Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?

[Anotherkiwi]

Forgetting (for a moment) all the other bits and pieces, this doesn't make sense to me:
 

"... "Even the studies that Romney has cited to claim his plan adds up still show he would need to  raise middle-class taxes," said the Obama campaign press release. "In fact, Harvard economist Martin Feldstein and Princeton economist Harvey Rosen both concede that paying for Romney’s tax cuts would require large tax increases on families making between $100,000 and $200,000."..."


Princeton Harvey Rosen's response:

"I can’t tell exactly how the Obama campaign reached that characterization of my work.  It might be that they assume that Governor Romney wants to keep the taxes from the Affordable Care Act in place, despite the fact that the Governor has called for its complete repeal.  The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same.

That sounds fine, but then we have:
 

That is, an increase in the tax burden on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make the overall plan revenue neutral."

Huh?  If you look at this logically, he's saying that people earning over $200,000 are lower and middle income individuals.  Is there a misquotation somewhere in all of this?  Should it read "below $200,000" instead of above?

[ML]

Unfortunately, Ryan did not 'eat Biden's lunch' as a couple  of us had predicted.

I am now really questioning Romney's choice of Ryan.
I agree with much of what Ryan says and stands for, but he just doesn't look Presidential (in waiting).  Almost like a re-run of the choice of Dan Quayle.

I guess the jury is still out on the Ryan - Biden debate.
Joe scored a lot of points for being aggressive; but lost a lot of points for his silly smile, smirks, and interruptions.

But, most say people rarely consider VP candidates when voting.

Kind of strange when you look at it (speaking physically only, and referring to above the neck):

Obama - small head; Biden - large head.
Romney - big head; Ryan - small head

I think people prefer big heads for leaders.

[Gator]

The guy is a moron.

The problem is that Obama is not a moron.  He is very clever yet seriously misguided.   Worse, he is a liar.  And he has the gall to refer to Romney as a "liar." 
 
Cameraguy argues that all politicians lie.  That may be true, but there are liars and then there are damned lying liars.   Given the Libya cover-up, examples such as the New Orleans speech, and the lies in Obama's campaign ads,  Obama is challenging Tricky Dick Nixon for biggest liar. 
 
Would anyone expect Obama to tell us Americans how it really is?  As I said before, the Democrat platform is not unreasonable (e. g.,  education, abortion, gun control, etc.).  However, how can a reasonable Democrat vote for Obama? 
 
Democrats, please split your vote.  Your leader is bad for  America.   Many of you Democrats are very intelligent.   How can you elect a President with Obama's character, especially given the character of Romney?   Even more important, how can you elect a President who will accelerate our pace to become the next Greece?
 
I personally believe that America will not re-elect Obama.  Romney will have a difficult job to undertake, yet I feel he has  a far better understanding of what it will take to grow out of the economic doldrums.

[Daveman]

I'm just gonna write in Jesse Ventura.   

[GQBlues]

...
Huh?  If you look at this logically, he's saying that people earning over $200,000 are lower and middle income individuals.  Is there a misquotation somewhere in all of this?  Should it read "below $200,000" instead of above?

AK-

In a nutshell, what Harvey Rosen stated is correct.

The tax reduction will be across the board and because those earning 'above' $200k will more than likely 'lose more' of their tax write-offs/shelter e.g. real estate taxes, etc (maintaining revenue neutral)....which those earning 'below' 200K (likely wouldn't have as much tax deductibles as those above) plausibly/should, etc...result in them not seeing any tax increase with their plan.

What and which exactly will those deductibles going be is not yet certain. I have a strong impression real estate tax be first in the cut line.

[Muzh]

Mitt Romney: The Great Deformer

…the next president’s overriding task is restoring national solvency—an undertaking that will involve immense society-wide pain, sacrifice, and denial and that will therefore require “fairness” as a defining principle. And that’s why heralding Romney’s record at Bain is so completely perverse. The record is actually all about the utter unfairness of windfall riches obtained under our anti-free market regime of bubble finance.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/14/david-stockman-mitt-romney-and-the-bain-drain.html

[Anotherkiwi]

Mitt Romney: The Great Deformer



http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/14/david-stockman-mitt-romney-and-the-bain-drain.html

Without getting stuck in the mire (again!) of how bad Obama is compared with Saint Mitt, this supports my original posts of many moons ago about Romney's credentials as a corporate raider.  Coming from a life-long Republican it's pretty frightening.
 
You guys who attack Obama all the time may be right - but God help you if Romney is elected.  Several of RWD's American members will be fine, because they already have plenty of money.  Those who are less well-off may be struggling.

[Faux Pas]

Without getting stuck in the mire (again!) of how bad Obama is compared with Saint Mitt, this supports my original posts of many moons ago about Romney's credentials as a corporate raider.  Coming from a life-long Republican it's pretty frightening.
 
You guys who attack Obama all the time may be right - but God help you if Romney is elected.  Several of RWD's American members will be fine, because they already have plenty of money.  Those who are less well-off may be struggling.

AK, it's blatantly obvious you'll never "get it". Why I continue to post to you on this subject makes it blatantly obvious I'll never "get you" either but, I'll try once more. Suppose just for a minute and I am sure you have much longer than that, that the Romney hack job here is all 100% true. It isn't, but suppose it is. Just by virtue of his experience in high finance capital investment would make him much more imminently more qualified to broach the problems America faces today. Obama's experience of community organizer, city alderman and the whopping 15 months as senator (ALL without any accomplishment) and now his 4 years as a complete failure as president would make Obama qualified?

If you are going to post such tripe as this, at least know of what you speak. Romney can not do any worse for the economy that Obama has in the last 4 years. Many of the RWD guys you speak of are out of work or their work has been diminished significantly. Few if any from this site are dependent on the entitlements or reap rewards from the QE 1,2,or 3. Yes, the economy, the rising debt and lack of a budget is the major problems facing America today. There are others but these, are in emergency priority status. Obama has no one to blame, these are his created problems. He has provided nothing in the way of leadership to face and correct these problems.

As I said, there are many more but these problems must be dealt with. What in your opinion, does Obama have in his record or experience that will help the US fix these issues and start our economy again? Something? Anything?

[Anotherkiwi]

...Just by virtue of his experience in high finance capital investment would make him much more imminently more qualified to broach the problems America faces today.

Yes, his experience is in "high finance capital investment."  What has that to do with the real world, where people are trying to make a living, rather than waiting for accountants to create a few more millions with the stroke of a pen?  Romney appears to have absolutely no idea about how the majority of people live - his comments about "the 47%" are just one of many.  The problems which lower income earners and the unemployed face are something which he doesn't seem to appreciate - if he did, he wouldn't have lead a company which callously spills thousands of people out of work while it pursues the almighty dollar.  With his billions he's safe from EVER being remotely near that position.  People who (for example) burble on about how the unemployed are a lazy bunch of no-hopers who should try harder to find themselves a job have obviously never experienced that situation.  Of course many unemployed people ARE lazy no-hopers - most are not.
 

Obama's experience of community organizer, city alderman and the whopping 15 months as senator (ALL without any accomplishment) and now his 4 years as a complete failure as president would make Obama qualified?

Obviously you and many others on RWD don't think so.  If you're the majority, I'll bow to your collective wisdom.  What happens to you if he gets re-elected anyway?

If you are going to post such tripe as this, at least know of what you speak.

I didn't post it - Muzh did, and I'm glad he did.  You take great delight in pontificating about how little I know of your country - surely you will allow that, as an American, Muzh has much greater knowledge of this subject than I do?     All I'm doing is pointing out that this backs up what I wrote months ago.  You say it's not all true - presumably you therefore agree that some (or most) IS.  Obviously I can't comment on that because I don't know the specifics of each case.  If you support such a man you deserve to reap whatever whirlwind comes your way.
 

Romney can not do any worse for the economy that Obama has in the last 4 years.

Are you so sure about that?  The rich (or perhaps I should say the ultra-rich) won't notice any change, whatever happens.  Of what consequence is a $20 million company loss if you're worth a billion or two?  It won't affect the guy at the top, but thousands at the bottom will suffer.  Some will pay for it with their lives.
 

Many of the RWD guys you speak of are out of work or their work has been diminished significantly. Few if any from this site are dependent on the entitlements or reap rewards from the QE 1,2,or 3.

This is where I share part of MY life story - I've been made redundant twice, and the first time I was out of work for well over a year. During that time I applied for over 300 jobs, for most of which I was over-qualified, but which I'd have been happy to take just to get off the unemployment benefit. I finally got a job when someone who had been made redundant with me got in touch to say that she had found work with her husband's employer and that there was a position available for me if I was interested.  I'm not with that employer now (that was my second redundancy, about three years later  ) , nor am I rich, but at least I have a comfortable lifestyle, and I'm pretty happy with what I've got.


 

Yes, the economy, the rising debt and lack of a budget is the major problems facing America today. There are others but these, are in emergency priority status. Obama has no one to blame, these are his created problems. He has provided nothing in the way of leadership to face and correct these problems.  As I said, there are many more but these problems must be dealt with. What in your opinion, does Obama have in his record or experience that will help the US fix these issues and start our economy again? Something? Anything?

These problems are not confined to the USA - nearly every country in the world faces the same scenario to a greater or lesser extent.  I totally agree that they are the major items which need to be dealt with, but the global financial crisis was not Obama's fault - are you seriously trying to say that he ran your Treasury and made every financial decision?

[LiveFromUkraine]

[size=78%]These problems are not confined to the USA - nearly every country in the world faces the same scenario to a greater or lesser extent.  I totally agree that they are the major items which need to be dealt with, but the global financial crisis was not Obama's fault - are you seriously trying to say that he ran your Treasury and made every financial decision?[/size]

It doesn't matter who was at fault.  It only matters how we deal with it.


Now we are seeing more and more companies coming out saying they will be cutting employment/hours for people in order to minimize healthcare costs that will soon be implemented.


I can only imagine how many more will follow.

[Daveman]

Go Jesse! Go Jesse! Go Jesse!

[Faux Pas]

Yes, his experience is in "high finance capital investment."  What has that to do with the real world, where people are trying to make a living, rather than waiting for accountants to create a few more millions with the stroke of a pen?  Romney appears to have absolutely no idea about how the majority of people live - his comments about "the 47%" are just one of many.  The problems which lower income earners and the unemployed face are something which he doesn't seem to appreciate - if he did, he wouldn't have lead a company which callously spills thousands of people out of work while it pursues the almighty dollar.  With his billions he's safe from EVER being remotely near that position.  People who (for example) burble on about how the unemployed are a lazy bunch of no-hopers who should try harder to find themselves a job have obviously never experienced that situation.  Of course many unemployed people ARE lazy no-hopers - most are not.

Actually, it has everything to do with the "real world" Romney is a man who has not only served as governor of one of the most bankrupt states and brought it out of bankruptcy. His 15 years with Bain capital has created 100s of 1000s of jobs. Yes he also shut down inefficient companies and eliminated them as well. It's call "capitalism" look it up. You can harp on his 47% comment if you wish. You obviously don't know the backstory to that comment you just as well take it like you've been told to take it. Good luck with that
 

Obviously you and many others on RWD don't think so.  If you're the majority, I'll bow to your collective wisdom.  What happens to you if he gets re-elected anyway?

Nothing that isn't happening now. The sun will come up and the collective finiancial picture of the once greatest country on earth will only get more dire
 

I didn't post it - Muzh did, and I'm glad he did.  You take great delight in pontificating about how little I know of your country - surely you will allow that, as an American, Muzh has much greater knowledge of this subject than I do?     All I'm doing is pointing out that this backs up what I wrote months ago.  You say it's not all true - presumably you therefore agree that some (or most) IS.  Obviously I can't comment on that because I don't know the specifics of each case.  If you support such a man you deserve to reap whatever whirlwind comes your way.

You reposted it. Don't attempt to build a strawman with Muzh. I know where he stands and I have a pretty good idea why. I also know Muzh posts much of that axe job for hyperbole as he's too smart to believe all of that crap. I don't know that about you.
 

Are you so sure about that?  The rich (or perhaps I should say the ultra-rich) won't notice any change, whatever happens.  Of what consequence is a $20 million company loss if you're worth a billion or two?  It won't affect the guy at the top, but thousands at the bottom will suffer.  Some will pay for it with their lives.

I don't give a shit about the rich people. It's me my children and my grandchildren I care about. The rich can worry about themselves. They don't need me doing it for them. Obama is rich (from community organizing btw) being rich is not a crime or something to be ashamed of.
 

This is where I share part of MY life story - I've been made redundant twice, and the first time I was out of work for well over a year. During that time I applied for over 300 jobs, for most of which I was over-qualified, but which I'd have been happy to take just to get off the unemployment benefit. I finally got a job when someone who had been made redundant with me got in touch to say that she had found work with her husband's employer and that there was a position available for me if I was interested.  I'm not with that employer now (that was my second redundancy, about three years later  ) , nor am I rich, but at least I have a comfortable lifestyle, and I'm pretty happy with what I've got.

Then you have a feel of what 23 million Americans are currently going through. When Obama took office that number was nearly half that figure. Everybody's in the US lifestyle have made changes to some degree since Obama has taken office. Most of it detrimental
 

These problems are not confined to the USA - nearly every country in the world faces the same scenario to a greater or lesser extent.  I totally agree that they are the major items which need to be dealt with, but the global financial crisis was not Obama's fault

The global financial crisis is his problem to deal with, he hasn't. A complete abysmal failure on the financial crisis and as president. Apparently you didn't pay attention to the last election, did you?  -

are you seriously trying to say that he ran your Treasury and made every financial decision?

He is the president, isn't he?

[BC]

Now we are seeing more and more companies coming out saying they will be cutting employment/hours for people in order to minimize healthcare costs that will soon be implemented.


I can only imagine how many more will follow.

With something as big as the Affordable Care Act some companies will indeed seek loopholes and adjustments will be made in the future.  No law is perfect and requires time and experience to see what actually happens.  It's a good step forward and over time will even help businesses by leveling the playing field.

[GQBlues]

The entertainment continues.....

I think Obama did much better than he did on the last debate. Much better. Do I think he w'on' the debate? No. If it isn't yet obvious the guy is making stuff up, AND, with immense media support ~ I mean...who in their right mind would believe Obama did in fact believed AND factly cited, 24 hours after the Libyan tragedy, that it was a *terrorist attack* upon the US sovereignty? Here's that speech...








You can't fact check a posted unedited video.


Americans have all heard him on the Letterman show (10 days later), during the UN speech (2 weeks later) and that silly AD aired in Pakistan that WE all paid for - all stating that it was an attacked provoked by a video. LOL. The guy lies to his teeth and the Kool-Aid crowd just laps it all up...

I just love that segment about pensions and investing on China. He postured Romney's portfolio as having investment interest in China while he himself carries the very same thing. Stupid, stupid man.

Anyway, a favorite quote I heard....

"....the reason why I'm no longer voting for Obama is because now I realize that everytime he gets asked *What time is it?* He always seem to respond, *Well, it's partly cloudy today but tomorrow's another day!*...

That about sums up his stupid presidency.

I got this from an email. It's the dissection of the media's declaration that Obama 'won' Debate II:

  Here are the results.  Forty-six percent say President Obama won the debate.  Thirty-nine percent say Governor Romney won the debate.  This poll shows it was basically a draw as far as those who actually watched the debate were concerned.


When we dig deeper into the numbers, we're seeing Romney did score points with viewers tonight.  Look at this.  Fifty-eight percent, 58% of debate watchers say Romney would better handle the economy.  Forty percent say President Obama would.  That's issue number one.  Forty-nine percent say Romney would better handle health care, compared to 46% for President Obama.  We also asked who would better handle the issue of taxes.  Fifty-one percent say Romney; 44% say President Obama.  Fifty-nine percent say Romney would do a better job on the deficit.  Thirty-six percent say President Obama would do a better job on the deficit.

RUSH:  That doesn't even sound close, does it?  I mean, that's pretty devastating.  So my question is, how do you get in the overall poll, 46 say Obama won the debate, 39 say Romney, and then you get those numbers?  Well, it's not even close.  It's 58-40 on the economy; it is 49-46 on health care; it's 51-44 taxes; and 59-36 on the deficit, all in favor of Romney, CNN poll.   Then they bring in John King, who used to have his own show at CNN.  Was John King moved out for Eliot Spitzer or did Spitzer get moved out and King put in?  King is back to reporting now, and he says that if the numbers that Wolf just recited are true, then it's over.

KING:  If American voters out there, not just people who watched the debate who participated in our poll, if other Americans think that Governor Romney won on the question of who would best handle the economy, who would best handle health care, and who would best handle taxes, if they don't change their mind between now and Election Day, Governor Romney will win the election.

RUSH:  They're all excited.  "Obama wins. 'Barack is Back,' headline says it all. I'm elated."  Then the polling data, flash polling comes in: not even close.  Here's Anthony Mason last night, CBS special coverage of the presidential debate.

MASON:  We asked those 500 uncommitted voters immediately after the debate, who do they think won?  Thirty-seven percent said President Obama, 30% said Governor Romney, about a third called the debate a tie in their eyes.  Here's where it gets interesting, though, is on the issue of the economy.  Who won the economy tonight?  Well, first of all, we asked which candidate would do a better job of handling the economy.  After the debate, 65% said Governor Romney, 34% said President Obama.

RUSH:  That's devastating.  I mean, their poll was 37-30 with 33 saying it's a tie.  CNN's was 46-39, but then you get into the internals, it's not even close.  So I guess when you say, "Who won the debate?" these people are judging it in its own separate universe, but then you get to the specifics of who's the better guy to deal with problems we got, it's Romney.  So that's that.

******

This clown's policies are so bad, he himself understands just how bad he needs to lie. It is so bad in fact, he's campaigning under someone else's (Clinton's) policy. LOL.

[Gator]

Last night Obama did much better in scoring debating points for many issues.  I wonder if Obama took some adderal.   Seriously.  He certainly was alert and energized, and seemed agitated if not angry. 
 
And GQ you are correct about the Benghazi "coverup."  97 out of 100 people have the impression that Obama blamed the videotape for a spontaneous demonstration that led to the killings of our Ambassador and staff.
 
Obama successfully made Romney's tax plan seem sketchy.   While I believe Obama "won" the debate for the evening, somewhat helped by the moderator, the most important issue is the economy.  Early polls show that after the debate Romney picked up even more votes that he is the better candidate regarding the economy. 
 
While Obama is trying to shoot down  Romney's economic plan, where is Obama's plan?  There is nothing to suggest that Obama's vision for the next four years is any different.  And why would people believe that things will get better? And there is also the question of character. 
 
Most people will come to their senses and vote with their pocketbook.   The soft Obama voters in 2008 will not be there in 2012.   Even some on foot stamps may want a better chance for a job.   Obama's goose is cooked.

[Gator]

Mitt Romney: The Great Deformer



http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/14/david-stockman-mitt-romney-and-the-bain-drain.html

I did not have time to read this yesterday.  Interesting perspective.  Although it is an attempt to disqualify if not attack Romney, in some ways it shows why Romney would be the President that America needs now.
 

... he spent his 15 years raising debt in prodigious amounts on Wall Street so that Bain could purchase the pots and pans and castoffs of corporate America, leverage them to the hilt, ....

Most of these "castoffs" were already levered to the hilt before Bain acquired them.   That is, they were in debt up to their eyeballs.  Remind you of something?  It should remind you of our Federal government. 
 

...gussy them up as reborn “roll-ups,” and then deliver them back to Wall Street for resale—the faster the better.

"Gussy" in this case was to trim unproductive parts.   Yes, it resulted in some layoffs; however, a sinking large ship was refitted as a streamlined, viable entity.   And the entity frequently grew, hiring more new employees over time than were laid off initially. 
 
Romney plans the same for our Federal government.  Those units which do not pass a simple test for being effective will be trimmed in some way that is worked out from both sides of the aisle. 
 

Indeed, the next president’s overriding task is restoring national solvency—an undertaking that will involve immense societywide pain, sacrifice, and denial and that will therefore require “fairness” as a defining principle.

Hello!    That is exactly what Romney would do.  And I trust Romney's fairness microchip better than Obama's.  Obama is a product of political cronyism. Romney has demonstrated throughout his life his love of people, all people.
 

 
What would Obama do to address our budget deficit?  Obama had this task for four years.    The past four years show what Obama would do.  Nothing.  In fact, he made the deficit larger.   And Obama's plan for the next four years?  How does it differ?  Most American voters are starting to recognize that it would be  same old same old.
 

[jone]

I used to run political campaigns many years ago.  The interesting take that I have on the Presidential Election is the run-up voting vs. the actual election day voting.  In two crucial states, Iowa and Ohio, Obama's team has done a terrific job of getting people to send in absentee ballots.  Why do they do this?  Because many of the people would not be voting if someone doesn't drive them to pick up their ballot and then pick up the ballot when it's filled out and mail it in for the vote.  (Sometimes I think they even fill in the ballot, but that is just guessing.)  The obvious advantage here is for the Democrats because it turns Registered Voters into Likely Voters.

But now here's the hotflash.  In both of these states, the Republicans decided they were going to match the Democrats and the numbers, while not equal, are growing more even as the enthusiasm picks up for Romney and the enthusiasm wains for Obama.  Should these totals even come close to being even, the race is over and there is a Romney victory.

Oh, ML? 

You mentioned that you were rethinking the Ryan pick for VP?  Rethink again.  In Southern Wisconsin, where I'm from originally, and my Dad was an elected official, Ryan rules that congressional district.  He regularly wins this district with 64 percent of the vote.  Even when the district voted for Obama over McCain by a total of 12 points in 2008.  It is predominantly Blue Collar including Janesville (which lost their GM Plant - it didn't get bailed out) Kenosha and Racine.  The rest of the district is either suburbia or farmland.  If Ryan brings in even close to those numbers in his OWN CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT then Wisconsin will flip to Romney.  And you can forget about Ohio.  The race will be over. 

[Muzh]

I did not have time to read this yesterday.  Interesting perspective.  Although it is an attempt to disqualify if not attack Romney, in some ways it shows why Romney would be the President that America needs now.
 Most of these "castoffs" were already levered to the hilt before Bain acquired them.   That is, they were in debt up to their eyeballs.  Remind you of something?  It should remind you of our Federal government. 
 
"Gussy" in this case was to trim unproductive parts.   Yes, it resulted in some layoffs; however, a sinking large ship was refitted as a streamlined, viable entity.   And the entity frequently grew, hiring more new employees over time than were laid off initially. 
 
Romney plans the same for our Federal government.  Those units which do not pass a simple test for being effective will be trimmed in some way that is worked out from both sides of the aisle. 
 
Hello!    That is exactly what Romney would do.  And I trust Romney's fairness microchip better than Obama's.  Obama is a product of political cronyism. Romney has demonstrated throughout his life his love of people, all people.
 

 
What would Obama do to address our budget deficit?  Obama had this task for four years.    The past four years show what Obama would do.  Nothing.  In fact, he made the deficit larger.   And Obama's plan for the next four years?  How does it differ?  Most American voters are starting to recognize that it would be  same old same old.

Gator, you are arguing with a guy who was on the inside. The term being there, done that is more than appropriate with the author.

[Eduard]

Have you guys watched Romney's speech at the annual Alfred E. Smith dinner tonight? It was hilarious!!!!

[GQBlues]

Go Jesse! Go Jesse! Go Jesse!

Jesse?!? Why write a vote in when you already have the Roseanne Barr option the ballot?

[Gator]

Gator, you are arguing with a guy who was on the inside. The term being there, done that is more than appropriate with the author.

I was merely showing how Romney's experience at Bain is a good basis for what he must do with regard to correcting the nation's fiscal policies  once he is elected President.
If you insist that Stockwell is correct because he did what Romeny did at Bain I suggest that you consider the fact that unlike Romeny, Stockwell was a big failure.   He lost a lot of money (other people's money and his own).    He was even indicted for fraud (later dropped).   And this is your witness?   
 
He was a loose cannon as director for four years of Reagan's OMB and had to resign after Reagan "took him to the woodshed."   Next time please vet your witnesses.
 
Obama's goose is cooked.  He knows it and is looking to buy a home in Hawaii.
 

[Gator]

Romney is hilarious at the Catholic Smith fundraiser.  Remind you of another President?
 

 

This video skips one especially good quip when Romney said that the white-tie-and-tails event made him feel right at home because “I can finally relax and wear what Ann and I wear around the house.”  Admit it Obama voters - Romney is human.

Is that Walter Mondale sitting behind Mitt?

[Gator]

"Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they    are insured. . . but not everyone must [/i][/b]prove they are a citizen."[/i][/b]

    Now add this, "Many of those who refuse, [/i][/b]or are unable, to prove they are citizens[/i][/b]
    will receive free insurance paid for by [/i][/b]those who are forced to buy insurance[/i][/b]
    because they are citizens."
[/i][/b]

[Eduard]

It's fathomless 

[GQBlues]

So based on the intelligence report released yesterday, apparently there were multiple security requests sent to Washington prior to the Libya's 9/11 attack. Even Stevens' himself had sent multiple cables requesting additional force due to 2 bombings upon the consular building since June '12 & the assassination attempt against the British ambassador. Ironically, the last cable was sent on the very day he died, 9/11. All requests went unheeded because the State department wanted to 'normalize' relations with Libya.

This is the *New Normal* this stupid administration was trying to cultivate and Americans must learn to live with it.

Not.

The added insult to our country/injury is, after this unjustifiable sacrificial offering of 4 Americans, this administration still claimed this was 'in fact' (hello Ms. Susan Rice, pls. sweep the floor on your way out) a spontaneous attack as a result of the videotape.