Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Tyrone Woods father, however came away from his meeting with Obama and Biden less than impressed.

Relapse wrote:
Tyrone Woods father, however came away from his meeting with Obama and Biden less than impressed.

What does that have to do with providing a legitimate source for the claim that a gunship was there and ready to fire but permission was denied?


PS: I was killed in the attack, and when I met Romney the next day I was less than impressed. If you elect Romney the terrorists will win again!

 Peregrine wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I really don't consider left wing rags sources either, so it appears we are at an impasse.

You're right, left-wing tinfoil hat sites aren't a valid source. But what does that have to do with the validity of your claim?

PS: I'm the pilot of the gunship that was supposedly there. But we weren't there because we were diverted to be security for a Romney campaign event. If you elect Romney the terrorists will have won!

Common sense kicks in at some point, where you don't strip away an important person's security, turning them into a huge and easy target for murder or kidnapping in an area crawling with terrorists, especially when they are giving reports of how dangerous the place is. It's pretty well known on any news source the fight lasted 7 hours, but let's leave that on the side, since we will never agree on that.
G

Edited by AgeOfEgos

 Peregrine wrote:

PS: I was killed in the attack, and when I met Romney the next day I was less than impressed. If you elect Romney the terrorists will win again!

I think this is a lie because if you're killed in an attack you can't meet Romney cause your dead, and also why would terrorists win if Romney's elected?

Relapse wrote:
It's pretty well known on any news source the fight lasted 7 hours, but let's leave that on the side, since we will never agree on that.

No it's not. The fighting occured for about 3 hours, then let go for 4, and then restarted for 11 minutes.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Relapse wrote:
It's pretty well known on any news source the fight lasted 7 hours, but let's leave that on the side, since we will never agree on that.

No it's not. The fighting occured for about 3 hours, then let go for 4, and then restarted for 11 minutes.

Let's see duration of 3+4=7hours from the star until everything was over.

Relapse wrote:
Common sense kicks in at some point, where you don't strip away an important person's security, turning them into a huge and easy target for murder or kidnapping in an area crawling with terrorists, especially when they are giving reports of how dangerous the place is.

So what rational reason could Obama possibly have for doing that? I have yet to see any kind of plausible reason for deliberately allowing an attack to happen.

It's pretty well known on any news source the fight lasted 7 hours, but let's leave that on the side, since we will never agree on that.

What does the duration of the fight have to do with your specific claim that a gunship was in position and ready to fire if only permission had been given?

No point in further conversation since you insist on acting like a moron.

Yeah, why post a credible source when you can resort to insults? Post reported.

 Cheesecat wrote:
I think this is a lie because if you're killed in an attack you can't meet Romney cause your dead

I got better.

Actually, Romney is Satan in disguise, so I met him when I went to hell.

and also why would terrorists win if Rooney's elected?

BECAUSE THEY WILL! VOTE FOR OBAMA OR THE TERORISTS HAVE ALREADY WON!

Relapse wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I really don't consider left wing rags sources either, so it appears we are at an impasse.

You're right, left-wing tinfoil hat sites aren't a valid source. But what does that have to do with the validity of your claim?

PS: I'm the pilot of the gunship that was supposedly there. But we weren't there because we were diverted to be security for a Romney campaign event. If you elect Romney the terrorists will have won!

Common sense kicks in at some point, where you don't strip away an important person's security, turning them into a huge and easy target for murder or kidnapping in an area crawling with terrorists, especially when they are giving reports of how dangerous the place is. It's pretty well known on any news source the fight lasted 7 hours, but let's leave that on the side, since we will never agree on that.

1) The ambassador knew what the situation was like there. He could have left and refused his post, returning to the safety of the USA. Or maybe he believed in the mission there and even without extra security there he was willing to continue towards the goal he was hoping for.

2) I am pretty sure that most Ambassadors know that even with their lives at risk we will not start a war if they are under attack. Not to sound like a heartless bastard, but the 4 people that were killed knew the dangers and they accepted them. Why should we risk a huge international incident to save 4 Americans? I realize that American lives are worth about 3.78 non-American lives, but common sense should kick in at some point and say that we will not send the might of our armed forces and violate the borders of a nation we are not at war with to maybe save 4 lives that could already be dead.

Of course there is the official timeline:

Here is the timeline of events, as provided by the senior intelligence official:

– Around 9:40 p.m. (local time) the annex receives the first call that the mission is under attack.

– Fewer than 25 minutes later, a security team leaves the annex for the mission.

– Over the next 25 minutes, the team members approach the compound, attempt to secure heavy weapons and make their way onto the compound in the face of enemy fire.

– At 11:11 p.m., the requested drone surveillance arrives over the mission compound.

– By 11:30 p.m., all U.S. personnel, except for Stevens, who is missing, depart the mission. The exiting vehicles come under fire.

– Over the next roughly 90 minutes, the annex receives sporadic small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenade rounds. The security team returns fire and the attackers disperse at approximately 1 a.m.

– At about the same time, a team of additional security personnel lands at the Benghazi airport and negotiates for transport into town. Upon learning the ambassador is missing and that the situation at the annex has calmed, the team focuses on locating the ambassador and tries to obtain information on the security situation at the hospital.

– It's still predawn when the team at the airport finally manages to secure transportation and an armed escort. Having learned that Stevens is almost certainly dead and that the security situation at the hospital is uncertain, the team heads to the annex to assist with the evacuation.

– They arrive with Libyan support at the annex at 5:15 a.m., just before the mortar rounds begin to hit the annex. The two security officers are killed when they take direct mortar fire as they engage the enemy. That attack lasts only 11 minutes before dissipating.

– Less than an hour later, a heavily-armed Libyan military unit arrives to help evacuate the compound of all U.S. personnel.

Relapse wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Relapse wrote:
It's pretty well known on any news source the fight lasted 7 hours, but let's leave that on the side, since we will never agree on that.

No it's not. The fighting occured for about 3 hours, then let go for 4, and then restarted for 11 minutes.

Let's see duration of 3+4=7hours from the star until everything was over.

Except that's not a duration of 7 hours, that's a 3 hour fight followed by a separate 11 minute fight several hours later. That's entirely different for a continuous fight lasting 7 hours, and results in entirely different responses.

Relapse wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Relapse wrote:
It's pretty well known on any news source the fight lasted 7 hours, but let's leave that on the side, since we will never agree on that.

No it's not. The fighting occured for about 3 hours, then let go for 4, and then restarted for 11 minutes.

Let's see duration of 3+4=7hours from the star until everything was over.

At best it was a fight that lasted 3 hours and 11 minutes.

It could also have been 2 fights, one lasting 4 hours, one lasting 11 minutes.

3 hours of "not fighting" don't add up with 4 hours of "fighting" to make 7 hours of fighting.

 Cheesecat wrote:

I think this is a lie because if you're killed in an attack you can't meet Romney cause your dead, and also why would terrorists win if Rooney's elected?

ಠ_ಠ

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

I think this is a lie because if you're killed in an attack you can't meet Romney cause your dead, and also why would terrorists win if Rooney's elected?

ಠ_ಠ

gak I just realized I misspelled Romney.

That's the only thing you realized?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
That's the only thing you realized?

Well, I'm pretty sure peregrine is just being silly.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
That's the only thing you realized?

Well, I'm pretty sure peregrine is just being silly.

All I needed to have my faith in you restored.

 d-usa wrote:

1) The ambassador knew what the situation was like there. He could have left and refused his post, returning to the safety of the USA. Or maybe he believed in the mission there and even without extra security there he was willing to continue towards the goal he was hoping for.

So your answer is a boiled down version "she shouldnt have worn a shirt that short?" Because thats what its sounding like there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Maddermax wrote:


Strange, I can't find any reputable news sources carrying anything like this story, only right-wing circle-jerk sites like 'the blaze' and 'American Thinker'. That link you gave us has lots of wonderful conjecture, but about as much fact as a UFO magazine.

Meanwhile NPR has this pretty in depth article about what went on: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/11/02/164140811/u-s-offers-new-details-of-deadly-libya-attack

When they have been in the tank for obama, they have been ignoring the story. Those places you call "reputable" have long since lost that tag. Its not really strange at all. I wouldnt trust MSNBC at all. Fox is a more reputable news station then them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:


That's a horribly flawed proposition. That they were ready to violate the chain of command doesn't mean at all that they would've been able to actually saves lives.

No more then your flawed one. They were in better positions to see and do something then you as an arm chair general here on dakka. They apparantly thought they could do something.

Saying "Fox" is a reputable news station automatically invalidates everything you just said.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
I'm not sure I understand why people think that these rioters would have acted differently if the security detail had been even doubled or tripled. They were facing a riot that contained, at least from the pictures shown, a few hundreds. Is there any indication that the terrorists behind the act actually knew the strength of the security detail, and that it factored in their decision?

Guards hired in Libya turn out to help the attackers,

http://news.yahoo.com/u-officials-unhappy-handling-benghazi-suspects-april-attack-185812012.html

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/emails-reveal-almost-immediate-wh-knowledge-terrorist-behind-benghazi-attack_657385.html

te


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Saying "Fox" is a reputable news station automatically invalidates everything you just said.

Oh typical for your kind. I didnt say fox was reputable. I said MSNBC by comparison makes Fox look like one.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
I'm not sure I understand why people think that these rioters would have acted differently if the security detail had been even doubled or tripled. They were facing a riot that contained, at least from the pictures shown, a few hundreds. Is there any indication that the terrorists behind the act actually knew the strength of the security detail, and that it factored in their decision?

On top of things, mortar rounds were dropped. I think it's as likely that more security would have ended in more american casualties.

There was no riot. Please, please stop providing misinformation.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Well, I'm pretty sure peregrine is just being silly.

Well, to be fair, my ridiculous unsupported claims are much more plausible than Relapse's.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

carmachu wrote:
So your answer is a boiled down version "she shouldnt have worn a shirt that short?" Because thats what its sounding like there.

No, it's an argument that at the time the situation probably didn't seem so bad. The ambassador took the risk of staying despite the lack of increased security, but I seriously doubt he would have stayed if he'd thought it was going to be a suicide mission.

No more then your flawed one. They were in better positions to see and do something then you as an arm chair general here on dakka. They apparantly thought they could do something.

And, once again, is there a source for this "rescue mission ready to go but refused permission" claim that doesn't come from right-wing tinfoil hat sites?

carmachu wrote:
No more then your flawed one. They were in better positions to see and do something then you as an arm chair general here on dakka. They apparantly thought they could do something.

You realize your making this judgement in the same situation as I did? So you are in no way in a better position than me to evaluate the accuracy of the statement above. That they apparently thought they could do something is not in question, it's weither this judgement was accurate, something you cannot evaluate simply from their willingness to act. For frak's sakes, how is this complicated to understand?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

There was no riot. Please, please stop providing misinformation.

I didn't know I had an obligation to my readers. Riot, uprising, terrorist act, choose whichever one floats your boat. The word is simpler than '' a whole lot of pissed off people trying to kill your dudes in your base, hiding in the middle of other pissed of people''.

I don't know if there still would have been an attack if there was more security. From the info provided it seems like there was a lot of recon done, so more security might have simply resulted in more attackers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

carmachu wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

1) The ambassador knew what the situation was like there. He could have left and refused his post, returning to the safety of the USA. Or maybe he believed in the mission there and even without extra security there he was willing to continue towards the goal he was hoping for.

So your answer is a boiled down version "she shouldnt have worn a shirt that short?" Because thats what its sounding like there.

Yes, that is exactly what my answer is.

Because "I am an ambassador in a very hostile and volatile area where I know my life is at risk and I don't have the security I want, but I am going to stay here because I believe in this mission" is exactly the same as "I like this dress, but it could very well get me raped. But it makes me look fabulous, so it's worth it!" are totally the same....

If you are going to ask stupid question please have the courtesy to include the post that my answer was directed to before pretending I said stuff that I didn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The important thing is that suddenly we care about these kind of things:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karachi_consulate_attacks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Uzbekistan#Embassy_bombings

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-12-07/news/0412070133_1_residential-compounds-saudi-arabia-desert-kingdom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embassy_of_the_United_States,_Athens#Terrorism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_consulate_in_Istanbul_attack

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_American_Embassy_attack_in_Yemen

But hey, we care now.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
I didn't know I had an obligation to my readers. Riot, uprising, terrorist act, choose whichever one floats your boat. The word is simpler than '' a whole lot of pissed off people trying to kill your dudes in your base, hiding in the middle of other pissed of people''.

I'll choose the correct one so as not to make it seem like this was a spontaneous event that could not have been prevented, personally.

carmachu wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Meanwhile NPR has this pretty in depth article about what went on: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/11/02/164140811/u-s-offers-new-details-of-deadly-libya-attack

When they have been in the tank for obama, they have been ignoring the story. Those places you call "reputable" have long since lost that tag. Its not really strange at all. I wouldnt trust MSNBC at all. Fox is a more reputable news station then them.

NPR calling Romney out on his outright lies does not equate to being in Obama's corner.

However, something tells me you think "fair and balanced" is means to shift to the right in order to compensate for one group moving their goalposts into an extreme fringe.

 d-usa wrote:
I don't know if there still would have been an attack if there was more security. From the info provided it seems like there was a lot of recon done, so more security might have simply resulted in more attackers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

carmachu wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

1) The ambassador knew what the situation was like there. He could have left and refused his post, returning to the safety of the USA. Or maybe he believed in the mission there and even without extra security there he was willing to continue towards the goal he was hoping for.

So your answer is a boiled down version "she shouldnt have worn a shirt that short?" Because thats what its sounding like there.

"I like this dress, but it could very well get me raped. But it makes me look fabulous, so it's worth it!"

No it fething isn't. Women get raped regardless of what they wear, I wish people would shut the feth up with this ridiculous idea.

It's incredibly stupid to make comparisons like this.

 MrScience wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I don't know if there still would have been an attack if there was more security. From the info provided it seems like there was a lot of recon done, so more security might have simply resulted in more attackers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

carmachu wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

1) The ambassador knew what the situation was like there. He could have left and refused his post, returning to the safety of the USA. Or maybe he believed in the mission there and even without extra security there he was willing to continue towards the goal he was hoping for.

So your answer is a boiled down version "she shouldnt have worn a shirt that short?" Because thats what its sounding like there.

"I like this dress, but it could very well get me raped. But it makes me look fabulous, so it's worth it!"

No it fething isn't. Women get raped regardless of what they wear, I wish people would shut the feth up with this ridiculous idea.

It's incredibly stupid to make comparisons like this.

Did you seriously just completely change his post to the opposite of what he said, and argue against it?

That's pretty low.

 MrScience wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I don't know if there still would have been an attack if there was more security. From the info provided it seems like there was a lot of recon done, so more security might have simply resulted in more attackers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

carmachu wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

1) The ambassador knew what the situation was like there. He could have left and refused his post, returning to the safety of the USA. Or maybe he believed in the mission there and even without extra security there he was willing to continue towards the goal he was hoping for.

So your answer is a boiled down version "she shouldnt have worn a shirt that short?" Because thats what its sounding like there.

"I like this dress, but it could very well get me raped. But it makes me look fabulous, so it's worth it!"

No it fething isn't. Women get raped regardless of what they wear, I wish people would shut the feth up with this ridiculous idea.

It's incredibly stupid to make comparisons like this.

The mind boggles.

That is not by any means what d-usa was saying or even trying to communicate, not even in the ball park., but don't take my word for it! Let's go to the context!

 d-usa wrote:
I don't know if there still would have been an attack if there was more security. From the info provided it seems like there was a lot of recon done, so more security might have simply resulted in more attackers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

carmachu wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

1) The ambassador knew what the situation was like there. He could have left and refused his post, returning to the safety of the USA. Or maybe he believed in the mission there and even without extra security there he was willing to continue towards the goal he was hoping for.

So your answer is a boiled down version "she shouldnt have worn a shirt that short?" Because thats what its sounding like there.

Yes, that is exactly what my answer is.

Because "I am an ambassador in a very hostile and volatile area where I know my life is at risk and I don't have the security I want, but I am going to stay here because I believe in this mission" is exactly the same as "I like this dress, but it could very well get me raped. But it makes me look fabulous, so it's worth it!" are totally the same....

If you are going to ask stupid question please have the courtesy to include the post that my answer was directed to before pretending I said stuff that I didn't.

Here we can see that Carmachu oversimplified or just plain misunderstood what d-usa was saying earlier in the thread, which is quoted above actually, then compared it to something really stupid. d-usa then proceeded to mock it by extending said response from carmachu to it's standard full victim blaming (which we heartily support here at dakka!) conclusion. Thus pointing out that saying the former, in which a dedicated foreign service officer continues to man his post in the light of potential harm in any way resembles the entirely stupid thought process of a hemline being the cause of rape is in itself moronic.

 d-usa wrote:

The important thing is that suddenly we care about these kind of things:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karachi_consulate_attacks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Uzbekistan#Embassy_bombings

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-12-07/news/0412070133_1_residential-compounds-saudi-arabia-desert-kingdom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embassy_of_the_United_States,_Athens#Terrorism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_consulate_in_Istanbul_attack

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_American_Embassy_attack_in_Yemen

But hey, we care now.

Well obviously, only one American died in all of those attacks.
Despite the 34 people that died in those attacks, the four that died here are obviously more important. /sarcasm]

Seriously though, the difference in shouting from various people regarding this attack compared to previous attacks is kind of disgusting, seeing as its almost entirely "OBAMA should be out out of office!" or "OBAMA shouldn't be put out of office!" from different sides.

Durandal wrote:
Nate Silver is heavily biasing the polls to forecast an Obama win.

Right now early voting tallies show Obama is behind in Ohio by a larger margin then he won in 2008. Romney is far ahead of McCain's totals for the same time frame.

Given the disaster that Obama's presidency has become, we can only hope that he concedes before he is granted spawndom.

That's complete piffle, a product of the 'if you tell me things I don't want to hear I will call you biased even if I have no sensible means for doing so' culture that's unfortunately common in the political blog world.

Simply put, Obama is leading in Ohio, and the only poll that says otherwise is Rasumussen, who have a noted right wing lean. Romney has to pick up Ohio, and Florida (which is a 50/50 call, but a very likely Romney pick up if he somehow sneaks ahead in Ohio), and then pick up Colorado, or New Hampshire or some other state.

That doesn't make the election a lock, because there is a chance the polling might not be right, but it certainly gives Romney strong underdog status.

Also, Obama is up by about 50,000 in early Ohio vote counts. So stop listening to whoever told you otherwise, they're lying to you and making you look foolish.


But more importantly, you likely need to learn that when the internet blogs scream 'bias' it doesn't mean anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

djones520 wrote:
Some things to look at, Obama has the highest Unemployment numbers in over 60 years at his time of reelection. That doesn't bode well for him.

That bodes poorly for his numbers, but once we have polls and can see how it's affected the numbers, then ignoring the polls and just repeating 'unemployment is high' is nonsense.

He's in a statistical tie in all the polls. That favors the challenger.

Only if you look at national polls, and even then only if you look at some national polls. If you look at what actually matters - state polls, you see Obama with consistent leads in the swing states to put him past 271 votes.

Now, there may be some systemic bias in the national polls that could mean Romney is actually ahead despite what the state polls are telling us. It isn't impossible, it isn't even improbable, and given how close the results are it wouldn't have to be that great a margin to put Romney up. But if you were to give odds to that kind of situation, then 538's value of about 20% seems pretty reasonable.

Almost all polls are being conducted innacurately, using voter numbers from 2008 to determine them, when revised work has shown that they are currently heavily skewing things in Democrats favor, by as much as maybe 6 points. So that means in a state that Obama has a 2 point lead, he may actually be down by 4 points. This analysis comes from Gallup, which leans slightly to the left the way Rasmussen leans slightly to the right.

Polls have an inherent inaccuracy in them, because they all have to predict how likely the respondant is to vote on election day.

But it is a basic myth that people are modelling on 2008 turnouts. Different sites use different turnouts, and voting in 2008 is only one question used to assess whether a person is likely to vote or not.

I'm cautiously optimistic that Romney will win the election, but honestly it is to close to call.

It is certainly a close election and could go either way. But it is wild eyed optimism to think 'oh I hope the state polls are wrong and there is actually a hidden bias against Romney in them' is the kind of position a candidate wants to be in. It is only sensible to think Obama is the favourite.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

djones520 wrote:
The unemployment rate is climbing again if you haven't paid attention to today's news.

Unemployment drops, then the right wingers bleat about how participation dropped and the real figure is much worse. But when increasing participation and seasonal adjustments push unemployment up a tick despite strong jobs growth... then they say 'unemployment is back up!' and ignore all the context they previously pretended was so important.

This kind of piffle just gets so fething boring.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lt. Coldfire wrote:
Indeed. No one saw the 2010 sweep coming. Good call.

It is not that he saw it coming. It's that he continued his primary objective, which is to build as accurate an election model as possible, no matter who it is predicting will win the election.

When he called the 2010 results as strong wins for the Republicans, you didn't right wing bloggers making stupid noises about him being biased. But now that he's making the frankly common sense argument that as long as Obama is polling consistant leads in polls in Ohio, he should be favourite, we're seeing constant bleats of bias from the right wing blogosphere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
However, Nate's model has basically been tested twice. The '08 and '10 elections.

I'm not saying he's wrong... just saying his modeling is "new" and he hasn't had enough "election years" to add sufficient rigors to his methodology.

As I mentioned earlier... those CU professors taking a different modeling track by using primarily Market related data... and since 1980, their modeling accurately predicted the elections. Using that same modeling, they predicted that Romney will win... and win big (330 EV).

Thing is, anyone can build a model that matches past results. Plug in any numbers, let some algorithms do their work and you'll find a model that predicted everything that happened. The question is whether there's any useful predictive power in those results. And frankly, if you're looking purely at economic data and ignoring the candidate and the campaign, then you're going to end up placing a lot of value on noise just to make your models work.

Which is why they've got a model that perfectly matches every past election, but has produced a completely stupid prediction for this election that will not happen. Seriously, you cannot look at the state based polling and think there is any chance at all of Romney winning with 330 votes, and any model predicting that has to be put aside.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
Yep, those SEALs did a good job on Bin Laden, too bad Obama couldn't have given the ones killed at the consulate any back up.

Successful piece of foreign policy - give all credit to troops on the ground, and claim everything president did would have been done by any president.

Unsuccessful piece of foreign policy - claim every decision made was straight from Obama and his team.

I guess 7.9% and rising isn't 8% unemployment

Unemployment goes down - make noise about the participation rate and even suggest that figures might be rigged.

Unemployment goes up - treat the number as absolute gospel and the most important thing in the universe.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
Obama is quick to take credit for Bin Laden, claiming he can affect events half a world away, but denies responsibility in our people getting killed over there when they could have easily been saved? Right.

But you're doing the exact same thing, dismissing any role Obama might have played in killing Osama, while at the same time placing direct responsibility for Benghazi at his feet.

I mean, fething seriously, do you not see the disconnect in your logic?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
Sure. But you're missing some key points. We could actually do that to Libya without fear of consequence. The same would not be true with anyone else doing it to us. I'm not suggesting we'd go to war over it or anything - though we might - but that we're a pretty powerful nation you generally don't want to bomb. Libya is not.

You're completely balls the wall nuts. I mean, I think you really need to understand how crazy what you just wrote it - 'oh sure, it'd war if someone else did it, but we can get away with it so we should be happy to drop bombs on embassy protests that might be something else'.

International law is pretty irrelevant if the primary enforcers choose to ignore it.

Which is why it is very, very important that the primary enforcers uphold international law.

I mean fething seriously people, whether Obama or Romney wins, lets all just say a quiet prayer that Seaward will never, ever be anywhere near a position of real power.

 sebster wrote:
You're completely balls the wall nuts. I mean, I think you really need to understand how crazy what you just wrote it - 'oh sure, it'd war if someone else did it, but we can get away with it so we should be happy to drop bombs on embassy protests that might be something else'.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, honestly. When did anyone advocate dropping bombs on embassy protests? There wasn't one in Libya, which is what we were discussing.

Which is why it is very, very important that the primary enforcers uphold international law.

I mean fething seriously people, whether Obama or Romney wins, lets all just say a quiet prayer that Seaward will never, ever be anywhere near a position of real power.

I'd love to live in this fantasy world where countries do not get away with exactly as much as they can get away with out of principal.

Over here in the real world, however...

Does this mean you're hoping Obama's not reelected, by the way? Because the Osama raid is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Absolute violation of Pakistani sovereignty, illegal under always-nebulous international law, and the sort of thing not a lot of other countries in the world could get away with.