1. New to the board or trying to figure out how something works here? Check out the User Guide.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Hot Topics is open from 8:30 AM - 4 PM ET Mon - Fri.

    Dismiss Notice
  3. The message board is closed between the hours of 4pm ET Friday and 8:30am ET Monday.
    As always, the Board will be open to read and those who have those privileges can still send private messages and post to Profiles.

Not A Big Obama Fan

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Lepplady, Nov 9, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Lepplady

    Lepplady Chillin' since 2006

    Sure. Here are a few: My sources are CNN and CNBC. I trust those are reputable enough.

    Timeline reports about the Benghazi attack details mounting tensions and requests for security both before and during the attack, including direct notification to Hillary Clinton were ignored. There's no name-calling or muck-raking. Just a timeline. Just the facts.

    I'm sorry if folks are tired of being reminded of Benghazi. But there are a lot of other folks who still think a lot of questions need to be answered, and people need to be held accountable for lives that were lost that day. That's not going to go away just because a few folks in politics public relations want to blame the victims and gloss it over.
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2014
    Walter Oobleck and DiO'Bolic like this.
  2. Sundrop

    Sundrop Sunny the Great & Wonderful

    I rarely offer an opinion in political conversations.....I watch, I listen, I read.....but I rarely speak.
    The reason why is because with every side slinging so much mud, it's difficult to get a clear perspective on what the truth really is.
    I'm so tired of opposing parties using scare tactics that would put a science fiction writer to shame. It gets harder everyday to keep informed because from where I sit....depending on which side you're on, you can spin anything to look really bad for the opposition.
    I'm sick of it....I don't even watch the news any more.
    There are things I have liked or disliked about every president and administration as far back as I can remember..... Whether or not I voted for them or agree with everything they have done, is irrelevant....it's done....until the next election and mud slinging competition.
    Moderator, FlakeNoir and Lepplady like this.
  3. hossenpepper

    hossenpepper Don't worry. I have a permit!!!

    Yes it was about your long posts describing the personal attacks on you. So yeah it worked to show the illogic of that. That is a fact. Last word is your if you want it. Not that you like to have it. I wouldn't know. You've never given any evidence either way.

    No one wants you to shut up. If anything, how about a new take on this subject? Not memes, same pundit articles, etc. Those are old and tiresome. They don't do anything to further any conversations. So if that is what you want to supply, then I must conclude you are seeking arguments or placid approval and agreement. I must then conclude that you are only interested in stirring the pot so to speak. Which, you have every right to do. But here is another gaffe in that thought process.

    You are coming and casting dispersion on a wide set of ideas and values you don't like by posting this thread and the ensuing judgements you made. You have directly said those who think these things all have their heads in the sand. You are saying they don't get it. You are saying that their ideas and ways are "enemies of the Constitution", or treasonous. You are saying that they are stupid and illogical and silly. So because you didn't say that in a response to something I or someone else said directly and instead just insulted it in blanket fashion, that COULDN'T be taken personally and thus call for as much elaboration and multiple responses saying it's about ME personally if I think and believe these things? But because you posted first and the only way to reply to individual points directly is to quote your posts and then directly address things, THAT is personal and what you did isn't? Makes ZERO sense.

    But I agree, this thread is pointless now and should be consigned to the Burrito Dome. I'll step out and let you all have your say. I wish everyone well.
    Moderator, Tery and FlakeNoir like this.
  4. Lepplady

    Lepplady Chillin' since 2006

    Obama approval rating sinks to new low

    From November 21st 2013:
    According to a CNN/ORC poll released Thursday, 41% of Americans approve of the job the President's doing in the White House. Fifty-six percent questioned say they disapprove of Obama's performance, an all-time high in CNN surveys.

    The President's approval rating has now reached new lows or tied his all-time lows in polls released over the past three weeks from CNN/ORC, CBS News, ABC News/Washington Post, Quinnipiac University, National Journal Heartland Monitor, and NBC News/Wall Street Journal. And the CNN survey is the fourth non-partisan live operator national poll released this week to put Obama's approval rating between 40% and 42%. A CBS News survey released Wednesday showed the President's approval rating at 37%.

    Today, The Washington Post-ABC News survey gives Obama an approval rating of 46%, over a poll low of 42% back in November. ...The poll says that -- "for the first time on the eve of a State of the Union address" -- more Americans have an overall negative view of Obama's presidency.
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2014
    Walter Oobleck and Haunted like this.
  5. Haunted

    Haunted This is my favorite place

    I know it was the Dark Ages when I took the course but at that time that was the rule to follow when reporting and that opinions of writers belonged in the Editorial Section. IMHO ALL reporting done today is slanted, does not matter what news station!

    The rule was actually Who, What, Where, When and How!
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2014
  6. FlakeNoir

    FlakeNoir Original Kiwi© SKMB® Moderator

    I hear what you're saying Hoss and I'm sure Stephen does have respect for healthy debate, (and for folks that stick up for themselves--people here have proven that those two things can be mutual) my point was--that for some time now, it has been nothing close to this.

    I do understand that I probably don't understand U.S politics well enough though... for cultural/nationality reasons. :)

    On a personal note @hossenpepper, I think for it to be a proper debate--both 'sides' need representation, so it would be a shame to see you step away... believe it or not, I'm learning a lot--from all of you.
    Moderator, Tery, Shasta and 2 others like this.
  7. Shasta

    Shasta On his shell he holds the earth.

    That's why I've been asking for objective facts from you this whole time! And I haven't seen any......
    Moderator, Tery and Lepplady like this.
  8. Lepplady

    Lepplady Chillin' since 2006

    See above :smile-new:
    Walter Oobleck likes this.
  9. Shasta

    Shasta On his shell he holds the earth.

    I don't understand what you are trying to prove with this.

    Clinton was informed at 2am, which is at the same time the ambassador was being pulled out and murdered.

    2 a.m.: Hicks informs Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that they need to evacuate all Americans from Benghazi. At about the same time, an eyewitness captures on video Stevens being pulled from the smoke-filled building.

    4 a.m.: The attackers launch a full-on assault against the annex, dropping mortars on the roof. Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods are killed in the attack.

    What was your point in posting the timeline? How is she supposed to immediately stop something from thousands of miles away???

    I know this question will be ignored because all of my direct questions to you are being ignored but I truly am curious as to what posting the timeline was supposed to prove, other than that the attack happened.
    Moderator, Tery and Sundrop like this.
  10. Shasta

    Shasta On his shell he holds the earth.

    I did. And I responded below.
  11. Shasta

    Shasta On his shell he holds the earth.

    I feel like I'm stuck in a loop! I've been saying this ENTIRE time that I don't care for Obama but I am defending things that are being said against him that don't make sense. Why is posting that his approval rating is low a valid point??? We all KNOW that his approval rating is low.

    My god, why do I keep trying????
  12. Lepplady

    Lepplady Chillin' since 2006

    Um.. because this thread is about Obama. And I'm being accused of spouting stale facts, so I figured I'd post something current, and completely relevant to the topic.

    That's a really good question.

    This attack isn't something that happened so fast there was no time to respond. They asked for additional security for a month before the attack.

    The first request for help didn't come that late in the day. State Dept. Diplomatic Security followed events in real time as early as 9:40 pm, at least 5 hours earlier. There was plenty of time for action to be taken, that day and in the time leading up to it.

    Stevens might have been dead at that time, but he wasn't the only American on the scene. There were Americans still alive for at least 2 hours after that. They matter too.

    How was Hillary supposed to stop something from thousands of miles away? By sending troops that were a whole lot closer than that.

    The point is that the people that make these decisions need to be held accountable for them, whether they're the POTUS, SoS or anybody else, republican, democrat or whatever. It's not a Dem vs Rep thing, it's an accountability issue.
    Walter Oobleck and Haunted like this.
  13. Tery

    Tery Dreaming in Middletown Moderator

    Before she was SoS, Condi was National Security Advisor. It was she to whom the memo that read: Osama bin Laden determined to strike in U.S. was given. She chose to ignore it. She chose to ignore the advice and expertise of Richard Clarke, who tried to tell her many times that bin Laden was a real threat. So, no she doesn't get a pass. In light of her arrogance, she never should have been made SoS.
  14. Tery

    Tery Dreaming in Middletown Moderator

    Okay, I'm going to post this one more time. Lepp, if you really care about facts, you will spend the 99 cents and get this book. It is from Media Matters, who remain neutral when it comes to facts. I know the title doesn't support your take but if you ignore facts because they don't slant your way, then you aren't really after facts, are you?

    The Benghazi Hoax

    And if you don't like a media watchdog explaining it to you, how about snopes.com? They have no dog in this race:

    [​IMG]FALSE: Administration officials watched the attacks unfold in real time but did nothing to intervene.
    [​IMG]FALSE: Requests issued by U.S. personnel for military back-up during the attacks were denied.
    [​IMG]FALSE: General Carter Ham was relieved of his command for attempting to provide military assistance during the Benghazi attacks.
    [​IMG]FALSE: Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette was relieved of his command for attempting to provide military assistance during the Benghazi attacks.

    Read more at snopes.com: Attack on the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi

    The reason I have all these facts at my command is because I write about this stuff. Yes, the page I write for is liberal - we make no bones about it. And we are encouraged to add our opinions into the text. BUT we must always be able to cite a reliable source for the facts of a story. Just because something contains some opinion, doesn't disqualify it as news. Sources are a good indication of veracity (or lack thereof). Examiner.com is a hack site and our editors would flog us if we ever cited them. The Blaze is good for finding the latest kooky rant from Glen Beck but on a par with toilet paper for facts. It took some searching but I have a very good list of reliable, factual sources. The problem most conservatives have with unbiased sources is that they are just that - unbiased. In my experience, right-wingers aren't after facts, they want validation. Which is why Fox News does so well among them.

    So I fully expect that those who have hewn to the right-wing narrative won't wish to read the links I supplied, where genuine facts can be had. The rest of us, OTOH, will enjoy having the facts at our disposal.
    FlakeNoir, Lepplady, Shasta and 2 others like this.
  15. DiO'Bolic

    DiO'Bolic Not completely obtuse

    Perhaps you missed my subsequent posting. Condi Rice didn’t ignore the advice and expertise of Richard Clarke, did she? Yes, she can be rightly accused of slow rolling the process because the new administration wanted a thorough investigation into terrorism. And the day before the 9/11 attacks, Rice actually instituted Clarke’s plan, didn’t she? I respect your opinion that In light of reluctance to act upon the information of potential threat she should not have been made SoS, but in comparison one might also contend that Hillary Clinton should have been relieved as SoS for her failure to act upon credible information. Right?
    Walter Oobleck, Lepplady and Shasta like this.
  16. Shasta

    Shasta On his shell he holds the earth.

    I did not know this. That makes me so angry, especially since I have an uncle who's office was at the WTC. (He wasn't there that day but a lot of his friends were. He was, thankfully, on his way to Europe.)

    Because I'd like to read about this, do you have a source that I can look at? Thanks for posting, Tery!
    FlakeNoir, Lepplady and Dana Jean like this.
  17. Shasta

    Shasta On his shell he holds the earth.

    I apparently missed it. What post number? I'd really like to read more about this.
    FlakeNoir, Lepplady and DiO'Bolic like this.
  18. DiO'Bolic

    DiO'Bolic Not completely obtuse

  19. Lepplady

    Lepplady Chillin' since 2006

    I'm not going to discount the "facts" in that book, but I am going to take them with a grain of salt. David Brock is a dedicated leftist who has made a career out of writing politically motivated controversial works that heavily favor whichever side of the fence will get him the most attention. First for the right, attacking any liberal target he could set his sights on, The bigger, the better. Then he jumped fence to take up housekeeping with the left. There's nothing about him or his work that screams objectivity.
    I'll have a look at it though. Thanks for the links.

    *edited to incude:
    I just read the Snopes page. It actually supports the CNN and CNBC articles I posted which claim that AUDIO of the attacks was followed in real time. Fox news said that the President sat watching, not CNN.
    And no mention of Hillary was made at all by Snopes, to support or refute claims of her involvement.
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2014
    Walter Oobleck likes this.
  20. hossenpepper

    hossenpepper Don't worry. I have a permit!!!

    From the official, constitutionally defined responsibilities of the SoS, so this silly argument can be put to rest. (link: Duties of the Secretary of State of the United States)

    Under the Constitution, the President of the United States determines U.S. foreign policy. The Secretary of State, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, is the President’s chief foreign affairs adviser. The Secretary carries out the President’s foreign policies through the State Department and the Foreign Service of the United States.

    Created in 1789 by the Congress as the successor to the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of State is the senior executive Department of the U.S. Government. The Secretary of State’s duties relating to foreign affairs have not changed significantly since then, but they have become far more complex as international commitments multiplied. These duties -- the activities and responsibilities of the State Department -- include the following:

    • Serves as the President's principal adviser on U.S. foreign policy;
    • Conducts negotiations relating to U.S. foreign affairs;
    • Grants and issues passports to American citizens and exequaturs to foreign consuls in the United States;
    • Advises the President on the appointment of U.S. ambassadors, ministers, consuls, and other diplomatic representatives;
    • Advises the President regarding the acceptance, recall, and dismissal of the representatives of foreign governments;
    • Personally participates in or directs U.S. representatives to international conferences, organizations, and agencies;
    • Negotiates, interprets, and terminates treaties and agreements;
    • Ensures the protection of the U.S. Government to American citizens, property, and interests in foreign countries;
    • Supervises the administration of U.S. immigration laws abroad;
    • Provides information to American citizens regarding the political, economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian conditions in foreign countries;
    • Informs the Congress and American citizens on the conduct of U.S. foreign relations;
    • Promotes beneficial economic intercourse between the United States and other countries;
    • Administers the Department of State;
    • Supervises the Foreign Service of the United States.

    In addition, the Secretary of State retains domestic responsibilities that Congress entrusted to the State Department in 1789. These include the custody of the Great Seal of the United States, the preparation of certain presidential proclamations, the publication of treaties and international acts as well as the official record of the foreign relations of the United States, and the custody of certain original treaties and international agreements. The Secretary also serves as the channel of communication between the Federal Government and the States on the extradition of fugitives to or from foreign countries.

    While one could argue that "security" as a concept falls under administration of the department, no where is detailed that the SoS would, should, or could assess or oversee direct security matters. In fact, as I previously said, theirs is a job of diplomacy (otherwise known as foreign relations/policy). the one point "Ensures the protection of the U.S. Government to American citizens, property, and interests in foreign countries" could potentially be seen to mean this, but that is not the case. It simply means that if you go to an embassy there are representatives there that protect you under US laws, rather than the laws of the country. There is a huge security and military apparatus that does this job EVERY DAY. If there was a failure to act or to make clear the importance of the security here, then it was theirs. Yes, I know the SoS is a regular member of the NSC, but again, security intelligence is supplied via the apparatus detailed formerly and it was concluded in the report that they did not properly convey the matter to the NSC and thus by extension the SoS.

    By contrast, the role of the NSA exists outside any bureaucracies and can independently choose what to impress upon the president, with whom they directly hold council. A failure to bring alarm to the report on and recommendations of Clarke regarding Bin Laden is indeed a huge one. And the reality fo what happened speaks quite loudly about which failure was more monumental. And if we all do go down the road that an oversight or misjudgement was made by these two figures in their respective times to be vigilant, then OK. So let's assume Hillary failed to properly act and 4 people died. 4 PUBLIC SERVANTS died. That KNEW the risks of their service. Tragic yes. Completely unprecedented and unexpected? Not really. now let's assume the same of Condi Rice in her misjudgement over 9/11 (and a day before falls under the moniker "too little too late"). So she failed to act properly and how many people died? We hear all this noise from the Bush admin that it was unprecedented, no way we could've ever seen it coming. Then the reports come out and that is simply not true. Reports that specify Bin Laden, business centers, civilian targets, planes to possible be used as weapons. VERY SPECIFIC and things we hadn't heard before. And the conservatives who tout themselves as much more in tune with security and the military just MISS this? No actions until MONTHS later? After the same obvious to some event of the first WTC bombing? Were they lying? Up to you to decide that.

    It's also your decision as to which flub was worse. But, it's painfully obvious that this "concern for facts" about Benghazi is disingenuous at best. It's just a red herring to try to smear Hillary with because she simply outshines by many times ANY possible (R) out there.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Misery: Signed, Limited Edition