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

[Faux Pas]

There seems to be two sides to that story.

http://factcheck.org/2012/07/obamas-sealed-records/

Anyone seen a check for 750K?

Most of those claims is hyperbole IMHO however, it should be noted that both snopes and factcheck are Soros funded entities.

There were several glaring falsehoods in the factcheck. One being both Michelle and Obama can no longer practice law. Both surrendered their law license which is something lawyers do to avoid prosecution. Both would have to be re-instated by the Illinois state bar which is something that likely will never happen

[BC]

BC, you believe the economic mess was created by Republicans and evil businessmen. Imagine waking up from your dream and realizing the economic mess was created actually created by Democrats and poor people. After people abused a system endorsed by the government getting into homes they couldn't afford to pay on, people got behind on payments, got deeper into debt, they stopped buying products and businesses began to fail due to lack of business, and people lost jobs because business failed, and after disaster in America, it spread to the rest of the world. You think Capitalism is to blame. Government caused this mess.

Billy,

you insist on shooting the messenger.  Tell you what..  read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_policies_and_the_subprime_mortgage_crisis carefully then lets get back together on this topic.

BC, you are informed yet you resist and try to debate by selecting certain quotes from certain sites in an effort to blame the economic mess on Bush and corportate
America and promote Obama. You have tried real hard to make an innocent man look guilty.

When I quote something, I provide links to the full texts.  Unfortunately most replies simply state in some manner that 'you are wrong', without any quotes or links to research.  I hope at least some have taken the time to read the full texts and get a better idea for what was / is going on.

[BC]

Most of those claims is hyperbole IMHO however, it should be noted that both snopes and factcheck are Soros funded entities.

There were several glaring falsehoods in the factcheck. One being both Michelle and Obama can no longer practice law. Both surrendered their law license which is something lawyers do to avoid prosecution. Both would have to be re-instated by the Illinois state bar which is something that likely will never happen

FP,

Of course one should not rely on one source alone, but there are many.  Here's another that seems fairly reasonable.  But I guess everything on the net is owned by someone.. surely that should not be the reason to discredit the intent of a website.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_was_Michelle_Obama_disbarred

Maybe it would be a good exercise for both of us to see what we can dig up to clarify this small, single item.   Considering the link I provided, do you still think her inactive status somehow reflects negatively?  Or does it help us both reach consensus?

I do try to stay away from most blog spaces such as http://leahlaxforpresident2012.blogspot.it/2012/01/michelle-obama-disbarred-for-extortion.html

There is a ton of this stuff out there but I doubt even you give them authoritative value.

[GQBlues]

There is something very unsettling with me about this latest installment...and no it isn't because of the persons involved or their political affiliation.





The reasons are:

1. The WH first insisted persistently that the Libyan tragedy was a spontaneous reaction from the video and that while investigators were sent to the location for verification, they insisted the event to be a non-terrorist act. Within one day, the State Dept released statements that are 180 degrees in content. It isn't so much that they were complete opposites (spontaneous/planned terror attack), but the manner the admittance was announced after days of professing it was a spontaneous attack brought about by a video, "..It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently and the result was four deaths of American officials – that's self-evident...".

2. Why have Reuters didn't, if they in fact did not, submitted their video clearly showing insurgents armed with RPGs descending upon the consulate office during that fateful night. If they did, why did the WH insisted for days this was 'spontaneous'.

3. While our American ambassador was being brutally executed, our President was busy apologizing. Apologizing for someone exercising their 1st Amendment right? Now, I don't remember the government of Denmark apologizing for their cartoon, especially not while their citizen was getting raped and towed behind a car and dragged down the street.

4. Why hasn't the white house apologize instead to the Libyan officials who repeatedly warned them prior to this tragic night of the pending danger but they have been reluctant to admit?

5. Why on the same day of admitting it was an act of terror, they aired ads in Pakistan of all places, apologizing and assuring Pakistanis that the American government had nothing to do with the video and declaring any acts of barbarism is unforgivable when they at the same time bears no compunction of drone-bombing the very same people of that country?

6. I really want to know that even if the video is in fact offensive to all Muslims, then why do the same people who find that blasphemous *seem* to embrace the killing of thousands of innocent folks in the name of the very same entity they vehemently hold so holy?

7. Do you believe this administration have handled all of these properly?

Thoughts?

[Faux Pas]

FP,

Of course one should not rely on one source alone, but there are many.  Here's another that seems fairly reasonable.  But I guess everything on the net is owned by someone.. surely that should not be the reason to discredit the intent of a website.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_was_Michelle_Obama_disbarred

Maybe it would be a good exercise for both of us to see what we can dig up to clarify this small, single item.   Considering the link I provided, do you still think her inactive status somehow reflects negatively?  Or does it help us both reach consensus?

I do try to stay away from most blog spaces such as http://leahlaxforpresident2012.blogspot.it/2012/01/michelle-obama-disbarred-for-extortion.html

There is a ton of this stuff out there but I doubt even you give them authoritative value.

BC
I really don't have a lot of interest in looking up MO and sifting through the crap. I've done that already before hubby was elected. I did then read excerpts of her college thesis and other things which, are no longer available online btw. She is a very angry racist woman. There was plenty out there then and I can vouch that someone went to great pain and I expect expense to clean it up. 750K seems like a stretch. I seriously doubt we'd find much that was proven or credible. I do remember a little ballyho after BO got the nomination about the sanitizing of his records. It was believed that they were sanitizing hers.

[Faux Pas]

There is something very unsettling with me about this latest installment...and no it isn't because of the persons involved or their political affiliation.


The reasons are:

1. The WH first insisted persistently that the Libyan tragedy was a spontaneous reaction from the video and that while investigators were sent to the location for verification, they insisted the event to be a non-terrorist act. Within one day, the State Dept released statements that are 180 degrees in content. It isn't so much that they were complete opposites (spontaneous/planned terror attack), but the manner the admittance was announced after days of professing it was a spontaneous attack brought about by a video, "..It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently and the result was four deaths of American officials – that's self-evident...".

2. Why have Reuters didn't, if they in fact did not, submitted their video clearly showing insurgents armed with RPGs descending upon the consulate office during that fateful night. If they did, why did the WH insisted for days this was 'spontaneous'.

3. While our American ambassador was being brutally executed, our President was busy apologizing. Apologizing for someone exercising their 1st Amendment right? Now, I don't remember the government of Denmark apologizing for their cartoon, especially not while their citizen was getting raped and towed behind a car and dragged down the street.

4. Why hasn't the white house apologize instead to the Libyan officials who repeatedly warned them prior to this tragic night of the pending danger but they have been reluctant to admit?

5. Why on the same day of admitting it was an act of terror, they aired ads in Pakistan of all places, apologizing and assuring Pakistanis that the American government had nothing to do with the video and declaring any acts of barbarism is unforgivable when they at the same time bears no compunction of drone-bombing the very same people of that country?

6. I really want to know that even if the video is in fact offensive to all Muslims, then why do the same people who find that blasphemous *seem* to embrace the killing of thousands of innocent folks in the name of the very same entity they vehemently hold so holy?

7. Do you believe this administration have handled all of these properly?

Thoughts?

You have to admit, the Obama administration and his power base has done a fantastic job of keeping the Americans and the world in the dark, peeing on them and convincing them it's raining. They had no reason to think they could not do it now over this attack. Unfortunately for them it hasn't worked out that way. The interim president of Libya let that cat out of the bag the very next day. Openly stated on Al-Jeezera that it was an Al Quada coordinated attack that the Americans had knowledge, may occur. Despite that, Susan Rice and Jay Carney were dispatched to pull more wool and blow more smoke.

Heaven forbid the word gets leaked that Obama's Muslim policy is another failure among many

[BC]

BC
I really don't have a lot of interest in looking up MO and sifting through the crap. I've done that already before hubby was elected. I did then read excerpts of her college thesis and other things which, are no longer available online btw. She is a very angry racist woman. There was plenty out there then and I can vouch that someone went to great pain and I expect expense to clean it up. 750K seems like a stretch. I seriously doubt we'd find much that was proven or credible. I do remember a little ballyho after BO got the nomination about the sanitizing of his records. It was believed that they were sanitizing hers.

http://obamaprincetonthesis.wordpress.com/  pretty easy to find, I'll have to digest it a bit later.

I dunno FP, 5 years is a lot of time to dig.  Such things do have a habit of leaking, but really there have been more debunked theories i.e. birthers etc that have come up blank that anything declared 'real' would be suspect as well.  Who knows..

[Mod2]

One post deleted.  Let it be the last.

[GoodOlBoy]

One post deleted.  Let it be the last.

FWIW... If you don't believe the event happened.
I can put my RW on here to verify it's accuracy.
 
GOB

[GQBlues]

You have to admit, the Obama administration and his power base has done a fantastic job of keeping the Americans and the world in the dark, peeing on them and convincing them it's raining. They had no reason to think they could not do it now over this attack. Unfortunately for them it hasn't worked out that way. The interim president of Libya let that cat out of the bag the very next day. Openly stated on Al-Jeezera that it was an Al Quada coordinated attack that the Americans had knowledge, may occur. Despite that, Susan Rice and Jay Carney were dispatched to pull more wool and blow more smoke.

Heaven forbid the word gets leaked that Obama's Muslim policy is another failure among many

FP-

I'm prone to withold my judgment for now until this incident lends itself with full clarity. It is reported (not through the mainstream media, of course) that the Libyan government not only received information and conveyed to state officials about the attack, but also the fact the terrorists (there I said it) knew about the 'safe house' (where US officials and citizens are taken to in case of emergency) and had also drawn a plan to attack it as well.

An orchestrated attack to *celebrate* the 11th anniversary of 9/11 that the state department knew about but didn't do anything to prevent it.

Additionally, rumors/denial, etc...are flying about that the state department *is in talks*, or *had talked*, or *is considering*, *had considered*, *been denied*, or *been ambivalent*, etc...about the possible release of Omar Abdel-Rahman, the blind Egyptian cleric who masterminded the '93 WTC bombing that killed 6 Americans and injured hundreds...

WHY?

In light of the initial denials about the Libyan siege, I'll closely watch if Omar will in fact see the light of the North Carolina sun outside his jail cell....maybe sometime soon after the election.

[jb]

Only one comment:  How many times have you taken a machine gun and a RPG to a "spur of the moment" spontaneous protest?  Neither have I.

Something is fishy in the Obama White House explanation of the Libya betrayal/debacle.  I think the truth is not what the LSM is putting out for the general American consumption.  But then,,, I've heard lies by politicians and more than a few weather forecasters before.  Too me they are about the same on the trustworthy scale.

How is it possible for any right thinking American to vote for a proven liar? 

Just MHO.

[Faux Pas]

http://obamaprincetonthesis.wordpress.com/  pretty easy to find, I'll have to digest it a bit later.

I dunno FP, 5 years is a lot of time to dig.  Such things do have a habit of leaking, but really there have been more debunked theories i.e. birthers etc that have come up blank that anything declared 'real' would be suspect as well.  Who knows..

Several variables come into play. The interest in such information was much different 5 years ago than now. i.e. nobody was looking thus, there was no reason for sanitation. It didn't matter what filtered online and there were text copies of numerous Barry and Michelle's papers, speeches ect.

This is the age of disinformation. An example, one can post one true fact of a subject. 100 others can post one untruth to that fact. It becomes near impossible to disseminate that one truth among the 100 untruths. Multiply that by the millions added online in some form or fashion every hour, every day and truth is just another addition with not much separation from untruth. The truth becomes almost irrelevant.

[Faux Pas]

FP-

I'm prone to withold my judgment for now until this incident lends itself with full clarity. It is reported (not through the mainstream media, of course) that the Libyan government not only received information and conveyed to state officials about the attack, but also the fact the terrorists (there I said it) knew about the 'safe house' (where US officials and citizens are taken to in case of emergency) and had also drawn a plan to attack it as well.

An orchestrated attack to *celebrate* the 11th anniversary of 9/11 that the state department knew about but didn't do anything to prevent it.

Additionally, rumors/denial, etc...are flying about that the state department *is in talks*, or *had talked*, or *is considering*, *had considered*, *been denied*, or *been ambivalent*, etc...about the possible release of Omar Abdel-Rahman, the blind Egyptian cleric who masterminded the '93 WTC bombing that killed 6 Americans and injured hundreds...

WHY?

In light of the initial denials about the Libyan siege, I'll closely watch if Omar will in fact see the light of the North Carolina sun outside his jail cell....maybe sometime soon after the election.

Even if the truth lies somewhere in the middle. It is overwhelming that the Obama administration has lied and covered up. I think we are now seeing the early stages of damage control

[Shadow]

How is it possible for any right thinking American to vote for a proven liar? 

No other options ?

[The Natural]

I have to admit, I haven't read all of of your guys incerps here but.....
 
is it safe to say you all here agree that Obama is all bad news and...
 
that you (Americans) are full ready to vote for the lesser of two evils, when you should know that a vote for Romney means:
 
-a return of the neo-cons of Bush the junior which means more agressive wars which means more American casualities.
 
_ A continuation of support of Wall Street over main street.
 
_ A bailout of the ruling class and stiffing regular folks.
 
_ An anti-American policy because the Mormons hate Americans
 
_ I guess the majority of the RWD intelligencia are members the the Mormon church.... or should join the other member here who profess to be an individual who enjoy pain and humiliation.....
 
Americans are indeed strange. They don't think twice about voting for a person who's a mormon. Just as well vote for a fool for the Jehovas Witness or perhaps if Tom Cruise decided to run for the Scientology Church or any other New Age idea. The way I see it, it's the final cramps of a dying enpire!
 
Pinch me. How is it possible?

[Faux Pas]

I have to admit, I haven't read all of of your guys incerps here but.....
 
is it safe to say you all here agree that Obama is all bad news and...
 

Nope, some still see Obama as Obama does, The Prophet Muhammad

that you (Americans) are full ready to vote for the lesser of two evils, when you should know that a vote for Romney means:
 
-a return of the neo-cons of Bush the junior which means more agressive wars which means more American casualities.
 
_ A continuation of support of Wall Street over main street.
 
_ A bailout of the ruling class and stiffing regular folks.
 
_ An anti-American policy because the Mormons hate Americans
 
_ I guess the majority of the RWD intelligencia are members the the Mormon church.... or should join the other member here who profess to be an individual who enjoy pain and humiliation.....
 

Now THIS is strange. Before I give you an honest answer to this, please tell me Roy, how electing Romney equates to your vision here?

Americans are indeed strange. They don't think twice about voting for a person who's a mormon. Just as well vote for a fool for the Jehovas Witness or perhaps if Tom Cruise decided to run for the Scientology Church or any other New Age idea. The way I see it, it's the final cramps of a dying enpire!
 
Pinch me. How is it possible?

Yes we are a strange herd. We voted a man with zero experience, socialists agenda and very close ties to to the Islamic faith if he isn't a muslim himself as President. You think we should  now discriminate against a Mormon or Scientologist? That's funny right there   

[Turboguy]

How is it possible for any right thinking American to vote for a proven liar? 

[/quote
I think Shadow had the real answer.  I think Obama is not well liked and many would like a change but I think many look at Romney as someone who can't relate to the average person, someone who is stiff, eletist  and a bit snobby.  Someone secretive who won't be open about his own affairs, someone who will put the welfare of his rich friends ahead of the average working Joe, someone who speaks without thinking and could create international problems for the USA, someone who is out of touch with the world many of us live in.
I think it comes down to should they vote for the devil they know or the one they don't. 
I am as anti-Obama as they get and will be voting for Romney but I think the Republicans blew a golden opportunity with the selection they made.  I think too Romney is not running his campaign well and is letting Obummer take control.  I have a feeling when the debates happen Romney's support will erode even more.  Obama will cream him.   Personally I think Obamas second term is a done deal and I am really afraid for America.  The only hope I see for the country is if the Republicans retain control of the house.  If they don't this country is toast.

[The Natural]

Now THIS is strange. Before I give you an honest answer to this, please tell me Roy, how electing Romney equates to your vision here?

Well, to start with I was no big expert on the Mormon faith or any other for that matter.
 
I remember when the Internet started way back and I said something somewhere, like the US has the brightest but also the stupidest people and this particular American agreeing with me. I still feel the same way. You have a handful of really knowledgable people of high intelligence which you dismiss because they don't serve some kind of left-right agenda. You have a political genious in Webster Tarpley who is both an historian and economist, speak several languages, have lived in Europe and Arabia but nooooooo. ..... you need to be a religious nut and an asset stripper or a Muslim sweet talker to really get respect in the US these days it appears.
 
And it really cracks me up and I'm not referring to you dear good friend FP here, but those idiots on here who wants to break up the unions. Oh, they must not only be the 1% but the 0.1%. Fools! How did my country become a nation of an affluate middle class if it werent for the unions? Yeah, get away with the unions totally and get ready for the new feudal society which is the real goal of those fools here subscribing to such suicidal thoughts.
 
A vote for Romney is a vote AGAINST USA and FOR austerity and the decimation of the middle class.. a vote for Obama is the same... only not as quickly. A vote for the lesser evil! Are you mad? Then don't vote at all!
 
Another point; I have noticed the apparent hate of humanity displayed here by some when they verbalize their hate of anyone getting social help from the state, but at the same time they say nothing of the corporate welfare that runs in the trillions. That means nothing for these fools because being a Republican or whatever is their religion when they have lost faith in the real God. They would much rather support an oligarcy of rich mad men than to give support to their poor people.  These fools reckon they are on the winning side when the dust settles. Let's hope the regulars have seen their verbal actions and settle the score, because their illusion 1% heros won't be around to defend these fools.
 
I'm on the outside looking in and the US is a dying empire in my reckoning.....
 

[Faux Pas]

Well, to start with I was no big expert on the Mormon faith or any other for that matter.
 
I remember when the Internet started way back and I said something somewhere, like the US has the brightest but also the stupidest people and this particular American agreeing with me. I still feel the same way. You have a handful of really knowledgable people of high intelligence which you dismiss because they don't serve some kind of left-right agenda. You have a political genious in Webster Tarpley who is both an historian and economist, speak several languages, have lived in Europe and Arabia but nooooooo. ..... you need to be a religious nut and an asset stripper or a Muslim sweet talker to really get respect in the US these days it appears.
 
And it really cracks me up and I'm not referring to you dear good friend FP here, but those idiots on here who wants to break up the unions. Oh, they must not only be the 1% but the 0.1%. Fools! How did my country become a nation of an affluate middle class if it werent for the unions? Yeah, get away with the unions totally and get ready for the new feudal society which is the real goal of those fools here subscribing to such suicidal thoughts.
 
A vote for Romney is a vote AGAINST USA and FOR austerity and the decimation of the middle class.. a vote for Obama is the same... only not as quickly. A vote for the lesser evil! Are you mad? Then don't vote at all!
 
Another point; I have noticed the apparent hate of humanity displayed here by some when they verbalize their hate of anyone getting social help from the state, but at the same time they say nothing of the corporate welfare that runs in the trillions. That means nothing for these fools because being a Republican or whatever is their religion when they have lost faith in the real God. They would much rather support an oligarcy of rich mad men than to give support to their poor people.  These fools reckon they are on the winning side when the dust settles. Let's hope the regulars have seen their verbal actions and settle the score, because their illusion 1% heros won't be around to defend these fools.
 
I'm on the outside looking in and the US is a dying empire in my reckoning.....

Okay Roy, a deal is a deal. I would be remiss if I didn't state I don't think you answered my question head-on but got off on a tangent. That tangent you seem to be viewing right wing conservatism in the very extreme without any recognition of the extreme liberal left wing.

Keep in mind the far right and the far left of American politics are both small in numbers still yet, in the last 8-10 those numbers have increased exponentially largely due to the agenda of both parties of "divide and conquer", class warfare and any other political strategy that will get a candidate elected.

Tarpley doesn't contribute anything more than a Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'reilly or a Rachel Maddow or Bill Maher. Maybe Tarpley is more of a cafeteria mouth piece, picking and choosing from either side what he likes best (which is what I do)

I consider myself a fiscal conservative and socially liberal. There are still a good many of us around in this country but, with the extremism of the parties, we have no one to speak for us. I squarely fall under the heading of a Libertarian but that party is small and insignificant in elections. The citizenry prefers to speak and vote through the two big national parties

Most Americans no matter their political party are compassionate to those in need, countrymen or not. Most Americans know of the history and need for Labor Unions. Such unions can also be a huge detriment to a society when used for political power instead of bargaining rights such is the case with many big unions in America now.

Am I simply voting for the lesser evil? I state emphatically yes. I didn't vote for Romney in the primaries. Why would I vote for him now? Simply because I strongly believe our life blood which is our economy is on life support. 4 more years of Obama will surely collapse IMHO this failing economy. 4 more years of this will put us currently in the neighborhood of 24 trillion in debt and still no closer to at least stopping the spending, much less reversing it. With our economy dead America is no good to ourselves, and certainly not the rest of the world.

There is a lot of truth whether you wish to believe it or not to the saying "when America sneezes, the rest of the world catches cold". 4 more years of Obama's failed policies and reckless spending will cripple your economy and way of life, as it will ours. We are in a very bad situation here guy. I'm not preaching doom and gloom, I am stating it as fact. Regardless of your dislike of Republicans and Romney in particular, he is the only hope of reversing this mess that is at our disposal right now. Be careful what you wish for 

[GQBlues]

  ...
And it really cracks me up and I'm not referring to you dear good friend FP here, but those idiots on here who wants to break up the unions. Oh, they must not only be the 1% but the 0.1%. Fools! How did my country become a nation of an affluate middle class if it werent for the unions? Yeah, get away with the unions totally and get ready for the new feudal society which is the real goal of those fools here subscribing to such suicidal thoughts.
 
A vote for Romney is a vote AGAINST USA and FOR austerity and the decimation of the middle class.. a vote for Obama is the same... only not as quickly. A vote for the lesser evil! Are you mad? Then don't vote at all!
 
Another point; I have noticed the apparent hate of humanity displayed here by some when they verbalize their hate of anyone getting social help from the state, but at the same time they say nothing of the corporate welfare that runs in the trillions. That means nothing for these fools because being a Republican or whatever is their religion when they have lost faith in the real God. They would much rather support an oligarcy of rich mad men than to give support to their poor people.  These fools reckon they are on the winning side when the dust settles. Let's hope the regulars have seen their verbal actions and settle the score, because their illusion 1% heros won't be around to defend these fools.

Dunno...MHO, the bigger idiot is one who looked from the outside without having an iota of an idea what it's like on the inside and convinces himself they must be wrong. The 'fool' to me is someone who fully subscribed to the ideology of one based strictly on read journal and talk show rendering...were you not at one point fully convinced Ron Paul was the second-coming until someone bright and sexy from the inside educated you once and for all about the error of your silly ways before? How's that for being foolish?

Has it ever occurred to you that the type of Union organization in different countries may in fact follow different priorities and ideologies? I know as much about Norway's union regulations and tendencies as you do about America's - yet I'm not foolish enough to remark or even admonish you for thinking in the manner that you do about your unions.

Besides that, unlike someone in Norway, I have the balls (and HAIR...lot's of it) to personally call him out for being so arrogant to believe he is as intimately aware of actual situation in the social and political landscape of a country he isn't remotely close to much less live in.

 

[BillyB]

Billy,

you insist on shooting the messenger.  Tell you what..  read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_policies_and_the_subprime_mortgage_crisis carefully then lets get back together on this topic.

When I quote something, I provide links to the full texts.  Unfortunately most replies simply state in some manner that 'you are wrong', without any quotes or links to research.  I hope at least some have taken the time to read the full texts and get a better idea for what was / is going on.

Your link above tends to differ with your last wiki link that implied Bush raised the percentage of trying to get low income people into houses. The link above said it was HUD.
 
Wiki is normally written by intelligent people but they have their biases. Economists even disagree in that link on what happened. If you provide the link, you should quote what's best to suit your arguement and what you quoted previously didn't help.
 
Your link said various presidents created policies that led to abuse. One of Carter's  acts was mentioned but the truth is the housing mess was Clinton's baby. That's when large scale abuse began. I agree with you that Bush wanted to get low income people into homes but so does every president and president want to be. Bush did not like the way the system was getting abused so he called for multiple investigations. You wonder why he's top dog and didn't stop the mess but this is a democracy, not dictatorship where Bush can order executions of his political enemies when they don't see eye to eye.
 
Many people want to blame banks but banks saw this as an opportunity created by the government for more business. The government gave money to the banks to make loans necessary to meet the quota of getting low income into homes. Obama openly blamed banks for their greed and mismanagement. Of course the banks kept their mouth shut because they want his bailout money. If government wasn't going to bail them out, they would probably be more open telling how the government created an environment for abuse.
 
It's not difficult to see how this unfolds. A poor guy who normally can't afford a home now gets to buy a home due to lax rules for qualifications. He gets a loan for $200,000 for his home. Taxpayers supplied the money but it's not a bad thing because it's a loan and supposed to be paid back. Not stereotyping but poor people do exhibit less responsiblity than the average guy and normally do not have the means to pay back some or all of what they borrow. While this new demand for homes is happening, the value of homes go way up. A middle class guy buys a home worth $300,000 but ends up paying $400,000. He's not worried because he's sure the value will be there when he sells. Wrong. Poor people don't pay their bill and housing market collapse and value decreases. Middle class man's home is now worth $200,000 so he stops paying on his mortgage since his home's value is halved and eventually loses his home and credit rating or he loses his job because the economy was affected by the housing crisis and can't pay his mortgage. That sucks for the middle class guy. His tax money went to help the poor which results in him having to overpay for his home temporarily since he'll end up in an apartment or living with the parents.
 
Every action has a reaction. This mess had a ripple effect that spread to the rest of the world. Aside form 9/11, all these economic problems exist because of an effort to help the poor.

[Gator]

 
The US State Dept is running ads on Pakistani TV denouncing the Youtube video that supposedly aroused demonstrations against America..
 
http://abcnews.go.com/International/deadly-anti-us-riots-pakistan-obamas-ad-denouncing/story?id=17291751
 
Follow the logic please.  Does this not make it appear as if the administration is validating that the mob had a legitimate excuse for the attacks?   If so, does that not indirectly exonerate the terrorists who perpetrated the deadly attacks. 
 
I know, I know.  We want to be loved, not hated and not feared.   In that regard, what part of "Death to America" does the administration not understand.   
 
I recognize that the mob does not represent the sentiment of the moderate Muslims.  Nevertheless, let us see the stance and actions taken by the various Muslim governments (Libya, Egypt, Pakistan, etc.) over the next few days.

[Faux Pas]

The US State Dept is running ads on Pakistani TV denouncing the Youtube video that supposedly aroused demonstrations against America..
 
http://abcnews.go.com/International/deadly-anti-us-riots-pakistan-obamas-ad-denouncing/story?id=17291751
 
Follow the logic please.  Does this not make it appear as if the administration is validating that the mob had a legitimate excuse for the attacks?   If so, does that not indirectly exonerate the terrorists who perpetrated the deadly attacks. 

Yes and I would say in the mind of Islam, coupled with the immediate apology from Obama they have all they need to feel "justified" for murder. I also see these actions as an assault on free speech
 

I know, I know.  We want to be loved, not hated and not feared.   In that regard, what part of "Death to America" does the administration not understand.   
 
I recognize that the mob does not represent the sentiment of the moderate Muslims.  Nevertheless, let us see the stance and actions taken by the various Muslim governments (Libya, Egypt, Pakistan, etc.) over the next few days.

Don't hold your breath. It is against the religion of Islam for moderate Muslims to speak out against other Muslims over non-believing infidels.

There was a small protest in Libya today however, actually in support of America.

[BillyB]

The US State Dept is running ads on Pakistani TV denouncing the Youtube video that supposedly aroused demonstrations against America..

Impossible. Obama is all for freedom of speach including American flag burning. I wonder if people kill and destroy property over disagreement of his policies, will he denounce his policies too?
 
I wonder how much it's going to cost America in ads to apologize?

[Anotherkiwi]

...There was a small protest in Libya today however, actually in support of America.

Small...hmmm...according to the New York Times, the crowd was estimated at 30,000.  Every other source I've seen refers to "many thousands" or "tens of thousands."  It might not match the size of the Moscow demonstration against Putin, but you would never have believed a couple of years ago that anything like this would ever be possible.
 
The NYT also says that Ambassador Stevens was asphyxiated in the fire - not a word about the supposed rape and dragging behind a car which a couple of posters here seem to relish bringing up.  And, from the Daily Mail in London:
 
"The doctor who treated him said he died of severe asphyxiation, which caused stomach bleeding and that Mr Stevens had no other injuries."
 
I'm assuming that by now a full autopsy must have been performed in the USA.  Have the results been released?