hyperbole concerning Obama, you find he is only slightly below average and not the disaster some make him out to be. And he won merely due to the poor opponent republicans chose (though there wasn't really a better one running).
 
HogWash said:


Of course, when votes were cast going on two years ago, nobody was aware that the buffoon was thinking about opening the borders to free-flow walk-ins or providing buses at the border to pick them up. This must have been one of the things the buffoon was talking about when this open mic video with Medvedev picked up his "more flexibility" comment unbeknownst. And then asking old Med to relay the info to Putin. The buffoon is a communist.
Click to expand...



Some information:

But, even if you accept the Republican premise, it still does not follow that the president “created this crisis only after Lamar Alexander voted for amnesty.” There is no evidence of a causal relationship between a Senate immigration bill that never became law and a current surge of Central Americans crossing the Southwest border.

Misassigning Blame for Immigration Crisis

Our ruling

Santorum said that Obama drew the influx of children at the border by saying, "If you come, you’re going to be able to stay."

The closest thing we could find to support Santorum's point is an open letter by the Homeland Security secretary to Central Americans. That letter acknowledged there could be a connection between Obama's executive order and the influx of children from Central America -- even though the executive order would not apply to the children approaching the border today.

Obama's deferred action policy applies only to people who had lived in the United States continuously since June 15, 2007. The targeted enforcement policies would provide no advantage to the children showing up at the border, and the administration has sent millions of people back to their home countries.

We rate the claim Mostly False.

Santorum: Obama said that if illegal immigrants come, 'you
 
Boo Radley said:
He ran a better campaign. He understood his audience better. Romney even made Obama appear stronger by bending to try and appease the more radical elements of the conservative party. Running a country isn't running a business. Until you understand that, you will fail by thinking a business person is what is needed.
Click to expand...

Actually running and executive dept is more like a business. Campaigning is not. Until you understand that, the country will fail.
 
jonny5 said:
Actually running and executive dept is more like a business. Campaigning is not. Until you understand that, the country will fail.
Click to expand...

No, it actually isn't. There's no profit making. The issues are largely more leadership and less about reporting to stockholders, even if you consider voters stockholders (a tortured analogy). Instead, he has to address an array of issues that have nothing to do with business or profit. So, you're quite mistaken.
 
Boo Radley said:
He ran a better campaign. He understood his audience better. Romney even made Obama appear stronger by bending to try and appease the more radical elements of the conservative party. Running a country isn't running a business. Until you understand that, you will fail by thinking a business person is what is needed.
Click to expand...

Of course he knew his audience better because the teachers unions had been brainwashing them, and under-educating them for years. As well there was the media bias and the electorate's lust for free stuff.

We can see that running a country is nothing like running a business, hence the $20 trillion in debt and all the money handed out to his left wing cronies. He would be arrested if he was running a business.
 
rcart76 said:
This is also the only thing they can come up with against Hilary.
Click to expand...

sure, so long as we forget about her Iraq vote, patriot act votes, silence on drone attacks, silence on NSA spying, etc, etc. Then you are correct, ignore all that, and her total lack of professionalism dealing with this issue is all we got
 
Grant said:
Of course he knew his audience better because the teachers unions had been brainwashing them, and under-educating them for years. As well there was the media bias and the electorate's lust for free stuff.

We can see that running a country is nothing like running a business, hence the $20 trillion in debt and all the money handed out to his left wing cronies. He would be arrested if he was running a business.
Click to expand...

Again, making excuses. Accept some personal responsibility. Your candidate was simply a poor one.

And yes, we do need to manage debt, but that requires decisions different than a business would make. It's not based on profit, but need versus cost. Sometimes we have to raise taxes to meet a need, and sometimes we have to say that we can't afford to tackle that problem. Human lives are in the balance and not mere profit, so the leader has to think differently than a business person.
 
jonny5 said:
Actually running and executive dept is more like a business. Campaigning is not. Until you understand that, the country will fail.
Click to expand...

I thought I'd link the conservative magazine Forbes for you:

Why Government Should Not Be Run Like A Business

(snip)

We should no more want the government to be run like a business than a business to be run like the government.

The problem in a nutshell, is that not everything that is profitable is of social value and not everything of social value is profitable.

(snip)

The point, however, is that saying that government is inefficient because it does not turn a profit is the equivalent of saying that Peyton Manning is a poor quarterback because he doesn’t hit enough home runs. He’s not supposed to.

Why Government Should Not Be Run Like A Business - Forbes
 
Boo Radley said:
I know there is hatred of anyone knowing anything, the anti-science, anti-education vibe is strong on the right. But once you get beyond the hyperbole concerning Obama, you find he is only slightly below average and not the disaster some make him out to be. And he won merely due to the poor opponent republicans chose (though there wasn't really a better one running).
Click to expand...

I don't think that is true Joe...Calling your opponents, or people that disagree with you "anti-knowledge", ''anti-science", "anti-education" is just a lazy way of addressing the real opposition to your own beliefs, and doing it in a annoyingly passive/aggressive manner. I think Obama IS the disaster that opponents make him out to be largely because he is pushing an active agenda to "Transform" this country, but when asked "into what?" many, including him dodge any direct, truthful answer. He is untrustworthy, and weak, not only here at home, but on the world stage as well.

As for a poor opponent, McCain I would agree with you on, but I think Romney could have done a better job today than Obama has done so far. At the very least he wouldn't be jetting off to a fundraiser every 5 minutes while real problems fester, and blow up...I can't wait til November, and really can't wait til '16. Hopefully we can figure out how liberals cheat and neutralize that aspect of their campaigns by then.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, it actually isn't. There's no profit making. The issues are largely more leadership and less about reporting to stockholders, even if you consider voters stockholders (a tortured analogy). Instead, he has to address an array of issues that have nothing to do with business or profit. So, you're quite mistaken.
Click to expand...

Yes, it actually is. Theres departments, budgets, revenues and outlays. A board of directors in the congress. Shareholders in the people. An executive is an executive. Which is why Obama fails. He has never been an executive. Hes more like the guy who organizes the social events for the employees.
 
Boo Radley said:
I thought I'd link the conservative magazine Forbes for you:

Why Government Should Not Be Run Like A Business

(snip)

We should no more want the government to be run like a business than a business to be run like the government.

The problem in a nutshell, is that not everything that is profitable is of social value and not everything of social value is profitable.

(snip)

The point, however, is that saying that government is inefficient because it does not turn a profit is the equivalent of saying that Peyton Manning is a poor quarterback because he doesn’t hit enough home runs. He’s not supposed to.

Why Government Should Not Be Run Like A Business - Forbes
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with profit. But in the leadership qualities neccesary to manage an entity. THis is why we typically elect governors, not senators. And instead of profit, the motive is the efficient delivery of a service.
 
j-mac said:
I don't think that is true Joe...Calling your opponents, or people that disagree with you "anti-knowledge", ''anti-science", "anti-education" is just a lazy way of addressing the real opposition to your own beliefs, and doing it in a annoyingly passive/aggressive manner. I think Obama IS the disaster that opponents make him out to be largely because he is pushing an active agenda to "Transform" this country, but when asked "into what?" many, including him dodge any direct, truthful answer. He is untrustworthy, and weak, not only here at home, but on the world stage as well.

As for a poor opponent, McCain I would agree with you on, but I think Romney could have done a better job today than Obama has done so far. At the very least he wouldn't be jetting off to a fundraiser every 5 minutes while real problems fester, and blow up...I can't wait til November, and really can't wait til '16. Hopefully we can figure out how liberals cheat and neutralize that aspect of their campaigns by then.
Click to expand...

I think when you ignore science and constantly go against it, you are anti science. I don't know what else to call it.

As for McCain, he was better than Romney. At least MCCain once had a backbone and moral compass. I'd have voted for the old MCCain, before he sold out to the radical right. Palin was his undoing though. The middle and not the left was the important group that wouldn't accept such incompetence.
 
jonny5 said:
Yes, it actually is. Theres departments, budgets, revenues and outlays. A board of directors in the congress. Shareholders in the people. An executive is an executive. Which is why Obama fails. He has never been an executive. Hes more like the guy who organizes the social events for the employees.
Click to expand...

But the purpose is different, and as such so is the approach. Too different to be comparable.
 
jonny5 said:
It has nothing to do with profit. But in the leadership qualities neccesary to manage an entity. THis is why we typically elect governors, not senators. And instead of profit, the motive is the efficient delivery of a service.
Click to expand...

The qualities needed are country above self, sometimes seeing need over money. Not at all the same.
 
Boo Radley said:
The border situation hasn't changed. You're dealing with more misinformation. The problem was here long before he became president and will be long after he is gone.
Click to expand...

OH HELL NO! The border situation is a 1,000 times worse than before this buffoon "won" two elections. And now he's going to go bring them in directly from Honduras..."so they won't have to travel through Mexico".

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/25/world/americas/administration-weighs-plan-to-move-processing-of-youths-seeking-entry-to-honduras-.html
 
HogWash said:
OH HELL NO! The border situation is a 1,000 times worse than before this buffoon "won" two elections. And now he's going to go bring them in directly from Honduras..."so they won't have to travel through Mexico".

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/25/world/americas/administration-weighs-plan-to-move-processing-of-youths-seeking-entry-to-honduras-.html
Click to expand...

In reality, no. There has been an issue with Central American children, but it's a stretch to blame Obama. He does, hie ER, have to address it. And being a heartless bastard, he has to consider that they are children.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom