U.S. Presidential Debates & Election

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by August

So then how do you feel about the concept that even mentioning it is beating a dead horse like Vienna and Mookie are claiming?

I think people need to cool off mostly. What gets solved here anyway?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

Sure I care Steve but what difference does it make? Am I not allowed to comment on contemporary issues without including a treatise on every similar incident that has occurred since man climbed out of the trees?

Of course you are. I don't even know that your'e wrong. My only criticizm was on the point that they addressed one thing and you took them to task on another.

Last I checked Reagan was dead and GWB is retired to Crawford. Whatever they did doesn't have anything to do with whether the present administration is worth reelecting or not in next weeks election.

That's true. As I said, I don't know if your point is true or not, but it is certainly valid, and not only can you say it, but you should.

[August]

Originally Posted by 19Herr_Rapp86

But screaming about it won't change the situation any. If it's upset you so bad, that's what November 6th is for. Go let your voice be heard at the ballot box.

And so it will but in the meantime i'll continue to exercise my right as a free American to talk about the issue when and where ever I want (subject to the rules of this forum). The only way anything gets done in this county is by constant agitation and the election is only a week away. I can't imagine a better time to be talking about it.

If I do as you ask and remain silent the incident will only get swept under the rug, and it may anyways if people like Vienna and Mookie get their way, but i'm not going to help it along by letting the issue slide.

[19Herr_Rapp86]

Not saying sweep it under the rug. Lord knows that isn't going to happen. I'm saying instead of wallowing in the mud of the media by throwing accusations around, be sensible about the whole thing. Think outside the partisan politics box a little. Neither one of us has top secret clearance, which is what it is going to take to get the straight dope on Benghazi.

[August]

Originally Posted by 19Herr_Rapp86

Not saying sweep it under the rug. Lord knows that isn't going to happen. I'm saying instead of wallowing in the mud of the media by throwing accusations around, be sensible about the whole thing. Think outside the partisan politics box a little. Neither one of us has top secret clearance, which is what it is going to take to get the straight dope on Benghazi.

Sorry but I must disagree. There is no secret dope that justifies leaving our Ambassador and his party undefended in that part of the world, especially on the anniversary of 9/11, nor is there a valid reason to deny for days that it was anything but a riot over a movie, and nor is there a valid reason for supplying weapons to Mexican drug cartels and nor is there a valid reason for stonewalling the Congressional investigation into the operation.

You can call all that partisan but i'm not apologizing for it. The election is coming and time is of the essence. We need to get Obama and crew out of the oval office and Justice Department in order to have any chance at all of seeing what they're trying to hide.

[19Herr_Rapp86]

Again. As stated earlier I'm voting Romney. And we don't know the full story and apparently missed my post about another world war. We don't know the whole story of what was going on. Have you been watching Syria? Russia has influence in the middle east. Lot more than we do. Riots broke out all over the Middle East. We could have been on the brink of a world war. Or Isreal being wiped out. Or any other of a number of possibilities that we don't know about. There is a reason security was denied. That's a huge thing to do. The media has proved that because that is all that is being talked about. So huge that it wouldn't normally be done without some kind of probable cause. We as humans have a unique ability. Its called deduction. If we choose to we can take information and come to a logical conclusion from that information. This Benghazi thing warrants that same deductive reasoning.
The President isn't just going to commit political suicide without reason.

[Buddahaid]

No need to apologize for your views August, hell I'm not going to apologize for mine. I just don't like it when people need to use clever derogatory nicknames and rancorous language when airing their views. This place would be boring without the conflicting arguments but we can't expect to make converts.

[19Herr_Rapp86]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I'll believe corporations are people when one goes to jail and Texas executes it.

To argue a corporation is a person is ridiculous on its face. A corporation is not flesh and blood. It has no citizenship. Why would you grant a corporation say over the political process of a country when it owes absolutely no loyalty to one? A corporation can move it's home office to any country it desires and that decision is based on pure profit and economic motives, not any sense of patriotism or duty to a country.

A corporation is an association of people enacted to reduce liability and facilitate economic activity. It is not a person. It has the economic rights of an individual - can own land, enter into contracts, conduct trade, etc - but where I take issue is that just because we've assigned corporations the economic rights of an individual, that doesn't mean that we need to assign it political rights as well. You ask why an association of people shouldn't have a say in the political process but that's a red herring - it ignores the fact that a corporation is an association of people acting to an economic end, not a political one. No one starts a company in order to engage in the democratic process, they start one in order to make money. You're conflating the two aspects when they should remain separate. There are already avenues for people to associate together in order to influence the democratic process - PACs, for one. Why do we need to grant corporations more rights that don't pertain to their core purpose?

To say that a corporation is an association of people and it should be granted rights is to ignore what a corporation actually is. Does the mail clerk at Goldman Sachs have a say in corporate policy? So why should we grant Goldman political rights when in actuality the actions of a corporation are decided by a very small group of people at the top of the organization? That's granting those people a lot of power, and it's not granting that same power to those lower on the totem pole.

Have you by chance seen the HBO series" The Newsroom"? Your comment reminds me of several scenes. Talks about the concept of a greater fool and the difference between a corporation and an individual. Great show! You should definitely check it out. I think you'll like it.

[August]

Originally Posted by 19Herr_Rapp86

Again. As stated earlier I'm voting Romney. And we don't know the full story and apparently missed my post about another world war. We don't know the whole story of what was going on. Have you been watching Syria? Russia has influence in the middle east. Lot more than we do. Riots broke out all over the Middle East. We could have been on the brink of a world war. Or Isreal being wiped out. Or any other of a number of possibilities that we don't know about. There is a reason security was denied. That's a huge thing to do. The media has proved that because that is all that is being talked about. So huge that it wouldn't normally be done without some kind of probable cause. We as humans have a unique ability. Its called deduction. If we choose to we can take information and come to a logical conclusion from that information. This Benghazi thing warrants that same deductive reasoning.
The President isn't just going to commit political suicide without reason.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree then.

I respect your beliefs but the way I see it the President is answerable to the American people and if there is a valid reason then we have a right to know what it is. I will not accept the argument that he doesn't have to answer for getting Americans killed on his watch, especially if the reason is just to protect his political career.

[19Herr_Rapp86]

I didn't say he was protecting his career. I said he's committing political suicide over Benghazi. And I, along with everyone else who has posted about it, wants to know, too. The point I have been making the whole time is there is more going on than we, the average Americans, know about. Sure, we want, if not, demand answers as to why 4 Americans are dead, why we've lost the first Ambassador since 1972 (I think), why the response was told to stand down. Something caused, obviously something major, that reaction from the Administration.

[CaptainHaplo]

Libya is killing this president. The economy is killing him. Everything is falling down around his ears - every poll has him either tied with or losing to Romney - and independents are breaking hard Romney while voter energy is also for Romney.

His days in office are coming to a close.

With regards to Libya - you can bet that Romney will open up a can of worms by using the Executive office to push for real "openness" into the matter. In a partisan way? Time will tell.

Fast and Furious however is going to be a major thing. Romney will rescind the Executive Privilege claim, and expect him to actually KEEP Holder on to make him resign in disgrace over it or be held accountableafter going before Congress again - with all the records laid out. I don't think I agree with that - its entirely partisan and its petty. Personally I think a completed investigation will result in criminal charges for those responsible, and then let it be. It should not be a "witch hunt".

[Buddahaid]

No not all polls have Obama losing. The polls are all over the map and not even worth looking at.

[mookiemookie]

I'm not sure what Haplo's smoking, but it sounds awesome.

Looks to me like Obama's got the edge in the battleground states:

I didn't say he was protecting his career. I said he's committing political suicide over Benghazi. And I, along with everyone else who has posted about it, wants to know, too. The point I have been making the whole time is there is more going on than we, the average Americans, know about. Sure, we want, if not, demand answers as to why 4 Americans are dead, why we've lost the first Ambassador since 1972 (I think), why the response was told to stand down. Something caused, obviously something major, that reaction from the Administration.

Could it be in relation to the activities in the adjoining facilities in Benghazi? Or could we take Augusts insistance that there was no secret dope surrounding US intelligence facilities in a nation that is still in the midst of a civil war ?
Why oh why won't the President put all information in the public domain? Its not like the CIA do classified stuff is it or that the west is still trying to work out which of the ever splitting factions in Libya it can sort of work with.

[geetrue]

Originally Posted by 19Herr_Rapp86

Not saying sweep it under the rug. Lord knows that isn't going to happen. I'm saying instead of wallowing in the mud of the media by throwing accusations around, be sensible about the whole thing. Think outside the partisan politics box a little. Neither one of us has top secret clearance, which is what it is going to take to get the straight dope on Benghazi.

I have top secret clearance lol

The Lord told me right after President Obama was elected and then took office in January 2009 ... He out and out said that the "Clitons would be Obama's downfall"

Mrs Cliton has taken the blame for these four deaths, the press has blamed the President as they rightly should, but I sincerely believe it was forordained.

If this results in the dismissal of President Obama then so be it, but as I also have a right to think ... I think President Obama has a predestined office to defeat the Muslim nation.

make fun of prophecy all you want to ... I believe, besides I don't want to be a real prophet ...

They kill prophets for being wrong in the old testament