Barack Obama has accused prominent Republican senators of an
"outrageous" attack on the character of Susan Rice, the US ambassador
to the UN and potential nominee as secretary of state, in alleging a
cover up over the Benghazi attack that killed the American ambassador
to Libya, Chris Stevens.
The president denounced senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham for
saying they would attempt to block Rice from leading the state
department if Obama nominated her because she either lied or was
incompetent in saying that the attack in Libya on September 11 was
spontaneous and that there was no evidence of a link to al-Qaida.
Republicans assert that the White House knew at the time that neither
claim was true. The administration says the information was
substantially correct even if it was wrong to assert there was a
demonstration taking place at the time. It says the link to al-Qaida
is tenuous.
Obama vigorously defended Rice at his press conference on Wednesday by
saying that she was merely repeating the intelligence available at the
time when she appeared on various Sunday television talk shows five
days after the Benghazi attack.
"She made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she
gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided
to her. If senator McCain and senator Graham and others want to go
after somebody, they should go after me and, I'm happy to have that
discussion with them," the president said. "But for them to go after
the UN ambassador, who had nothing to do with Benghazi, and was simply
making a presentation based on intelligence she had received, and to
besmirch her reputation, is outrageous."
Obama said he was not prepared to comment on nominations to the State
Department or other posts, but that he would not be deterred by
threats from choosing Rice.
"When they go after the UN ambassador, apparently because they think
she's an easy target, then they've got a problem with me," he said.
"If I think she would be the best person to serve America at the State
Department, then I will nominate her. That's not a determination I've
made yet."
McCain responded to Obama by immediately going on to the Senate floor
to ask for the creation of a select committee to investigate events in
Benghazi and to accuse the president of missing the point in accusing
critics of "picking on" Rice.
"That statement is really remarkable in that if the president thinks
we are picking on people, he really doesn't have any idea how serious
this issue is," McCain said.
The Arizona senator dismissed Obama's claim that Rice was merely
repeating the available intelligence.
> Barack Obama has accused prominent Republican senators of an
> "outrageous" attack on the character of Susan Rice, the US ambassador
> to the UN and potential nominee as secretary of state, in alleging a
> cover up over the Benghazi attack that killed the American ambassador
> to Libya, Chris Stevens.
> The president denounced senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham for
> saying they would attempt to block Rice from leading the state
> department if Obama nominated her because she either lied or was
> incompetent in saying that the attack in Libya on September 11 was
> spontaneous and that there was no evidence of a link to al-Qaida.
> Republicans assert that the White House knew at the time that neither
> claim was true. The administration says the information was
> substantially correct even if it was wrong to assert there was a
> demonstration taking place at the time. It says the link to al-Qaida
> is tenuous.
> Obama vigorously defended Rice at his press conference on Wednesday by
> saying that she was merely repeating the intelligence available at the
> time when she appeared on various Sunday television talk shows five
> days after the Benghazi attack.
> "She made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she
> gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided
> to her. If senator McCain and senator Graham and others want to go
> after somebody, they should go after me and, I'm happy to have that
> discussion with them," the president said. "But for them to go after
> the UN ambassador, who had nothing to do with Benghazi, and was simply
> making a presentation based on intelligence she had received, and to
> besmirch her reputation, is outrageous."
> Obama said he was not prepared to comment on nominations to the State
> Department or other posts, but that he would not be deterred by
> threats from choosing Rice.
> "When they go after the UN ambassador, apparently because they think
> she's an easy target, then they've got a problem with me," he said.
> "If I think she would be the best person to serve America at the State
> Department, then I will nominate her. That's not a determination I've
> made yet."
> McCain responded to Obama by immediately going on to the Senate floor
> to ask for the creation of a select committee to investigate events in
> Benghazi and to accuse the president of missing the point in accusing
> critics of "picking on" Rice.
> "That statement is really remarkable in that if the president thinks
> we are picking on people, he really doesn't have any idea how serious
> this issue is," McCain said.
> The Arizona senator dismissed Obama's claim that Rice was merely
> repeating the available intelligence.
Maybe the republicans should compromise and make a despicable liar concerning foreign affairs secretary of state, huh, moron?
Mitt Romney now joins the long list of the kinds of presidential candidates favored by the Republican establishment: nice, moderate losers - people with no coherently articulated vision, despite how many ad hoc talking points they may have.
The list of Republican presidential candidates like this goes back at least as far as 1948, when Thomas E. Dewey ran against President Harry Truman. Dewey spoke in lofty generalities while Truman spoke in hard-hitting specifics. Since then, there have been many reruns of this same scenario, featuring losing Republican presidential candidates John McCain, Bob Dole, Gerald Ford, and, when he ran for reelection, George H. W. Bush.
Bush 41 first succeeded when he ran for election as if he were another Ronald Reagan ("Read my lips, no new taxes"), but then lost when he ran for reelection as himself - "kinder and gentler," disdainful of "the vision thing," and looking at his watch during a debate, when he should have been counterattacking against the foolish things being said.
This year, Barack Obama had the hard-hitting specifics - such as ending "tax cuts for the rich" who should pay "their fair share," government "investing" in "the industries of the future" and the like. He had a coherent vision, however warped.
Advertisement Most of Obama's arguments were rotten, if you bothered to put them under scrutiny. But someone once said that it is amazing how long the rotten can hold together, if you don't handle it roughly.
Any number of conservative commentators, both in the print media and on talk radio, examined and exposed the fraudulence of Obama's "tax cuts for the rich" argument. But did you ever hear Mitt Romney bother to explain the specifics which exposed the flaws in Obama's argument?
On election night, the rotten held together because Mitt Romney had not handled it roughly with specifics. Romney was too nice to handle Obama's absurdities roughly. He definitely out-niced Obama - as John McCain had out-niced Obama in 2008, and as Dewey out-niced Truman back in 1948. And these Republicans all lost.
In this year's first presidential debate, Obama out-niced Romney. But, when he lost out doing that, he then reversed himself, became the attacker, and ultimately the winner on election night, despite a track record that should have buried him in a landslide.
When you look at this as a horse race, there is no question that the Republicans deserved to lose. But the stakes for this great nation, at this crucial juncture in its history and in the history of the world, are far too momentous to look at this election as just a contest between two candidates or two political parties.
Quite aside from the immediate effects of particular policies, Barack Obama has repeatedly circumvented the laws, including the Constitution of the United States, in ways and on a scale that pushes this nation in the direction of arbitrary one-man rule.
Now that Obama will be in a position to appoint Supreme Court justices who can rubber-stamp his evasions of the law and usurpations of power, this country may be unrecognizable in a few years as the America that once led the world in freedom, as well as in many other things.
Barack Obama's boast, on the eve of the election of 2008 - "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America" - can now be carried out, without fear of ever having to face the voters again.
This "transforming" project extends far beyond fundamental internal institutions, or even the polarization and corruption of the people themselves, with goodies handed out in exchange for their surrendering their birthright of freedom.
Obama will now also have more "flexibility," as he told Russian president Dmitri Medvedev, to transform the international order, where he has long shown that he thinks America has too much power and influence. A nuclear Iran can change that. Forever.
Have you noticed how many of our enemies in other countries have been rooting for Obama? You or your children may yet have reason to recall that as a bitter memory of a warning sign ignored on Election Day in 2012.
>> Barack Obama has accused prominent Republican senators of an
>> "outrageous" attack on the character of Susan Rice, the US ambassador
>> to the UN and potential nominee as secretary of state, in alleging a
>> cover up over the Benghazi attack that killed the American ambassador
>> to Libya, Chris Stevens.
>> The president denounced senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham for
>> saying they would attempt to block Rice from leading the state
>> department if Obama nominated her because she either lied or was
>> incompetent in saying that the attack in Libya on September 11 was
>> spontaneous and that there was no evidence of a link to al-Qaida.
>> Republicans assert that the White House knew at the time that neither
>> claim was true. The administration says the information was
>> substantially correct even if it was wrong to assert there was a
>> demonstration taking place at the time. It says the link to al-Qaida
>> is tenuous.
>> Obama vigorously defended Rice at his press conference on Wednesday by
>> saying that she was merely repeating the intelligence available at the
>> time when she appeared on various Sunday television talk shows five
>> days after the Benghazi attack.
>> "She made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she
>> gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided
>> to her. If senator McCain and senator Graham and others want to go
>> after somebody, they should go after me and, I'm happy to have that
>> discussion with them," the president said. "But for them to go after
>> the UN ambassador, who had nothing to do with Benghazi, and was simply
>> making a presentation based on intelligence she had received, and to
>> besmirch her reputation, is outrageous."
>> Obama said he was not prepared to comment on nominations to the State
>> Department or other posts, but that he would not be deterred by
>> threats from choosing Rice.
>> "When they go after the UN ambassador, apparently because they think
>> she's an easy target, then they've got a problem with me," he said.
>> "If I think she would be the best person to serve America at the State
>> Department, then I will nominate her. That's not a determination I've
>> made yet."
>> McCain responded to Obama by immediately going on to the Senate floor
>> to ask for the creation of a select committee to investigate events in
>> Benghazi and to accuse the president of missing the point in accusing
>> critics of "picking on" Rice.
>> "That statement is really remarkable in that if the president thinks
>> we are picking on people, he really doesn't have any idea how serious
>> this issue is," McCain said.
>> The Arizona senator dismissed Obama's claim that Rice was merely
>> repeating the available intelligence.
>Maybe the republicans should compromise and make a despicable liar >concerning foreign affairs secretary of state, huh, moron?
If Rice lied she should be fired from government service.
Then again Reid and Boehner should also be fired. IMO. They are
both bad for America.
>> Barack Obama has accused prominent Republican senators of an
>> "outrageous" attack on the character of Susan Rice, the US ambassador
>> to the UN and potential nominee as secretary of state, in alleging a
>> cover up over the Benghazi attack that killed the American ambassador
>> to Libya, Chris Stevens.
>> The president denounced senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham for
>> saying they would attempt to block Rice from leading the state
>> department if Obama nominated her because she either lied or was
>> incompetent in saying that the attack in Libya on September 11 was
>> spontaneous and that there was no evidence of a link to al-Qaida.
>> Republicans assert that the White House knew at the time that neither
>> claim was true. The administration says the information was
>> substantially correct even if it was wrong to assert there was a
>> demonstration taking place at the time. It says the link to al-Qaida
>> is tenuous.
>> Obama vigorously defended Rice at his press conference on Wednesday by
>> saying that she was merely repeating the intelligence available at the
>> time when she appeared on various Sunday television talk shows five
>> days after the Benghazi attack.
>> "She made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she
>> gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided
>> to her. If senator McCain and senator Graham and others want to go
>> after somebody, they should go after me and, I'm happy to have that
>> discussion with them," the president said. "But for them to go after
>> the UN ambassador, who had nothing to do with Benghazi, and was simply
>> making a presentation based on intelligence she had received, and to
>> besmirch her reputation, is outrageous."
>> Obama said he was not prepared to comment on nominations to the State
>> Department or other posts, but that he would not be deterred by
>> threats from choosing Rice.
>> "When they go after the UN ambassador, apparently because they think
>> she's an easy target, then they've got a problem with me," he said.
>> "If I think she would be the best person to serve America at the State
>> Department, then I will nominate her. That's not a determination I've
>> made yet."
>> McCain responded to Obama by immediately going on to the Senate floor
>> to ask for the creation of a select committee to investigate events in
>> Benghazi and to accuse the president of missing the point in accusing
>> critics of "picking on" Rice.
>> "That statement is really remarkable in that if the president thinks
>> we are picking on people, he really doesn't have any idea how serious
>> this issue is," McCain said.
>> The Arizona senator dismissed Obama's claim that Rice was merely
>> repeating the available intelligence.
>Maybe the republicans should compromise and make a despicable liar >concerning foreign affairs secretary of state, huh, moron?
>Mitt Romney now joins the long list of the kinds of presidential candidates >favored by the Republican establishment: nice, moderate losers - people with >no coherently articulated vision, despite how many ad hoc talking points >they may have.
>The list of Republican presidential candidates like this goes back at least >as far as 1948, when Thomas E. Dewey ran against President Harry Truman. >Dewey spoke in lofty generalities while Truman spoke in hard-hitting >specifics. Since then, there have been many reruns of this same scenario, >featuring losing Republican presidential candidates John McCain, Bob Dole, >Gerald Ford, and, when he ran for reelection, George H. W. Bush.
>Bush 41 first succeeded when he ran for election as if he were another >Ronald Reagan ("Read my lips, no new taxes"), but then lost when he ran for >reelection as himself - "kinder and gentler," disdainful of "the vision >thing," and looking at his watch during a debate, when he should have been >counterattacking against the foolish things being said.
>This year, Barack Obama had the hard-hitting specifics - such as ending "tax >cuts for the rich" who should pay "their fair share," government "investing" >in "the industries of the future" and the like. He had a coherent vision, >however warped.
>Advertisement Most of Obama's arguments were rotten, if you bothered to put >them under scrutiny. But someone once said that it is amazing how long the >rotten can hold together, if you don't handle it roughly.
>Any number of conservative commentators, both in the print media and on talk >radio, examined and exposed the fraudulence of Obama's "tax cuts for the >rich" argument. But did you ever hear Mitt Romney bother to explain the >specifics which exposed the flaws in Obama's argument?
>On election night, the rotten held together because Mitt Romney had not >handled it roughly with specifics. Romney was too nice to handle Obama's >absurdities roughly. He definitely out-niced Obama - as John McCain had >out-niced Obama in 2008, and as Dewey out-niced Truman back in 1948. And >these Republicans all lost.
>In this year's first presidential debate, Obama out-niced Romney. But, when >he lost out doing that, he then reversed himself, became the attacker, and >ultimately the winner on election night, despite a track record that should >have buried him in a landslide.
>When you look at this as a horse race, there is no question that the >Republicans deserved to lose. But the stakes for this great nation, at this >crucial juncture in its history and in the history of the world, are far too >momentous to look at this election as just a contest between two candidates >or two political parties.
>Quite aside from the immediate effects of particular policies, Barack Obama >has repeatedly circumvented the laws, including the Constitution of the >United States, in ways and on a scale that pushes this nation in the >direction of arbitrary one-man rule.
>Now that Obama will be in a position to appoint Supreme Court justices who >can rubber-stamp his evasions of the law and usurpations of power, this >country may be unrecognizable in a few years as the America that once led >the world in freedom, as well as in many other things.
>Barack Obama's boast, on the eve of the election of 2008 - "We are five days >away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America" - can now >be carried out, without fear of ever having to face the voters again.
>This "transforming" project extends far beyond fundamental internal >institutions, or even the polarization and corruption of the people >themselves, with goodies handed out in exchange for their surrendering their >birthright of freedom.
>Obama will now also have more "flexibility," as he told Russian president >Dmitri Medvedev, to transform the international order, where he has long >shown that he thinks America has too much power and influence. A nuclear >Iran can change that. Forever.
>Have you noticed how many of our enemies in other countries have been >rooting for Obama? You or your children may yet have reason to recall that >as a bitter memory of a warning sign ignored on Election Day in 2012.
Y'know I've seen a host of both terrible and wonderful things in my
short 55 tenure in life so far.
I've seen cures for disease, man landing on the moon, passage of the
civil rights act, the age of the muscle car, the fall of the Berlin
Wall and the birth and progression of Rock & Roll just to name a few
of the wonderful.
I was 6 when I saw JFK assasinated on the news. I saw RFK assasinated
and was in Memphis when MLK was assasinated. In the late 60's I saw a
quarter of my city burn in race riots. I saw Watergate, the oil
embargo and the Iranian hostage crisis. And of course the most
horrible, the attack on the WTC.
But never ever before in my entire life did it ever appear that I
would also witness the end of what is The USA.
Until now.
>>> Barack Obama has accused prominent Republican senators of an
>>> "outrageous" attack on the character of Susan Rice, the US ambassador
>>> to the UN and potential nominee as secretary of state, in alleging a
>>> cover up over the Benghazi attack that killed the American ambassador
>>> to Libya, Chris Stevens.
>>> The president denounced senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham for
>>> saying they would attempt to block Rice from leading the state
>>> department if Obama nominated her because she either lied or was
>>> incompetent in saying that the attack in Libya on September 11 was
>>> spontaneous and that there was no evidence of a link to al-Qaida.
>>> Republicans assert that the White House knew at the time that neither
>>> claim was true. The administration says the information was
>>> substantially correct even if it was wrong to assert there was a
>>> demonstration taking place at the time. It says the link to al-Qaida
>>> is tenuous.
>>> Obama vigorously defended Rice at his press conference on Wednesday by
>>> saying that she was merely repeating the intelligence available at the
>>> time when she appeared on various Sunday television talk shows five
>>> days after the Benghazi attack.
>>> "She made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she
>>> gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided
>>> to her. If senator McCain and senator Graham and others want to go
>>> after somebody, they should go after me and, I'm happy to have that
>>> discussion with them," the president said. "But for them to go after
>>> the UN ambassador, who had nothing to do with Benghazi, and was simply
>>> making a presentation based on intelligence she had received, and to
>>> besmirch her reputation, is outrageous."
>>> Obama said he was not prepared to comment on nominations to the State
>>> Department or other posts, but that he would not be deterred by
>>> threats from choosing Rice.
>>> "When they go after the UN ambassador, apparently because they think
>>> she's an easy target, then they've got a problem with me," he said.
>>> "If I think she would be the best person to serve America at the State
>>> Department, then I will nominate her. That's not a determination I've
>>> made yet."
>>> McCain responded to Obama by immediately going on to the Senate floor
>>> to ask for the creation of a select committee to investigate events in
>>> Benghazi and to accuse the president of missing the point in accusing
>>> critics of "picking on" Rice.
>>> "That statement is really remarkable in that if the president thinks
>>> we are picking on people, he really doesn't have any idea how serious
>>> this issue is," McCain said.
>>> The Arizona senator dismissed Obama's claim that Rice was merely
>>> repeating the available intelligence.
>>Maybe the republicans should compromise and make a despicable liar
>>concerning foreign affairs secretary of state, huh, moron?
>>Mitt Romney now joins the long list of the kinds of presidential >>candidates
>>favored by the Republican establishment: nice, moderate losers - people >>with
>>no coherently articulated vision, despite how many ad hoc talking points
>>they may have.
>>The list of Republican presidential candidates like this goes back at >>least
>>as far as 1948, when Thomas E. Dewey ran against President Harry Truman.
>>Dewey spoke in lofty generalities while Truman spoke in hard-hitting
>>specifics. Since then, there have been many reruns of this same scenario,
>>featuring losing Republican presidential candidates John McCain, Bob Dole,
>>Gerald Ford, and, when he ran for reelection, George H. W. Bush.
>>Bush 41 first succeeded when he ran for election as if he were another
>>Ronald Reagan ("Read my lips, no new taxes"), but then lost when he ran >>for
>>reelection as himself - "kinder and gentler," disdainful of "the vision
>>thing," and looking at his watch during a debate, when he should have been
>>counterattacking against the foolish things being said.
>>This year, Barack Obama had the hard-hitting specifics - such as ending >>"tax
>>cuts for the rich" who should pay "their fair share," government >>"investing"
>>in "the industries of the future" and the like. He had a coherent vision,
>>however warped.
>>Advertisement Most of Obama's arguments were rotten, if you bothered to >>put
>>them under scrutiny. But someone once said that it is amazing how long the
>>rotten can hold together, if you don't handle it roughly.
>>Any number of conservative commentators, both in the print media and on >>talk
>>radio, examined and exposed the fraudulence of Obama's "tax cuts for the
>>rich" argument. But did you ever hear Mitt Romney bother to explain the
>>specifics which exposed the flaws in Obama's argument?
>>On election night, the rotten held together because Mitt Romney had not
>>handled it roughly with specifics. Romney was too nice to handle Obama's
>>absurdities roughly. He definitely out-niced Obama - as John McCain had
>>out-niced Obama in 2008, and as Dewey out-niced Truman back in 1948. And
>>these Republicans all lost.
>>In this year's first presidential debate, Obama out-niced Romney. But, >>when
>>he lost out doing that, he then reversed himself, became the attacker, and
>>ultimately the winner on election night, despite a track record that >>should
>>have buried him in a landslide.
>>When you look at this as a horse race, there is no question that the
>>Republicans deserved to lose. But the stakes for this great nation, at >>this
>>crucial juncture in its history and in the history of the world, are far >>too
>>momentous to look at this election as just a contest between two >>candidates
>>or two political parties.
>>Quite aside from the immediate effects of particular policies, Barack >>Obama
>>has repeatedly circumvented the laws, including the Constitution of the
>>United States, in ways and on a scale that pushes this nation in the
>>direction of arbitrary one-man rule.
>>Now that Obama will be in a position to appoint Supreme Court justices who
>>can rubber-stamp his evasions of the law and usurpations of power, this
>>country may be unrecognizable in a few years as the America that once led
>>the world in freedom, as well as in many other things.
>>Barack Obama's boast, on the eve of the election of 2008 - "We are five >>days
>>away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America" - can >>now
>>be carried out, without fear of ever having to face the voters again.
>>This "transforming" project extends far beyond fundamental internal
>>institutions, or even the polarization and corruption of the people
>>themselves, with goodies handed out in exchange for their surrendering >>their
>>birthright of freedom.
>>Obama will now also have more "flexibility," as he told Russian president
>>Dmitri Medvedev, to transform the international order, where he has long
>>shown that he thinks America has too much power and influence. A nuclear
>>Iran can change that. Forever.
>>Have you noticed how many of our enemies in other countries have been
>>rooting for Obama? You or your children may yet have reason to recall that
>>as a bitter memory of a warning sign ignored on Election Day in 2012.
> Y'know I've seen a host of both terrible and wonderful things in my
> short 55 tenure in life so far.
> I've seen cures for disease, man landing on the moon, passage of the
> civil rights act, the age of the muscle car, the fall of the Berlin
> Wall and the birth and progression of Rock & Roll just to name a few
> of the wonderful.
> I was 6 when I saw JFK assasinated on the news. I saw RFK assasinated
> and was in Memphis when MLK was assasinated. In the late 60's I saw a
> quarter of my city burn in race riots. I saw Watergate, the oil
> embargo and the Iranian hostage crisis. And of course the most
> horrible, the attack on the WTC.
> But never ever before in my entire life did it ever appear that I
> would also witness the end of what is The USA.
> Until now.
I knew that's where you were headed, and yeah, I feel the same way. I fear that we are at the tipping point we have known was coming, but just hoped against hope that we would never see. Now Hussein is going to spend the next 4 years getting as many people on the public dole as humanly possible to tip the vote even more into the democrat's favor. If they win they bankrupt the country and it's over. If republicans join in the give away contest for votes then country is bankrupt and it's over. With a larger third-world population that votes based on goodies as opposed to civic duty I can see no other outcome than them bringing the third world to us.
One glimmer of hope is that white people will get a clue. Like in the south where we have the largest minority population but even so are solidly republican. An equal and opposite reaction.
>>> Barack Obama has accused prominent Republican senators of an
>>> "outrageous" attack on the character of Susan Rice, the US ambassador
>>> to the UN and potential nominee as secretary of state, in alleging a
>>> cover up over the Benghazi attack that killed the American ambassador
>>> to Libya, Chris Stevens.
>>> The president denounced senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham for
>>> saying they would attempt to block Rice from leading the state
>>> department if Obama nominated her because she either lied or was
>>> incompetent in saying that the attack in Libya on September 11 was
>>> spontaneous and that there was no evidence of a link to al-Qaida.
>>> Republicans assert that the White House knew at the time that neither
>>> claim was true. The administration says the information was
>>> substantially correct even if it was wrong to assert there was a
>>> demonstration taking place at the time. It says the link to al-Qaida
>>> is tenuous.
>>> Obama vigorously defended Rice at his press conference on Wednesday by
>>> saying that she was merely repeating the intelligence available at the
>>> time when she appeared on various Sunday television talk shows five
>>> days after the Benghazi attack.
>>> "She made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she
>>> gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided
>>> to her. If senator McCain and senator Graham and others want to go
>>> after somebody, they should go after me and, I'm happy to have that
>>> discussion with them," the president said. "But for them to go after
>>> the UN ambassador, who had nothing to do with Benghazi, and was simply
>>> making a presentation based on intelligence she had received, and to
>>> besmirch her reputation, is outrageous."
>>> Obama said he was not prepared to comment on nominations to the State
>>> Department or other posts, but that he would not be deterred by
>>> threats from choosing Rice.
>>> "When they go after the UN ambassador, apparently because they think
>>> she's an easy target, then they've got a problem with me," he said.
>>> "If I think she would be the best person to serve America at the State
>>> Department, then I will nominate her. That's not a determination I've
>>> made yet."
>>> McCain responded to Obama by immediately going on to the Senate floor
>>> to ask for the creation of a select committee to investigate events in
>>> Benghazi and to accuse the president of missing the point in accusing
>>> critics of "picking on" Rice.
>>> "That statement is really remarkable in that if the president thinks
>>> we are picking on people, he really doesn't have any idea how serious
>>> this issue is," McCain said.
>>> The Arizona senator dismissed Obama's claim that Rice was merely
>>> repeating the available intelligence.
>>Maybe the republicans should compromise and make a despicable liar
>>concerning foreign affairs secretary of state, huh, moron?
> If Rice lied she should be fired from government service.
What do you mean "if?" Do you have a clue about anything at all?
> Then again Reid and Boehner should also be fired. IMO. They are
> both bad for America.
You should be fired from America, you sniveling moderate middle of the roader.
Mitt Romney now joins the long list of the kinds of presidential candidates
favored by the Republican establishment: nice, moderate losers - people with
no coherently articulated vision, despite how many ad hoc talking points
they may have.
The list of Republican presidential candidates like this goes back at least
as far as 1948, when Thomas E. Dewey ran against President Harry Truman.
Dewey spoke in lofty generalities while Truman spoke in hard-hitting
specifics. Since then, there have been many reruns of this same scenario,
featuring losing Republican presidential candidates John McCain, Bob Dole,
Gerald Ford, and, when he ran for reelection, George H. W. Bush.
Bush 41 first succeeded when he ran for election as if he were another
Ronald Reagan ("Read my lips, no new taxes"), but then lost when he ran for
reelection as himself - "kinder and gentler," disdainful of "the vision
thing," and looking at his watch during a debate, when he should have been
counterattacking against the foolish things being said.
This year, Barack Obama had the hard-hitting specifics - such as ending "tax
cuts for the rich" who should pay "their fair share," government "investing"
in "the industries of the future" and the like. He had a coherent vision,
however warped.
Advertisement Most of Obama's arguments were rotten, if you bothered to put
them under scrutiny. But someone once said that it is amazing how long the
rotten can hold together, if you don't handle it roughly.
Any number of conservative commentators, both in the print media and on talk
radio, examined and exposed the fraudulence of Obama's "tax cuts for the
rich" argument. But did you ever hear Mitt Romney bother to explain the
specifics which exposed the flaws in Obama's argument?
On election night, the rotten held together because Mitt Romney had not
handled it roughly with specifics. Romney was too nice to handle Obama's
absurdities roughly. He definitely out-niced Obama - as John McCain had
out-niced Obama in 2008, and as Dewey out-niced Truman back in 1948. And
these Republicans all lost.
In this year's first presidential debate, Obama out-niced Romney. But, when
he lost out doing that, he then reversed himself, became the attacker, and
ultimately the winner on election night, despite a track record that should
have buried him in a landslide.
When you look at this as a horse race, there is no question that the
Republicans deserved to lose. But the stakes for this great nation, at this
crucial juncture in its history and in the history of the world, are far too
momentous to look at this election as just a contest between two candidates
or two political parties.
Quite aside from the immediate effects of particular policies, Barack Obama
has repeatedly circumvented the laws, including the Constitution of the
United States, in ways and on a scale that pushes this nation in the
direction of arbitrary one-man rule.
Now that Obama will be in a position to appoint Supreme Court justices who
can rubber-stamp his evasions of the law and usurpations of power, this
country may be unrecognizable in a few years as the America that once led
the world in freedom, as well as in many other things.
Barack Obama's boast, on the eve of the election of 2008 - "We are five days
away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America" - can now
be carried out, without fear of ever having to face the voters again.
This "transforming" project extends far beyond fundamental internal
institutions, or even the polarization and corruption of the people
themselves, with goodies handed out in exchange for their surrendering their
birthright of freedom.
Obama will now also have more "flexibility," as he told Russian president
Dmitri Medvedev, to transform the international order, where he has long
shown that he thinks America has too much power and influence. A nuclear
Iran can change that. Forever.
Have you noticed how many of our enemies in other countries have been
rooting for Obama? You or your children may yet have reason to recall that
as a bitter memory of a warning sign ignored on Election Day in 2012.
>>>> Barack Obama has accused prominent Republican senators of an
>>>> "outrageous" attack on the character of Susan Rice, the US ambassador
>>>> to the UN and potential nominee as secretary of state, in alleging a
>>>> cover up over the Benghazi attack that killed the American ambassador
>>>> to Libya, Chris Stevens.
>>>> The president denounced senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham for
>>>> saying they would attempt to block Rice from leading the state
>>>> department if Obama nominated her because she either lied or was
>>>> incompetent in saying that the attack in Libya on September 11 was
>>>> spontaneous and that there was no evidence of a link to al-Qaida.
>>>> Republicans assert that the White House knew at the time that neither
>>>> claim was true. The administration says the information was
>>>> substantially correct even if it was wrong to assert there was a
>>>> demonstration taking place at the time. It says the link to al-Qaida
>>>> is tenuous.
>>>> Obama vigorously defended Rice at his press conference on Wednesday by
>>>> saying that she was merely repeating the intelligence available at the
>>>> time when she appeared on various Sunday television talk shows five
>>>> days after the Benghazi attack.
>>>> "She made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she
>>>> gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided
>>>> to her. If senator McCain and senator Graham and others want to go
>>>> after somebody, they should go after me and, I'm happy to have that
>>>> discussion with them," the president said. "But for them to go after
>>>> the UN ambassador, who had nothing to do with Benghazi, and was simply
>>>> making a presentation based on intelligence she had received, and to
>>>> besmirch her reputation, is outrageous."
>>>> Obama said he was not prepared to comment on nominations to the State
>>>> Department or other posts, but that he would not be deterred by
>>>> threats from choosing Rice.
>>>> "When they go after the UN ambassador, apparently because they think
>>>> she's an easy target, then they've got a problem with me," he said.
>>>> "If I think she would be the best person to serve America at the State
>>>> Department, then I will nominate her. That's not a determination I've
>>>> made yet."
>>>> McCain responded to Obama by immediately going on to the Senate floor
>>>> to ask for the creation of a select committee to investigate events in
>>>> Benghazi and to accuse the president of missing the point in accusing
>>>> critics of "picking on" Rice.
>>>> "That statement is really remarkable in that if the president thinks
>>>> we are picking on people, he really doesn't have any idea how serious
>>>> this issue is," McCain said.
>>>> The Arizona senator dismissed Obama's claim that Rice was merely
>>>> repeating the available intelligence.
>>>Maybe the republicans should compromise and make a despicable liar
>>>concerning foreign affairs secretary of state, huh, moron?
>> If Rice lied she should be fired from government service.
>What do you mean "if?" Do you have a clue about anything at all?
If as I have only media reports. No direct evidence.
>> Then again Reid and Boehner should also be fired. IMO. They are
>> both bad for America.
>You should be fired from America, you sniveling moderate middle of the >roader.
>>>>> Barack Obama has accused prominent Republican senators of an
>>>>> "outrageous" attack on the character of Susan Rice, the US ambassador
>>>>> to the UN and potential nominee as secretary of state, in alleging a
>>>>> cover up over the Benghazi attack that killed the American ambassador
>>>>> to Libya, Chris Stevens.
>>>>> The president denounced senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham for
>>>>> saying they would attempt to block Rice from leading the state
>>>>> department if Obama nominated her because she either lied or was
>>>>> incompetent in saying that the attack in Libya on September 11 was
>>>>> spontaneous and that there was no evidence of a link to al-Qaida.
>>>>> Republicans assert that the White House knew at the time that neither
>>>>> claim was true. The administration says the information was
>>>>> substantially correct even if it was wrong to assert there was a
>>>>> demonstration taking place at the time. It says the link to al-Qaida
>>>>> is tenuous.
>>>>> Obama vigorously defended Rice at his press conference on Wednesday by
>>>>> saying that she was merely repeating the intelligence available at the
>>>>> time when she appeared on various Sunday television talk shows five
>>>>> days after the Benghazi attack.
>>>>> "She made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she
>>>>> gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided
>>>>> to her. If senator McCain and senator Graham and others want to go
>>>>> after somebody, they should go after me and, I'm happy to have that
>>>>> discussion with them," the president said. "But for them to go after
>>>>> the UN ambassador, who had nothing to do with Benghazi, and was simply
>>>>> making a presentation based on intelligence she had received, and to
>>>>> besmirch her reputation, is outrageous."
>>>>> Obama said he was not prepared to comment on nominations to the State
>>>>> Department or other posts, but that he would not be deterred by
>>>>> threats from choosing Rice.
>>>>> "When they go after the UN ambassador, apparently because they think
>>>>> she's an easy target, then they've got a problem with me," he said.
>>>>> "If I think she would be the best person to serve America at the State
>>>>> Department, then I will nominate her. That's not a determination I've
>>>>> made yet."
>>>>> McCain responded to Obama by immediately going on to the Senate floor
>>>>> to ask for the creation of a select committee to investigate events in
>>>>> Benghazi and to accuse the president of missing the point in accusing
>>>>> critics of "picking on" Rice.
>>>>> "That statement is really remarkable in that if the president thinks
>>>>> we are picking on people, he really doesn't have any idea how serious
>>>>> this issue is," McCain said.
>>>>> The Arizona senator dismissed Obama's claim that Rice was merely
>>>>> repeating the available intelligence.
>>>>Maybe the republicans should compromise and make a despicable liar
>>>>concerning foreign affairs secretary of state, huh, moron?
>>> If Rice lied she should be fired from government service.
>>What do you mean "if?" Do you have a clue about anything at all?
> If as I have only media reports. No direct evidence.
You've got her mug on TV in living color telling lies, you head up your ass moderate.
>>> Then again Reid and Boehner should also be fired. IMO. They are
>>> both bad for America.
>>You should be fired from America, you sniveling moderate middle of the
>>roader.
> You can try.
> Snipped repeating spam.
Restored so as to rub MattB's nose in it like the dog that shit on the rug.
Mitt Romney now joins the long list of the kinds of presidential candidates
favored by the Republican establishment: nice, moderate losers - people with
no coherently articulated vision, despite how many ad hoc talking points
they may have.
The list of Republican presidential candidates like this goes back at least
as far as 1948, when Thomas E. Dewey ran against President Harry Truman.
Dewey spoke in lofty generalities while Truman spoke in hard-hitting
specifics. Since then, there have been many reruns of this same scenario,
featuring losing Republican presidential candidates John McCain, Bob Dole,
Gerald Ford, and, when he ran for reelection, George H. W. Bush.
Bush 41 first succeeded when he ran for election as if he were another
Ronald Reagan ("Read my lips, no new taxes"), but then lost when he ran for
reelection as himself - "kinder and gentler," disdainful of "the vision
thing," and looking at his watch during a debate, when he should have been
counterattacking against the foolish things being said.
This year, Barack Obama had the hard-hitting specifics - such as ending "tax
cuts for the rich" who should pay "their fair share," government "investing"
in "the industries of the future" and the like. He had a coherent vision,
however warped.
Advertisement Most of Obama's arguments were rotten, if you bothered to put
them under scrutiny. But someone once said that it is amazing how long the
rotten can hold together, if you don't handle it roughly.
Any number of conservative commentators, both in the print media and on talk
radio, examined and exposed the fraudulence of Obama's "tax cuts for the
rich" argument. But did you ever hear Mitt Romney bother to explain the
specifics which exposed the flaws in Obama's argument?
On election night, the rotten held together because Mitt Romney had not
handled it roughly with specifics. Romney was too nice to handle Obama's
absurdities roughly. He definitely out-niced Obama - as John McCain had
out-niced Obama in 2008, and as Dewey out-niced Truman back in 1948. And
these Republicans all lost.
In this year's first presidential debate, Obama out-niced Romney. But, when
he lost out doing that, he then reversed himself, became the attacker, and
ultimately the winner on election night, despite a track record that should
have buried him in a landslide.
When you look at this as a horse race, there is no question that the
Republicans deserved to lose. But the stakes for this great nation, at this
crucial juncture in its history and in the history of the world, are far too
momentous to look at this election as just a contest between two candidates
or two political parties.
Quite aside from the immediate effects of particular policies, Barack Obama
has repeatedly circumvented the laws, including the Constitution of the
United States, in ways and on a scale that pushes this nation in the
direction of arbitrary one-man rule.
Now that Obama will be in a position to appoint Supreme Court justices who
can rubber-stamp his evasions of the law and usurpations of power, this
country may be unrecognizable in a few years as the America that once led
the world in freedom, as well as in many other things.
Barack Obama's boast, on the eve of the election of 2008 - "We are five days
away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America" - can now
be carried out, without fear of ever having to face the voters again.
This "transforming" project extends far beyond fundamental internal
institutions, or even the polarization and corruption of the people
themselves, with goodies handed out in exchange for their surrendering their
birthright of freedom.
Obama will now also have more "flexibility," as he told Russian president
Dmitri Medvedev, to transform the international order, where he has long
shown that he thinks America has too much power and influence. A nuclear
Iran can change that. Forever.
Have you noticed how many of our enemies in other countries have been
rooting for Obama? You or your children may yet have reason to recall that
as a bitter memory of a warning sign ignored on Election Day in 2012.
>>>>>> Barack Obama has accused prominent Republican senators of an
>>>>>> "outrageous" attack on the character of Susan Rice, the US ambassador
>>>>>> to the UN and potential nominee as secretary of state, in alleging a
>>>>>> cover up over the Benghazi attack that killed the American ambassador
>>>>>> to Libya, Chris Stevens.
>>>>>> The president denounced senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham for
>>>>>> saying they would attempt to block Rice from leading the state
>>>>>> department if Obama nominated her because she either lied or was
>>>>>> incompetent in saying that the attack in Libya on September 11 was
>>>>>> spontaneous and that there was no evidence of a link to al-Qaida.
>>>>>> Republicans assert that the White House knew at the time that neither
>>>>>> claim was true. The administration says the information was
>>>>>> substantially correct even if it was wrong to assert there was a
>>>>>> demonstration taking place at the time. It says the link to al-Qaida
>>>>>> is tenuous.
>>>>>> Obama vigorously defended Rice at his press conference on Wednesday by
>>>>>> saying that she was merely repeating the intelligence available at the
>>>>>> time when she appeared on various Sunday television talk shows five
>>>>>> days after the Benghazi attack.
>>>>>> "She made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she
>>>>>> gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided
>>>>>> to her. If senator McCain and senator Graham and others want to go
>>>>>> after somebody, they should go after me and, I'm happy to have that
>>>>>> discussion with them," the president said. "But for them to go after
>>>>>> the UN ambassador, who had nothing to do with Benghazi, and was simply
>>>>>> making a presentation based on intelligence she had received, and to
>>>>>> besmirch her reputation, is outrageous."
>>>>>> Obama said he was not prepared to comment on nominations to the State
>>>>>> Department or other posts, but that he would not be deterred by
>>>>>> threats from choosing Rice.
>>>>>> "When they go after the UN ambassador, apparently because they think
>>>>>> she's an easy target, then they've got a problem with me," he said.
>>>>>> "If I think she would be the best person to serve America at the State
>>>>>> Department, then I will nominate her. That's not a determination I've
>>>>>> made yet."
>>>>>> McCain responded to Obama by immediately going on to the Senate floor
>>>>>> to ask for the creation of a select committee to investigate events in
>>>>>> Benghazi and to accuse the president of missing the point in accusing
>>>>>> critics of "picking on" Rice.
>>>>>> "That statement is really remarkable in that if the president thinks
>>>>>> we are picking on people, he really doesn't have any idea how serious
>>>>>> this issue is," McCain said.
>>>>>> The Arizona senator dismissed Obama's claim that Rice was merely
>>>>>> repeating the available intelligence.
>>>>>Maybe the republicans should compromise and make a despicable liar
>>>>>concerning foreign affairs secretary of state, huh, moron?
>>>> If Rice lied she should be fired from government service.
>>>What do you mean "if?" Do you have a clue about anything at all?
>> If as I have only media reports. No direct evidence.
>You've got her mug on TV in living color telling lies, you head up your ass >moderate.
>>>> Then again Reid and Boehner should also be fired. IMO. They are
>>>> both bad for America.
>>>You should be fired from America, you sniveling moderate middle of the
>>>roader.
>> You can try.
>> Snipped repeating spam.
>Restored so as to rub MattB's nose in it like the dog that shit on the rug.
Nice to see Teabaggers and Liberals are much alike. You and Gary are
so much alike.
>Mitt Romney now joins the long list of the kinds of presidential candidates
>favored by the Republican establishment: nice, moderate losers - people with
>no coherently articulated vision, despite how many ad hoc talking points
>they may have.
>The list of Republican presidential candidates like this goes back at least
>as far as 1948, when Thomas E. Dewey ran against President Harry Truman.
>Dewey spoke in lofty generalities while Truman spoke in hard-hitting
>specifics. Since then, there have been many reruns of this same scenario,
>featuring losing Republican presidential candidates John McCain, Bob Dole,
>Gerald Ford, and, when he ran for reelection, George H. W. Bush.
>Bush 41 first succeeded when he ran for election as if he were another
>Ronald Reagan ("Read my lips, no new taxes"), but then lost when he ran for
>reelection as himself - "kinder and gentler," disdainful of "the vision
>thing," and looking at his watch during a debate, when he should have been
>counterattacking against the foolish things being said.
>This year, Barack Obama had the hard-hitting specifics - such as ending "tax
>cuts for the rich" who should pay "their fair share," government "investing"
>in "the industries of the future" and the like. He had a coherent vision,
>however warped.
>Advertisement Most of Obama's arguments were rotten, if you bothered to put
>them under scrutiny. But someone once said that it is amazing how long the
>rotten can hold together, if you don't handle it roughly.
>Any number of conservative commentators, both in the print media and on talk
>radio, examined and exposed the fraudulence of Obama's "tax cuts for the
>rich" argument. But did you ever hear Mitt Romney bother to explain the
>specifics which exposed the flaws in Obama's argument?
>On election night, the rotten held together because Mitt Romney had not
>handled it roughly with specifics. Romney was too nice to handle Obama's
>absurdities roughly. He definitely out-niced Obama - as John McCain had
>out-niced Obama in 2008, and as Dewey out-niced Truman back in 1948. And
>these Republicans all lost.
>In this year's first presidential debate, Obama out-niced Romney. But, when
>he lost out doing that, he then reversed himself, became the attacker, and
>ultimately the winner on election night, despite a track record that should
>have buried him in a landslide.
>When you look at this as a horse race, there is no question that the
>Republicans deserved to lose. But the stakes for this great nation, at this
>crucial juncture in its history and in the history of the world, are far too
>momentous to look at this election as just a contest between two candidates
>or two political parties.
>Quite aside from the immediate effects of particular policies, Barack Obama
>has repeatedly circumvented the laws, including the Constitution of the
>United States, in ways and on a scale that pushes this nation in the
>direction of arbitrary one-man rule.
>Now that Obama will be in a position to appoint Supreme Court justices who
>can rubber-stamp his evasions of the law and usurpations of power, this
>country may be unrecognizable in a few years as the America that once led
>the world in freedom, as well as in many other things.
>Barack Obama's boast, on the eve of the election of 2008 - "We are five days
>away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America" - can now
>be carried out, without fear of ever having to face the voters again.
>This "transforming" project extends far beyond fundamental internal
>institutions, or even the polarization and corruption of the people
>themselves, with goodies handed out in exchange for their surrendering their
>birthright of freedom.
>Obama will now also have more "flexibility," as he told Russian president
>Dmitri Medvedev, to transform the international order, where he has long
>shown that he thinks America has too much power and influence. A nuclear
>Iran can change that. Forever.
>Have you noticed how many of our enemies in other countries have been
>rooting for Obama? You or your children may yet have reason to recall that
>as a bitter memory of a warning sign ignored on Election Day in 2012.
>>>>>>> Barack Obama has accused prominent Republican senators of an
>>>>>>> "outrageous" attack on the character of Susan Rice, the US >>>>>>> ambassador
>>>>>>> to the UN and potential nominee as secretary of state, in alleging a
>>>>>>> cover up over the Benghazi attack that killed the American >>>>>>> ambassador
>>>>>>> to Libya, Chris Stevens.
>>>>>>> The president denounced senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham for
>>>>>>> saying they would attempt to block Rice from leading the state
>>>>>>> department if Obama nominated her because she either lied or was
>>>>>>> incompetent in saying that the attack in Libya on September 11 was
>>>>>>> spontaneous and that there was no evidence of a link to al-Qaida.
>>>>>>> Republicans assert that the White House knew at the time that >>>>>>> neither
>>>>>>> claim was true. The administration says the information was
>>>>>>> substantially correct even if it was wrong to assert there was a
>>>>>>> demonstration taking place at the time. It says the link to al-Qaida
>>>>>>> is tenuous.
>>>>>>> Obama vigorously defended Rice at his press conference on Wednesday >>>>>>> by
>>>>>>> saying that she was merely repeating the intelligence available at >>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> time when she appeared on various Sunday television talk shows five
>>>>>>> days after the Benghazi attack.
>>>>>>> "She made an appearance at the request of the White House in which >>>>>>> she
>>>>>>> gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been >>>>>>> provided
>>>>>>> to her. If senator McCain and senator Graham and others want to go
>>>>>>> after somebody, they should go after me and, I'm happy to have that
>>>>>>> discussion with them," the president said. "But for them to go after
>>>>>>> the UN ambassador, who had nothing to do with Benghazi, and was >>>>>>> simply
>>>>>>> making a presentation based on intelligence she had received, and to
>>>>>>> besmirch her reputation, is outrageous."
>>>>>>> Obama said he was not prepared to comment on nominations to the >>>>>>> State
>>>>>>> Department or other posts, but that he would not be deterred by
>>>>>>> threats from choosing Rice.
>>>>>>> "When they go after the UN ambassador, apparently because they think
>>>>>>> she's an easy target, then they've got a problem with me," he said.
>>>>>>> "If I think she would be the best person to serve America at the >>>>>>> State
>>>>>>> Department, then I will nominate her. That's not a determination >>>>>>> I've
>>>>>>> made yet."
>>>>>>> McCain responded to Obama by immediately going on to the Senate >>>>>>> floor
>>>>>>> to ask for the creation of a select committee to investigate events >>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> Benghazi and to accuse the president of missing the point in >>>>>>> accusing
>>>>>>> critics of "picking on" Rice.
>>>>>>> "That statement is really remarkable in that if the president thinks
>>>>>>> we are picking on people, he really doesn't have any idea how >>>>>>> serious
>>>>>>> this issue is," McCain said.
>>>>>>> The Arizona senator dismissed Obama's claim that Rice was merely
>>>>>>> repeating the available intelligence.
>>>>>>Maybe the republicans should compromise and make a despicable liar
>>>>>>concerning foreign affairs secretary of state, huh, moron?
>>>>> If Rice lied she should be fired from government service.
>>>>What do you mean "if?" Do you have a clue about anything at all?
>>> If as I have only media reports. No direct evidence.
>>You've got her mug on TV in living color telling lies, you head up your >>ass
>>moderate.
>>>>> Then again Reid and Boehner should also be fired. IMO. They are
>>>>> both bad for America.
>>>>You should be fired from America, you sniveling moderate middle of the
>>>>roader.
>>> You can try.
>>> Snipped repeating spam.
>>Restored so as to rub MattB's nose in it like the dog that shit on the >>rug.
> Nice to see Teabaggers and Liberals are much alike. You and Gary are
> so much alike.
Is that the best you've got, loser? Did you enjoy smearing the tea party that won the house while you elected Hussein with a moderate?
>>Mitt Romney now joins the long list of the kinds of presidential >>candidates
>>favored by the Republican establishment: nice, moderate losers - people >>with
>>no coherently articulated vision, despite how many ad hoc talking points
>>they may have.
>>The list of Republican presidential candidates like this goes back at >>least
>>as far as 1948, when Thomas E. Dewey ran against President Harry Truman.
>>Dewey spoke in lofty generalities while Truman spoke in hard-hitting
>>specifics. Since then, there have been many reruns of this same scenario,
>>featuring losing Republican presidential candidates John McCain, Bob Dole,
>>Gerald Ford, and, when he ran for reelection, George H. W. Bush.
>>Bush 41 first succeeded when he ran for election as if he were another
>>Ronald Reagan ("Read my lips, no new taxes"), but then lost when he ran >>for
>>reelection as himself - "kinder and gentler," disdainful of "the vision
>>thing," and looking at his watch during a debate, when he should have been
>>counterattacking against the foolish things being said.
>>This year, Barack Obama had the hard-hitting specifics - such as ending >>"tax
>>cuts for the rich" who should pay "their fair share," government >>"investing"
>>in "the industries of the future" and the like. He had a coherent vision,
>>however warped.
>>Advertisement Most of Obama's arguments were rotten, if you bothered to >>put
>>them under scrutiny. But someone once said that it is amazing how long the
>>rotten can hold together, if you don't handle it roughly.
>>Any number of conservative commentators, both in the print media and on >>talk
>>radio, examined and exposed the fraudulence of Obama's "tax cuts for the
>>rich" argument. But did you ever hear Mitt Romney bother to explain the
>>specifics which exposed the flaws in Obama's argument?
>>On election night, the rotten held together because Mitt Romney had not
>>handled it roughly with specifics. Romney was too nice to handle Obama's
>>absurdities roughly. He definitely out-niced Obama - as John McCain had
>>out-niced Obama in 2008, and as Dewey out-niced Truman back in 1948. And
>>these Republicans all lost.
>>In this year's first presidential debate, Obama out-niced Romney. But, >>when
>>he lost out doing that, he then reversed himself, became the attacker, and
>>ultimately the winner on election night, despite a track record that >>should
>>have buried him in a landslide.
>>When you look at this as a horse race, there is no question that the
>>Republicans deserved to lose. But the stakes for this great nation, at >>this
>>crucial juncture in its history and in the history of the world, are far >>too
>>momentous to look at this election as just a contest between two >>candidates
>>or two political parties.
>>Quite aside from the immediate effects of particular policies, Barack >>Obama
>>has repeatedly circumvented the laws, including the Constitution of the
>>United States, in ways and on a scale that pushes this nation in the
>>direction of arbitrary one-man rule.
>>Now that Obama will be in a position to appoint Supreme Court justices who
>>can rubber-stamp his evasions of the law and usurpations of power, this
>>country may be unrecognizable in a few years as the America that once led
>>the world in freedom, as well as in many other things.
>>Barack Obama's boast, on the eve of the election of 2008 - "We are five >>days
>>away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America" - can >>now
>>be carried out, without fear of ever having to face the voters again.
>>This "transforming" project extends far beyond fundamental internal
>>institutions, or even the polarization and corruption of the people
>>themselves, with goodies handed out in exchange for their surrendering >>their
>>birthright of freedom.
>>Obama will now also have more "flexibility," as he told Russian president
>>Dmitri Medvedev, to transform the international order, where he has long
>>shown that he thinks America has too much power and influence. A nuclear
>>Iran can change that. Forever.
>>Have you noticed how many of our enemies in other countries have been
>>rooting for Obama? You or your children may yet have reason to recall that
>>as a bitter memory of a warning sign ignored on Election Day in 2012.
>>>I guess the Republicans are bound a determined to set themselves up to >>>lose
>>> the NEXT election, too.
>> How do we win?
> Dump the neocons and the rabid right.
> Social issues are sure losers.
> Fiscal responsibility is a selling point, but Bush spent trillions on an
> unecessary war while cutting taxes.
BRAACK!
Unnecessary war!
BRAACK!
Cutting taxes!
BRAACK!
Hey, guess what, fuck brain. Those tax cuts got us out of the recession and lead to an economic boom amid low unemployment, increased revenues and a dropping deficit, until the democrat's financial crisis hit. But you keep right on parroting your idiotic DNC talking point lies like a good fuck brain.
Stupid people. I just can't stand them anymore, folks.
>>>>I guess the Republicans are bound a determined to set themselves up
>>>>to lose
>>>> the NEXT election, too.
>>> How do we win?
>> Dump the neocons and the rabid right.
>> Social issues are sure losers.
>> Fiscal responsibility is a selling point, but Bush spent trillions on
>> an unecessary war while cutting taxes.
> BRAACK!
> Unnecessary war!
> BRAACK!
> Cutting taxes!
> BRAACK!
> Hey, guess what, fuck brain. Those tax cuts got us out of the
> recession and lead to an economic boom amid low unemployment,
> increased revenues and a dropping deficit, until the democrat's
> financial crisis hit. But you keep right on parroting your idiotic DNC
> talking point lies like a good fuck brain.
> Stupid people. I just can't stand them anymore, folks.
That's a nice rewrite of history there kid... but it's usually best to wait a few years lol.....besides you are wasting your time trying to rehabilitate that littlelying moron georgie... anybody who was around in '08 knows the sad truth of the disaster foisted on us by the republicans.... thankfully we avoided that mistake in '08 and 10...... and will continue to do so in '16 so be of good cheer....
>>>>>I guess the Republicans are bound a determined to set themselves up
>>>>>to lose
>>>>> the NEXT election, too.
>>>> How do we win?
>>> Dump the neocons and the rabid right.
>>> Social issues are sure losers.
>>> Fiscal responsibility is a selling point, but Bush spent trillions on
>>> an unecessary war while cutting taxes.
>> BRAACK!
>> Unnecessary war!
>> BRAACK!
>> Cutting taxes!
>> BRAACK!
>> Hey, guess what, fuck brain. Those tax cuts got us out of the
>> recession and lead to an economic boom amid low unemployment,
>> increased revenues and a dropping deficit, until the democrat's
>> financial crisis hit. But you keep right on parroting your idiotic DNC
>> talking point lies like a good fuck brain.
>> Stupid people. I just can't stand them anymore, folks.
> That's a nice rewrite of history there kid... but it's usually best to
> wait a few years lol.....besides you are wasting your time trying to
> rehabilitate that littlelying moron georgie... anybody who was around in
> '08 knows the sad truth of the disaster foisted on us by the
> republicans....
You're out of your mind.
"It’s one of the hidden success stories of the Clinton era. In the great housing boom of the 1990s, black and Latino homeownership has surged to the highest level ever recorded."
"All of this suggests that Clinton’s efforts to increase minority access to loans and capital also have spurred this decade’s gains. Under Clinton, bank regulators have breathed the first real life into enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act, a 20-year-old statute meant to combat “redlining” by requiring banks to serve their low-income communities. The administration also has sent a clear message by stiffening enforcement of the fair housing and fair lending laws. The bottom line: Between 1993 and 1997, home loans grew by 72% to blacks and by 45% to Latinos, far faster than the total growth rate.""
"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages from lenders and bundle them into securities; that provides lenders the funds to lend more"
"In 1992, Congress mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and creative in stimulating minority gains."
"The two companies are now required to devote 42% of their portfolios to loans for low- and moderate-income borrowers"
"Although Fannie Mae actually has exceeded its target since 1994, it is resisting any hike. It argues that a higher target would only produce more loan defaults by pressuring banks to accept unsafe borrowers."
"The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory
overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a
decade ago."
"Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency
would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the
two largest players in the mortgage lending industry."
"McCain Letter Demanded 2006 Action on Fannie and Freddie"
"Sen. John McCain's 2006 demand for regulatory action on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could have prevented current financial crisis, as HUMAN EVENTS learned from the letter shown in full text below."
Unlike Bush and McCain, as senator, Obama did nothing, other than earn the distinction of becoming the second largest recipient of F&F contributions in the entire congress, even in his short stint there.
Bill Clinton himself said it best:
"I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in resisting
any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to
put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."
-Bill Clinton
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any
kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of
Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.
''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on
these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
>>>>>I guess the Republicans are bound a determined to set themselves up
>>>>>to lose
>>>>> the NEXT election, too.
>>>> How do we win?
>>> Dump the neocons and the rabid right.
>>> Social issues are sure losers.
>>> Fiscal responsibility is a selling point, but Bush spent trillions on
>>> an unecessary war while cutting taxes.
>> BRAACK!
>> Unnecessary war!
>> BRAACK!
>> Cutting taxes!
>> BRAACK!
>> Hey, guess what, fuck brain. Those tax cuts got us out of the
>> recession and lead to an economic boom amid low unemployment,
>> increased revenues and a dropping deficit, until the democrat's
>> financial crisis hit. But you keep right on parroting your idiotic DNC
>> talking point lies like a good fuck brain.
>> Stupid people. I just can't stand them anymore, folks.
> That's a nice rewrite of history there kid... but it's usually best to
> wait a few years lol.....besides you are wasting your time trying to
> rehabilitate that littlelying moron georgie... anybody who was around in
> '08 knows the sad truth of the disaster foisted on us by the
> republicans.... thankfully we avoided that mistake in '08 and 10......
> and will continue to do so in '16 so be of good cheer....
You're insane. Totally insane.
"In what could be a repeat of the easy-lending cycle that led to the housing
crisis, the Justice Department has asked several banks to relax their
mortgage underwriting standards and approve loans for minorities with poor
credit as part of a new crackdown on alleged discrimination, according to
court documents reviewed by IBD."
"Prosecutions have already generated more than $20 million in loan
set-asides and other subsidies from banks that have settled out of court
rather than battle the federal government and risk being branded racist. An
additional 60 banks are under investigation, a DOJ spokeswoman says."
Settlements include setting aside prime-rate mortgages for low-income blacks
and Hispanics with blemished credit and even counting "public assistance" as
valid income in mortgage applications.
>>>>>I guess the Republicans are bound a determined to set themselves up
>>>>>to lose
>>>>> the NEXT election, too.
>>>> How do we win?
>>> Dump the neocons and the rabid right.
>>> Social issues are sure losers.
>>> Fiscal responsibility is a selling point, but Bush spent trillions on
>>> an unecessary war while cutting taxes.
>> BRAACK!
>> Unnecessary war!
>> BRAACK!
>> Cutting taxes!
>> BRAACK!
>> Hey, guess what, fuck brain. Those tax cuts got us out of the
>> recession and lead to an economic boom amid low unemployment,
>> increased revenues and a dropping deficit, until the democrat's
>> financial crisis hit. But you keep right on parroting your idiotic DNC
>> talking point lies like a good fuck brain.
>> Stupid people. I just can't stand them anymore, folks.
> George 'WMD' Bush's one signature accomlishment is that he made the
> Presidency of Barak Hussein Obama possible.
How? I seem to remember that it was the MSM / DNC cabal that lied about the cause of the financial crisis.
> And, of course, he destroyed the influence of the rabid right in America.
How?
No, it was 8 long years of leftist fascist lies that destroyed Bush. Not Bush himself. That makes you really proud, doesn't it?
Here we see how democrats caused the financial crisis while Bush tried to stop it, but thanks to the fascist MSM, not one in a million people even know a damned thing about any of it. Congratulations, the public is stupid and that means you get to gain politically. Makes you giddy. Pee in your pants.
"It's one of the hidden success stories of the Clinton era. In the great housing boom of the 1990s, black and Latino homeownership has surged to the highest level ever recorded."
"All of this suggests that Clinton's efforts to increase minority access to loans and capital also have spurred this decade's gains. Under Clinton, bank regulators have breathed the first real life into enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act, a 20-year-old statute meant to combat "redlining" by requiring banks to serve their low-income communities. The administration also has sent a clear message by stiffening enforcement of the fair housing and fair lending laws. The bottom line: Between 1993 and 1997, home loans grew by 72% to blacks and by 45% to Latinos, far faster than the total growth rate.""
"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages from lenders and bundle them into securities; that provides lenders the funds to lend more"
"In 1992, Congress mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and creative in stimulating minority gains."
"The two companies are now required to devote 42% of their portfolios to loans for low- and moderate-income borrowers"
"Although Fannie Mae actually has exceeded its target since 1994, it is resisting any hike. It argues that a higher target would only produce more loan defaults by pressuring banks to accept unsafe borrowers."
"The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory
overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a
decade ago."
"Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency
would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the
two largest players in the mortgage lending industry."
"McCain Letter Demanded 2006 Action on Fannie and Freddie"
"Sen. John McCain's 2006 demand for regulatory action on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could have prevented current financial crisis, as HUMAN EVENTS learned from the letter shown in full text below."
Unlike Bush and McCain, as senator, Obama did nothing, other than earn the distinction of becoming the second largest recipient of F&F contributions in the entire congress, even in his short stint there.
Bill Clinton himself said it best:
"I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in resisting
any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to
put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."
-Bill Clinton
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any
kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of
Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.
''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on
these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
> George 'WMD' Bush's one signature accomlishment is that he made the
> Presidency of Barak Hussein Obama possible.
> And, of course, he destroyed the influence of the rabid right in America.
And here we see how Hussein and his henchmen have embarked on the exact same policies that lead to the financial crisis. Who knew?
But before we start, first, the lie:
"So if you are a big bank or financial institution, you're no longer allowed
to make risky bets with your customers' deposits. "
-Hussein, State of the Union, 2012.
"In what could be a repeat of the easy-lending cycle that led to the housing
crisis, the Justice Department has asked several banks to relax their
mortgage underwriting standards and approve loans for minorities with poor
credit as part of a new crackdown on alleged discrimination, according to
court documents reviewed by IBD."
"Prosecutions have already generated more than $20 million in loan
set-asides and other subsidies from banks that have settled out of court
rather than battle the federal government and risk being branded racist. An
additional 60 banks are under investigation, a DOJ spokeswoman says."
Settlements include setting aside prime-rate mortgages for low-income blacks
and Hispanics with blemished credit and even counting "public assistance" as
valid income in mortgage applications.
>>>>>I guess the Republicans are bound a determined to set themselves up
>>>>>to lose
>>>>> the NEXT election, too.
>>>> How do we win?
>>> Dump the neocons and the rabid right.
>>> Social issues are sure losers.
>>> Fiscal responsibility is a selling point, but Bush spent trillions on
>>> an unecessary war while cutting taxes.
>> BRAACK!
>> Unnecessary war!
>> BRAACK!
>> Cutting taxes!
>> BRAACK!
>> Hey, guess what, fuck brain. Those tax cuts got us out of the
>> recession and lead to an economic boom amid low unemployment,
>> increased revenues and a dropping deficit, until the democrat's
>> financial crisis hit. But you keep right on parroting your idiotic DNC
>> talking point lies like a good fuck brain.
>> Stupid people. I just can't stand them anymore, folks.
> That's a nice rewrite of history there kid... but it's usually best to
> wait a few years lol.....besides you are wasting your time trying to
> rehabilitate that littlelying moron georgie... anybody who was around in
> '08 knows the sad truth of the disaster foisted on us by the
> republicans....
You're out of your mind.
"It’s one of the hidden success stories of the Clinton era. In the great
housing boom of the 1990s, black and Latino homeownership has surged to the
highest level ever recorded."
"All of this suggests that Clinton’s efforts to increase minority access to
loans and capital also have spurred this decade’s gains. Under Clinton, bank
regulators have breathed the first real life into enforcement of the
Community Reinvestment Act, a 20-year-old statute meant to combat
“redlining” by requiring banks to serve their low-income communities. The
administration also has sent a clear message by stiffening enforcement of
the fair housing and fair lending laws. The bottom line: Between 1993 and
1997, home loans grew by 72% to blacks and by 45% to Latinos, far faster
than the total growth rate.""
"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages from lenders and bundle them into
securities; that provides lenders the funds to lend more"
"In 1992, Congress mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases
of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under
that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and
creative in stimulating minority gains."
"The two companies are now required to devote 42% of their portfolios to
loans for low- and moderate-income borrowers"
"Although Fannie Mae actually has exceeded its target since 1994, it is
resisting any hike. It argues that a higher target would only produce more
loan defaults by pressuring banks to accept unsafe borrowers."
"The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory
overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a
decade ago."
"Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency
would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the
two largest players in the mortgage lending industry."
"McCain Letter Demanded 2006 Action on Fannie and Freddie"
"Sen. John McCain's 2006 demand for regulatory action on Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac could have prevented current financial crisis, as HUMAN EVENTS
learned from the letter shown in full text below."
Unlike Bush and McCain, as senator, Obama did nothing, other than earn the
distinction of becoming the second largest recipient of F&F contributions in
the entire congress, even in his short stint there.
Bill Clinton himself said it best:
"I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in resisting
any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to
put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."
-Bill Clinton
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any
kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of
Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.
''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on
these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
>>>>>I guess the Republicans are bound a determined to set themselves up
>>>>>to lose
>>>>> the NEXT election, too.
>>>> How do we win?
>>> Dump the neocons and the rabid right.
>>> Social issues are sure losers.
>>> Fiscal responsibility is a selling point, but Bush spent trillions on
>>> an unecessary war while cutting taxes.
>> BRAACK!
>> Unnecessary war!
>> BRAACK!
>> Cutting taxes!
>> BRAACK!
>> Hey, guess what, fuck brain. Those tax cuts got us out of the
>> recession and lead to an economic boom amid low unemployment,
>> increased revenues and a dropping deficit, until the democrat's
>> financial crisis hit. But you keep right on parroting your idiotic DNC
>> talking point lies like a good fuck brain.
>> Stupid people. I just can't stand them anymore, folks.
> That's a nice rewrite of history there kid... but it's usually best to
> wait a few years lol.....besides you are wasting your time trying to
> rehabilitate that littlelying moron georgie... anybody who was around in
> '08 knows the sad truth of the disaster foisted on us by the
> republicans.... thankfully we avoided that mistake in '08 and 10......
> and will continue to do so in '16 so be of good cheer....
You're insane. Totally insane.
"In what could be a repeat of the easy-lending cycle that led to the housing
crisis, the Justice Department has asked several banks to relax their
mortgage underwriting standards and approve loans for minorities with poor
credit as part of a new crackdown on alleged discrimination, according to
court documents reviewed by IBD."
"Prosecutions have already generated more than $20 million in loan
set-asides and other subsidies from banks that have settled out of court
rather than battle the federal government and risk being branded racist. An
additional 60 banks are under investigation, a DOJ spokeswoman says."
Settlements include setting aside prime-rate mortgages for low-income blacks
and Hispanics with blemished credit and even counting "public assistance" as
valid income in mortgage applications.
>>>>>I guess the Republicans are bound a determined to set themselves up
>>>>>to lose
>>>>> the NEXT election, too.
>>>> How do we win?
>>> Dump the neocons and the rabid right.
>>> Social issues are sure losers.
>>> Fiscal responsibility is a selling point, but Bush spent trillions on
>>> an unecessary war while cutting taxes.
>> BRAACK!
>> Unnecessary war!
>> BRAACK!
>> Cutting taxes!
>> BRAACK!
>> Hey, guess what, fuck brain. Those tax cuts got us out of the
>> recession and lead to an economic boom amid low unemployment,
>> increased revenues and a dropping deficit, until the democrat's
>> financial crisis hit. But you keep right on parroting your idiotic DNC
>> talking point lies like a good fuck brain.
>> Stupid people. I just can't stand them anymore, folks.
> "MattB" <trdell1234N...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:al88a8dsjj17uso107bn5e5kuvg1klcq2q@4ax.com...
> > Republican senators set up showdown over possible Rice nomination
> Have you noticed how many of our enemies in other countries have been
> rooting for Obama? You or your children may yet have reason to recall that
FirstPost wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:03:23 -0600, "Eddie Haskell" <tyv...@sqpcb.com>
> >"MattB" <trdell1234N...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> Republican senators set up showdown over possible Rice nomination
> >> President says no decision has been made on State Department post and
> >> accuses McCain and Graham of picking on Susan Rice
> >> Barack Obama has accused prominent Republican senators of an
> >> "outrageous" attack on the character of Susan Rice, the US ambassador
> >> to the UN and potential nominee as secretary of state, in alleging a
> >> cover up over the Benghazi attack that killed the American ambassador
> >> to Libya, Chris Stevens.
> >> The president denounced senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham for
> >> saying they would attempt to block Rice from leading the state
> >> department if Obama nominated her because she either lied or was
> >> incompetent in saying that the attack in Libya on September 11 was
> >> spontaneous and that there was no evidence of a link to al-Qaida.
> >> Republicans assert that the White House knew at the time that neither
> >> claim was true. The administration says the information was
> >> substantially correct even if it was wrong to assert there was a
> >> demonstration taking place at the time. It says the link to al-Qaida
> >> is tenuous.
> >> Obama vigorously defended Rice at his press conference on Wednesday by
> >> saying that she was merely repeating the intelligence available at the
> >> time when she appeared on various Sunday television talk shows five
> >> days after the Benghazi attack.
> >> "She made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she
> >> gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided
> >> to her. If senator McCain and senator Graham and others want to go
> >> after somebody, they should go after me and, I'm happy to have that
> >> discussion with them," the president said. "But for them to go after
> >> the UN ambassador, who had nothing to do with Benghazi, and was simply
> >> making a presentation based on intelligence she had received, and to
> >> besmirch her reputation, is outrageous."
> >> Obama said he was not prepared to comment on nominations to the State
> >> Department or other posts, but that he would not be deterred by
> >> threats from choosing Rice.
> >> "When they go after the UN ambassador, apparently because they think
> >> she's an easy target, then they've got a problem with me," he said.
> >> "If I think she would be the best person to serve America at the State
> >> Department, then I will nominate her. That's not a determination I've
> >> made yet."
> >> McCain responded to Obama by immediately going on to the Senate floor
> >> to ask for the creation of a select committee to investigate events in
> >> Benghazi and to accuse the president of missing the point in accusing
> >> critics of "picking on" Rice.
> >> "That statement is really remarkable in that if the president thinks
> >> we are picking on people, he really doesn't have any idea how serious
> >> this issue is," McCain said.
> >> The Arizona senator dismissed Obama's claim that Rice was merely
> >> repeating the available intelligence.
> >Maybe the republicans should compromise and make a despicable liar
> >concerning foreign affairs secretary of state, huh, moron?
> >Mitt Romney now joins the long list of the kinds of presidential candidates
> >favored by the Republican establishment: nice, moderate losers - people with
> >no coherently articulated vision, despite how many ad hoc talking points
> >they may have.
> >The list of Republican presidential candidates like this goes back at least
> >as far as 1948, when Thomas E. Dewey ran against President Harry Truman.
> >Dewey spoke in lofty generalities while Truman spoke in hard-hitting
> >specifics. Since then, there have been many reruns of this same scenario,
> >featuring losing Republican presidential candidates John McCain, Bob Dole,
> >Gerald Ford, and, when he ran for reelection, George H. W. Bush.
> >Bush 41 first succeeded when he ran for election as if he were another
> >Ronald Reagan ("Read my lips, no new taxes"), but then lost when he ran for
> >reelection as himself - "kinder and gentler," disdainful of "the vision
> >thing," and looking at his watch during a debate, when he should have been
> >counterattacking against the foolish things being said.
> >This year, Barack Obama had the hard-hitting specifics - such as ending "tax
> >cuts for the rich" who should pay "their fair share," government "investing"
> >in "the industries of the future" and the like. He had a coherent vision,
> >however warped.
> >Advertisement Most of Obama's arguments were rotten, if you bothered to put
> >them under scrutiny. But someone once said that it is amazing how long the
> >rotten can hold together, if you don't handle it roughly.
> >Any number of conservative commentators, both in the print media and on talk
> >radio, examined and exposed the fraudulence of Obama's "tax cuts for the
> >rich" argument. But did you ever hear Mitt Romney bother to explain the
> >specifics which exposed the flaws in Obama's argument?
> >On election night, the rotten held together because Mitt Romney had not
> >handled it roughly with specifics. Romney was too nice to handle Obama's
> >absurdities roughly. He definitely out-niced Obama - as John McCain had
> >out-niced Obama in 2008, and as Dewey out-niced Truman back in 1948. And
> >these Republicans all lost.
> >In this year's first presidential debate, Obama out-niced Romney. But, when
> >he lost out doing that, he then reversed himself, became the attacker, and
> >ultimately the winner on election night, despite a track record that should
> >have buried him in a landslide.
> >When you look at this as a horse race, there is no question that the
> >Republicans deserved to lose. But the stakes for this great nation, at this
> >crucial juncture in its history and in the history of the world, are far too
> >momentous to look at this election as just a contest between two candidates
> >or two political parties.
> >Quite aside from the immediate effects of particular policies, Barack Obama
> >has repeatedly circumvented the laws, including the Constitution of the
> >United States, in ways and on a scale that pushes this nation in the
> >direction of arbitrary one-man rule.
> >Now that Obama will be in a position to appoint Supreme Court justices who
> >can rubber-stamp his evasions of the law and usurpations of power, this
> >country may be unrecognizable in a few years as the America that once led
> >the world in freedom, as well as in many other things.
> >Barack Obama's boast, on the eve of the election of 2008 - "We are five days
> >away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America" - can now
> >be carried out, without fear of ever having to face the voters again.
> >This "transforming" project extends far beyond fundamental internal
> >institutions, or even the polarization and corruption of the people
> >themselves, with goodies handed out in exchange for their surrendering their
> >birthright of freedom.
> >Obama will now also have more "flexibility," as he told Russian president
> >Dmitri Medvedev, to transform the international order, where he has long
> >shown that he thinks America has too much power and influence. A nuclear
> >Iran can change that. Forever.
> >Have you noticed how many of our enemies in other countries have been
> >rooting for Obama? You or your children may yet have reason to recall that
> >as a bitter memory of a warning sign ignored on Election Day in 2012.
> Y'know I've seen a host of both terrible and wonderful things in my
> short 55 tenure in life so far.
> I've seen cures for disease, man landing on the moon, passage of the
> civil rights act, the age of the muscle car, the fall of the Berlin
> Wall and the birth and progression of Rock & Roll just to name a few
> of the wonderful.
> I was 6 when I saw JFK assasinated on the news. I saw RFK assasinated
> and was in Memphis when MLK was assasinated. In the late 60's I saw a
> quarter of my city burn in race riots. I saw Watergate, the oil
> embargo and the Iranian hostage crisis. And of course the most
> horrible, the attack on the WTC.
> But never ever before in my entire life did it ever appear that I
> would also witness the end of what is The USA.
> Until now.
Really? Like how? We have assassinations? Another republicon stealing
an election? Race riots? Well?
We did have some TexASS hick lie to start a war... does that count?
Mike Flannigan wrote:
> "FirstPost" <AIOE_posters_are_all_li...@AIOE.org> wrote in message
> > On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:03:23 -0600, "Eddie Haskell" <tyv...@sqpcb.com>
> >>"MattB" <trdell1234N...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> Republican senators set up showdown over possible Rice nomination
> >>> President says no decision has been made on State Department post and
> >>> accuses McCain and Graham of picking on Susan Rice
> >>> Barack Obama has accused prominent Republican senators of an
> >>> "outrageous" attack on the character of Susan Rice, the US ambassador
> >>> to the UN and potential nominee as secretary of state, in alleging a
> >>> cover up over the Benghazi attack that killed the American ambassador
> >>> to Libya, Chris Stevens.
> >>> The president denounced senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham for
> >>> saying they would attempt to block Rice from leading the state
> >>> department if Obama nominated her because she either lied or was
> >>> incompetent in saying that the attack in Libya on September 11 was
> >>> spontaneous and that there was no evidence of a link to al-Qaida.
> >>> Republicans assert that the White House knew at the time that neither
> >>> claim was true. The administration says the information was
> >>> substantially correct even if it was wrong to assert there was a
> >>> demonstration taking place at the time. It says the link to al-Qaida
> >>> is tenuous.
> >>> Obama vigorously defended Rice at his press conference on Wednesday by
> >>> saying that she was merely repeating the intelligence available at the
> >>> time when she appeared on various Sunday television talk shows five
> >>> days after the Benghazi attack.
> >>> "She made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she
> >>> gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided
> >>> to her. If senator McCain and senator Graham and others want to go
> >>> after somebody, they should go after me and, I'm happy to have that
> >>> discussion with them," the president said. "But for them to go after
> >>> the UN ambassador, who had nothing to do with Benghazi, and was simply
> >>> making a presentation based on intelligence she had received, and to
> >>> besmirch her reputation, is outrageous."
> >>> Obama said he was not prepared to comment on nominations to the State
> >>> Department or other posts, but that he would not be deterred by
> >>> threats from choosing Rice.
> >>> "When they go after the UN ambassador, apparently because they think
> >>> she's an easy target, then they've got a problem with me," he said.
> >>> "If I think she would be the best person to serve America at the State
> >>> Department, then I will nominate her. That's not a determination I've
> >>> made yet."
> >>> McCain responded to Obama by immediately going on to the Senate floor
> >>> to ask for the creation of a select committee to investigate events in
> >>> Benghazi and to accuse the president of missing the point in accusing
> >>> critics of "picking on" Rice.
> >>> "That statement is really remarkable in that if the president thinks
> >>> we are picking on people, he really doesn't have any idea how serious
> >>> this issue is," McCain said.
> >>> The Arizona senator dismissed Obama's claim that Rice was merely
> >>> repeating the available intelligence.
> >>Maybe the republicans should compromise and make a despicable liar
> >>concerning foreign affairs secretary of state, huh, moron?
> >>Mitt Romney now joins the long list of the kinds of presidential
> >>candidates
> >>favored by the Republican establishment: nice, moderate losers - people
> >>with
> >>no coherently articulated vision, despite how many ad hoc talking points
> >>they may have.
> >>The list of Republican presidential candidates like this goes back at
> >>least
> >>as far as 1948, when Thomas E. Dewey ran against President Harry Truman.
> >>Dewey spoke in lofty generalities while Truman spoke in hard-hitting
> >>specifics. Since then, there have been many reruns of this same scenario,
> >>featuring losing Republican presidential candidates John McCain, Bob Dole,
> >>Gerald Ford, and, when he ran for reelection, George H. W. Bush.
> >>Bush 41 first succeeded when he ran for election as if he were another
> >>Ronald Reagan ("Read my lips, no new taxes"), but then lost when he ran
> >>for
> >>reelection as himself - "kinder and gentler," disdainful of "the vision
> >>thing," and looking at his watch during a debate, when he should have been
> >>counterattacking against the foolish things being said.
> >>This year, Barack Obama had the hard-hitting specifics - such as ending
> >>"tax
> >>cuts for the rich" who should pay "their fair share," government
> >>"investing"
> >>in "the industries of the future" and the like. He had a coherent vision,
> >>however warped.
> >>Advertisement Most of Obama's arguments were rotten, if you bothered to
> >>put
> >>them under scrutiny. But someone once said that it is amazing how long the
> >>rotten can hold together, if you don't handle it roughly.
> >>Any number of conservative commentators, both in the print media and on
> >>talk
> >>radio, examined and exposed the fraudulence of Obama's "tax cuts for the
> >>rich" argument. But did you ever hear Mitt Romney bother to explain the
> >>specifics which exposed the flaws in Obama's argument?
> >>On election night, the rotten held together because Mitt Romney had not
> >>handled it roughly with specifics. Romney was too nice to handle Obama's
> >>absurdities roughly. He definitely out-niced Obama - as John McCain had
> >>out-niced Obama in 2008, and as Dewey out-niced Truman back in 1948. And
> >>these Republicans all lost.
> >>In this year's first presidential debate, Obama out-niced Romney. But,
> >>when
> >>he lost out doing that, he then reversed himself, became the attacker, and
> >>ultimately the winner on election night, despite a track record that
> >>should
> >>have buried him in a landslide.
> >>When you look at this as a horse race, there is no question that the
> >>Republicans deserved to lose. But the stakes for this great nation, at
> >>this
> >>crucial juncture in its history and in the history of the world, are far
> >>too
> >>momentous to look at this election as just a contest between two
> >>candidates
> >>or two political parties.
> >>Quite aside from the immediate effects of particular policies, Barack
> >>Obama
> >>has repeatedly circumvented the laws, including the Constitution of the
> >>United States, in ways and on a scale that pushes this nation in the
> >>direction of arbitrary one-man rule.
> >>Now that Obama will be in a position to appoint Supreme Court justices who
> >>can rubber-stamp his evasions of the law and usurpations of power, this
> >>country may be unrecognizable in a few years as the America that once led
> >>the world in freedom, as well as in many other things.
> >>Barack Obama's boast, on the eve of the election of 2008 - "We are five
> >>days
> >>away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America" - can
> >>now
> >>be carried out, without fear of ever having to face the voters again.
> >>This "transforming" project extends far beyond fundamental internal
> >>institutions, or even the polarization and corruption of the people
> >>themselves, with goodies handed out in exchange for their surrendering
> >>their
> >>birthright of freedom.
> >>Obama will now also have more "flexibility," as he told Russian president
> >>Dmitri Medvedev, to transform the international order, where he has long
> >>shown that he thinks America has too much power and influence. A nuclear
> >>Iran can change that. Forever.
> >>Have you noticed how many of our enemies in other countries have been
> >>rooting for Obama? You or your children may yet have reason to recall that
> >>as a bitter memory of a warning sign ignored on Election Day in 2012.
> > Y'know I've seen a host of both terrible and wonderful things in my
> > short 55 tenure in life so far.
> > I've seen cures for disease, man landing on the moon, passage of the
> > civil rights act, the age of the muscle car, the fall of the Berlin
> > Wall and the birth and progression of Rock & Roll just to name a few
> > of the wonderful.
> > I was 6 when I saw JFK assasinated on the news. I saw RFK assasinated
> > and was in Memphis when MLK was assasinated. In the late 60's I saw a
> > quarter of my city burn in race riots. I saw Watergate, the oil
> > embargo and the Iranian hostage crisis. And of course the most
> > horrible, the attack on the WTC.
> > But never ever before in my entire life did it ever appear that I
> > would also witness the end of what is The USA.
> > Until now.
> I knew that's where you were headed, and yeah, I feel the same way. I fear
> that we are at the tipping point we have known was coming, but just hoped
> against hope that we would never see. Now Hussein is going to spend the next
> 4 years getting as many people on the public dole as humanly possible to tip
> the vote even more into the democrat's favor. If they win they bankrupt the
> country and it's over. If republicans join in the give away contest for
> votes then country is bankrupt and it's over. With a larger third-world
> population that votes based on goodies as opposed to civic duty I can see no
> other outcome than them bringing the third world to us.
> One glimmer of hope is that white people will get a clue. Like in the south
