Hah! I wrote Friday's column before I saw your comment here, I think you'll appreciate the intro. I have ranted before on the "-maggedon" and "-pocalypse" thing before...

My response was to wonder what Al Franken thought about "Frankenstorm"... Heh. Check out Friday's column!

-CW

So I gotta say: what's with this "Frankenstorm" business? Who came up with that?

Everybody knows it's Stormageddon.

That is all.

Or if all people pay the same price relative to their use of the airplane and how much the airplane benefits them! This is when 'fair' comes into it.

If the people on our "US airplane" would pay, I wouldn't have a problem.

It's that they keep trying to get out of paying :)

And then they use their media networks to say that the people who are paying are waging "class warfare".

There's only one class who's waging war and unfortunately they've been winning for the past 30 years.

-David

A better analogy would be if the airline said:

"You can have the exact same seat as that guy over there except we have given him a 20% discount because a bunch of people (who, completely coincidentally, he donated lots of money to) have decided he is a 'job-creator' and you are not... What? You think this is unfair? How dare you! That's class warfare!

Evidence? We don't believe in evidence. There are lots of variables! The numbers will magically balance eventually, you'll just have to trust us. What's that you say? We've been trying this for 15 years and it hasn't worked? Well I say that if it doesn't work we should double down on the policy and give him a 30% discount and we will see if that works! You think this is unfair? Ha! You haven't seen what we're going to do to your healthcare and other basic rights..."

Then tell the Left to quit whining and crying about "Fair Share".

Or maybe you should acknowledge the fact that tax cuts have completely and utterly failed economically, as the Bush-Obama years have shown and it is time to stop presenting them as the solution to all of lives problems? You can argue forever about 'fair' but a better word is FAILED. That, there is no denying.

Do you complain when people who pay for first class on an airplane get "preferential treatment"???

The funny thing about this is that Obama has not raised taxes at all. Taxes on the wealthy were reduced under Bush in 2001 and 2003. All those tax cuts remain.

Then tell the Left to quit whining and crying about "Fair Share"....

Michale.....

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-33816_162-57536611/could-u.s-military-have-helped-during-libya-attack
And yet another rebuttal to your continued insistence that this was not labeled as a terrorist attack until days/weeks/months/years later:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57538689/emails-detail-unfolding-benghazi-attack-on-sept-11

Fourteen hours after the attack, President Obama sat down with Steve Kroft of "60 Minutes" for a previously scheduled interview and said he did not believe it was simply due to mob violence.

"You're right that this is not a situation that was -- exactly the same as what happened in Egypt and my suspicion is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start," Mr. Obama said.

As for taxing the rich, most liberals I know do not hate people for being rich and think they should be punished. But rather they feel that everyone should feel the pain of taxes the same—which is not the same as everybody paying the same percentage of their income. Thirty per cent of your income at $20,000 per year hurts a lot more than it does at $200,000 per year.

I am thinking on your challenge for things that I don't agree with President Obama about. I know I have them, but I must not have had enough caffeine yet today...

Lol I don't think you understood my point at all Michale. My point was that the rich have been giving preferential tax treatment for about 15 years now (tax cuts for them, but not for the rest of us) and that Obama should point this out more.

And without anyone striving for success, you get.... Exactly where this country is right now...

The funny thing about this is that Obama has not raised taxes at all. Taxes on the wealthy were reduced under Bush in 2001 and 2003. All those tax cuts remain.

So yes I completely agree. If you give tax cuts to the wealthy and the wealthy alone you ABSOLUTELY get exactly where this country is just now. This is why Obama wants to change it.

I am... It also annoys me to hear the Left scream about about the rich paying "their fare share" when they actually mean, "Since you have more money than others, pay THAT.. And then pay some more... And then pay more until you are as broke as everyone else."

That's what the Left REALLY means, so why not just come out and say it???

When you take away the fruits of success, you take away the incentive to succeed..

And without anyone striving for success, you get.... Exactly where this country is right now...

Michale.....

Yes... Regardless of who wins the election, we will hear a LOT about Benghazi for the next several months..

Michale.....

THAT'S the spirit!!! :D

Kudos....

Michale.....

Absolutely. I wish he would stop saying that his plan is to "ask the wealthy to pay a little more". Nothing could be further from the truth. What he is actually proposing is closer to 'asking the wealthy to give us back their tax cuts' or 'stop giving the wealthy tax cuts and return them to the tax position they were in before we started giving them, and them alone, tax cuts'.

The way he puts it, it sounds like the plan is to INCREASE taxes on the wealthy. In fact, the plan is to stop giving them tax cuts that no-one else gets - the first step being for them to give back the tax cuts they got that no-one else got.

Ok maybe I see why he chooses the wording but come on, there must be a catchy way of saying this!

I'm sure you too are annoyed at this Michale... ;)

A U.S. ambassador is missing and his diplomatic team is desperately fighting off terrorist attacks. Our commander-in-chief and his national-security team in Washington are listening to the phone calls from the Americans under attack and watching real-time video from a drone circling overhead. Yet the U.S. military sends no aid. Why?

No response to this???

There's a lot of differences though between Michale and Fox.

I admire his fight, I just don't usually agree with what he's fighting for :)

That's why I find it impossible to stay frustrated with ya'all...

Whenever my steam hits over-boil, ya'all remind me that it's just a debate/discussion/argument and, in the larger scheme of things, there are much MUCH more important things...

Like beer... :D

Thanx...

But seriously... I challenge ya'all.....

From now until the election...

Once a day, find SOMETHING wrong with Obama...

And I'll reciprocate and find something wrong with Romney....

I'll start off..

Mitt!! For the gods sake!! Loosen up and have a beer!!! :D

Michale......

A psychotic going into a theater and shooting the place up is an "act of terror"...

It's NOT a terrorist attack.

An earthquake is a naturally occurring "act of terror"....

It's NOT a terrorist attack..

Nice try though. Obama tried that bogus claim... It fell just as flat...

You are not relaying facts.. You are relaying beliefs...

The FACT is, Obama et al claimed that the video was responsible..

True or false???

The FACT is, Obama et al claimed there was a protest.

True or false???

Why is it simply IMPOSSIBLE for you people to admit that Obama frak'ed up??

I find this completely baffling that you ignore EACH and EVERY fact that is before your eyes and continue to discuss SPIN as if it were fact....

Michale.....

Government e-mails sent about two hours after the attack and obtained by CNN show that an Islamist group, Ansar al-Sharia, had claimed responsibility for Benghazi on Facebook and Twitter, one of many channels of information intel analysts need to examine before reaching conclusions. The group denied responsibility the next day.

In the final days leading up to the election, we must evaluate the performance of intelligence gathering in Benghazi in a fair and objective manner, with every effort to omit our biases and political views.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/25/opinion/maller-cia-benghazi/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/24/doubts-surface-over-e-mail-on-claim-of-responsibility-for-benghazi-attack/?hpt=hp_t3

But don't worry! Fox is on it. They have outlined a detailed profile of the maniac who caused this attack: he is believe to be Kenyan born, educated in America, learned to hate America from a young age, is a Muslim fanatic, has socialist political leanings and is named after Saddam Hussein - who was probably a close friend of his family.

Two down now. One held in Tunisia, one "blew himself up making a bomb" in Egypt yesterday. The first, also, spent at least three days in the hands of NATO-member Turkey.

It seems increasingly clear these guys were not highly trained. They will probably just quietly all have accidents.

Just because I disagree with almost every single thing he says doesn't mean I don't like him!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlvQW7tI4aE&feature=player_embedded

There's a lot of differences though between Michale and Fox.

1. Michale genuinely cares about preventing terrorism. I disagree w/ his approach, but he usually means well. Fox on the other hand really doesn't.

2. Though what he says makes me angry sometimes, I genuinely like Michale and he keeps me honest. Whereas Fox is a pure political machine which I don't have fondness for.

This said, I try to remember when things get a little heated that my real battle is with Fox, not Michale.

I admire his fight, I just don't usually agree with what he's fighting for :)

-David

Michale
If I am wrong, hay... I'm wrong and this country is going the way of Greece.

The sad thing about this is you couldn't be more wrong - not about the election, but your Greece comment. Greece got sky high deficits by not taxing it's citizens. In particular, not taxing it's high earners or professionals.

There is only 1 candidate who wants to follow this formula (clue: it is not Obama).

PRESIDENT OBAMA: As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

Sept 13- Campaign Event in Colorado

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world.

Sept 13- Las Vegas Nevada

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I want to assure you, we will bring their killers to justice. And we want to send a message all around the world -- anybody who would do us harm: No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America.

Now the sad thing is that none of this will matter to you, Michale.

Because, as you stated, you've already made up your mind and no rational discussion can be had.

In fact, I believe CW that if Obama caught the terrorists and killed them, you would say that this was to get re-elected.

In other words, you'd politicize an act of terror. You're the only one doing what you say you hate about President Obama.

The other thing that's amazing is that you're somehow able to justify doing exactly what you say you hate about someone else.

And you know what I'm saying is true because you know all of this is going to disappear after the election.

So if you want to see someone politicizing an act of terror, you don't have to go very far.

Seriously, take some personal responsibility dude. Is an election really worth it?

-David

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/331125/first-aid-living-bing-west#more

I would like to also ask that question..

WHY!?

Why did Obama et al sit there passively, watch our people die IN REAL TIME and SEND NO AID!??

Every American in this country should be asking this question of their government.

WHY!?

If we can't trust our leadership to look out for the safety and lives of our representatives in foreign lands, then we need to make changes in that leadership..

I am simply gabberflasted that I even have to argue this point...

Obama et al sat idly by and watched our people die in REAL TIME and did NOTHING!

WHY!?

Michale.....

That’s a metaphor for an enfeebled superpower: On 9/11/12, America had technological capability and military superiority, but no leadership....

If that doesn't convince ya'all of the complete and utter impotence and lack of leadership that Obama exhibits, NOTHING will...

But, therein lies the problem. NOTHING will convince ya'all that Obama is simply the wrong man for the job.. Despite overwhelming and irrefutable evidence...

Once again, the all-powerful '-D' strikes again...

Michale....

Agreeing with me has absolutely NOTHING to do with it..

Agreeing on the basic facts is the whole point.

It is well-documented that the Obama Administration knew that there was no protest in Benghazi prior to the attack. Yet, for 10 days, Obama et al lied to the American people and said that the Benghazi attack grew out of a protest.

This is fact.

It is also well-documented that the Obama Administration had reasonable and compelling intelligence that some obscure YouTube video had absolutely nothing to do with the Benghazi Attack. Yet, to this day, Obama et al STILL claim that the anti-Islam video has some connection to the Benghazi attack.

This is fact.

There are many good reasons for our government to tell us lies. To protect on-going operations, to protect UCs are a couple of those good reasons.

Lying to the American people in a vain attempt to save a re-election is about the WORST reason there is to lie..

Until we can agree on the basic facts that are well-documented and well-supported, any reasonable discussion on this issue is impossible..

If we were talking about ANYTHING other than Left v Right politics, I am certain you would be in complete agreement of this assessment..

Michale...

...When something bad happens at a consulate on the other side of the world, very few nations have the technological capability to watch it in real time.

Even fewer have fighter jets and special forces within less than 500 miles — or about the distance from Boston to Washington.

Yet the commander-in-chief chose to do nothing. He chose to let the enemy determine the course of events, how long the battle would last, how many Americans would die. The only choice he made was to hold a photo-op at their coffins.

That’s a metaphor for an enfeebled superpower: On 9/11/12, America had technological capability and military superiority, but no leadership....

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/331197/superpower-bystander-mark-steyn#

And therein lies the breakdown in communication..

Obama et al KNEW within 24 hours that:

A> There was no protest..

B> It was a terrorist attack...

Yet, the administration choose to lie about it and portray the attack as a protest against an obscure film gone bad. And they CONTINUE to do that to this day....

This is documented fact..

Since you cannot concede these basic facts, ANY discussion from that point outward is rendered moot, because the basic facts cannot be agreed upon...

If we can't have a discussion based in reality, what's the point in HAVING a discussion??

This IS a "reality-based" forum, after all...

If we can't agree that water is wet.......

"The sky is blue, water is wet, women have secrets"
-Bruce Willis, THE LAST BOYSCOUT

.... then any discussion moving forward is simply moot....

Let's agree on the facts and then move on from there.....

Michale...

Ok. The question is malformed. First of all, I don't see any lies about the attack. Therefore, it's impossible to make a mistake by lying when no lying ever took place.

Now about this bet ...

-David

What's the chance that it goes away after the election?

-David

As you are ignoring my question...

One simple question...

Did Obama make a mistake by lying about the Benghazi Terrorist attack???

You answer my question, I'll take your bet... :D

Michale.....

I am just a low-level knuckle dragging ground pounder.. I leave higher political thunking to ya'all gurus...

But I believe that I am representative of Joe Q Six(Twelve) Pack and I can say with complete authority that Obama just doesn't do it for me anymore..

And I think Joe and Jane SixPack will feel the same way...

If I am wrong, hay... I'm wrong and this country is going the way of Greece..

"If I'm wrong... Nothing happens... We go to jail... Peacefully... Quietly... We'll enjoy it... But if I'm right... And we can stop this thing.... LENNY.... YOU will have saved the lives of MILLIONS of registered voters..."
-Peter Venkmen, GHOSTBUSTERS

:D

But if I am right.... There will be a CROW feast the likes that NO ONE has ever seen... And I will be the Maitre'de in charge of serving said Crow Feast... :D

The only question will be will the Left accept the will of the people.....

What say ya'all???

If Romney wins the election, will ya'all accept it???

Or will it be a repeat of the 2000 election???

THAT is the question......

Michale..

I see you keep ignoring my bet, Michale.

If it's not pure politics, why don't you put your money where your mouth is?

:)

-David

We're talking battle issue, not dress uniforms..

I'm just sayin', let the military experts disassemble the military references.. :D

Please let us know, what exactly would be different now in the situation on the ground, if Obama had done what you suggest?

Asked and answered..

I wouldn't have tried to deny that it was a terrorist attack to pursue a political/re-election agenda..

Now, Obama not only looks weak and ineffective, he looks conniving and Machiavellian, willing to cast our Ambassador's life on the altar of a protest gone bad..

In effect, Obama tried to lay the blame for the death of our Ambassador and three other Americans at the feet of an obscure American filmmaker....

If that's not cowardly and lacking of integrity then I don't know what is...

All I ask you all to do is consider what YOUR reaction would have been if it had been a GOP President instead of a Dem president...

Ya'all would be saying the EXACT same things I am saying.. The only difference is we would ALL be in agreement.... :D

Oh, and just for the record, the "Panda Bear" just hit his SECOND HOME RUN and it's only the 3rd inning!

GO GIANTS!

TOUCHDOWN GIANTS!!!!!!! :D

Michale.....

GO GIANTS!

:-)

-CW

You obviously haven't heard the multiple times Obama has given credit to Romney for Romneycare.

Heh.

David [12] -

I think if I was in Ohio I'd have chucked my TV out the window, by now...

michty6 [17] -

Yeah, I forgot about that water gaffe. When I heard him say that, my reaction was "Iran is surrounded on two sides with water!" Then I looked, and Iran doesn't even touch Syria. Whoopsie, Mitt!

As for MI and OH, I was taking the bigger-picture view that Romney was said to have a chance in both states very early on (his dad was gov. of MI and he was born there), but that the Detroit op-ed put both out of reach for him. I don't expect MI will be close, now.

As for women moderators, I'd like to see Gwen Ifill get a shot next time around.

Chris1962 -

Take a look at Obama's job approval ratings since the third debate. I'm just sayin'...

michty6 [27] -

That's pretty close to what I posted Tuesday, I have to say...

LeaningBlue [29] -

I heard 60m people watched the third debate. that's pretty impressive.

O Great And Wise Michale [46, and others] -

Since you've seen the future so clearly, please give us the benefit of your wisdom and tell us which of the 8 tossup states Romney's going to win? [Oh, wait, you'll have to go to Tuesday's column to do so properly, sorry (I'm answering a whole bunch of comments right now, I get confused).]

Chris1962 [49] -

I'm hearing rumors that some Republicans (mostly House) are getting fed up with superPAC money because it's being used against them very effectively. It would be a hoot if campaign finance reform came out of a GOP House, wouldn't it? "Only Nixon could go to China" and all of that...

Heh.

Michale [51] -

Um, how about "horses and Springfield rifles" would that work? Don't the Marines still have swords in their full dress uniform, too?

:-)

LizM -

I thought you'd like that quip. As for "current" I don't think it was intended as anything other than subtly differentiating him from "candidate" Paul Ryan, personally. Obama loves Biden!

michty6 [60] -

Snerk, snerk, snerk. I liked your equation.

David [63] -

Heh. Don't forget, though, that famous historian Sarah Palin telling us Paul Revere rode to warn the British that... um... something, I forget.

Heh. I agree with ninjaf [69] -- too funny!

akadjian [81] -

You had me at "What's up with Donald Trump?" Seriously, you can stop right there...

Michale [83] -

Please let us know, what exactly would be different now in the situation on the ground, if Obama had done what you suggest?

Here's a quick test for you, Michale: if Obama announced tomorrow that we had killed every person responsible for the Benghazi attack, would you denounce it as an election trick or "October Surprise" or would you support the action?

I bet I know the answer to that question.

Woo hoo! I finished answering the comments!

-CW

Basically, you're saying if we don't agree with you then no reasonable discussion is possible.

Let me put it to you this way...

Let's say we are discussing the birth of our nation and you absolutely refuse to admit George Washington was the first president of our country..

How can we have a reasonable discussion on the birth of this nation if you won't agree on the most basic of facts??

So it is with the Benghazi discussion..

The Obama Administration knew within 24 hours that there was no protest, that it was a terrorist attack..

Hell, *I* knew TWELVE HOURS EARLIER!!

So, if you cannot concede the most basic of facts (Obama et al lied) then HOW can we possible have a rational discussion about the issue/incident??

It would be like trying to have a geography discussion with a person who won't concede that the earth is round...

You see the problem???

Michale.....

Again...

Given all the screaming about Voter ID = Disenfranchisement, one has to wonder, eh??

Of course, it's nothing.... If it disenfranchises Republican voters, no big deal, right??

Michale.....

I just want to examine this statement of yours for a second, Michale.

Basically, you're saying if we don't agree with you then no reasonable discussion is possible.

I suppose if all you want is agreement with you then you're correct, no discussion is possible.

None of this changes the fact that it will all go away after the election.

We don't have to discuss, but I know you're a betting man. You sure you don't want to place some kind of bet on this if it's a real scandal? Because I think it's pretty safe to say we'll never hear about it again after the election.

-David

The more you deny, the more you show how far up Obama's butt you are...

It's a simple question..

DID OBAMA ET AL frak up by lying and trying to make a terrorist attack into a protest gone bad???

Yes or No??

Four Americans, including our Ambassador were killed in that attack..

Don't they deserve to have their deaths explained fully and without ANY bullshit whatsoever???

Don't the American people deserve a president that won't LIE just to save his political skin???

You constantly bring up Fox News.. I am talking about the facts..

Your desperate attempts to change the subject and fade any heat you can from Obama et al is downright embarrassing to witness...

Just answer ONE simple question..

Did Obama and his crew screw up by lying about the terrorist attack.

YES or NO...

Michale.....

Yes we should admit that Obama is an evil usurper trying to destroy America and cover up terrorist attacks by his buddies so we can have a reasonable conversation! Amazing.

Michale you are so far down the right-wing rabbit hole there is no having a 'reasonable' conversation. A 'reasonable' perspective is that 4 Americans were killed in a terrorist attack that is still being investigated and that from the very second the attack happened - in fact while it was still underway - Romney and the right-wing media began attacking Obama before they had any clue what was going on, because they know how strong Obama is on foreign policy (see the last debate) and thought they could score cheap political points. Romney, to his credit, is at least not dumb enough to continue to keep trying to score cheap political points over the death of 4 Americans. Fox news.... Not so much.

"Oh how the mighty have fallen....."
-Guinan, STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION, Deja Q

Michale......

There WAS no protest..

Obama et al claimed for TEN DAYS that the attack began as a protest...

That obscure video had NOTHING to do with the Benghazi terrorist attack...

Obama et al are claiming, TO THIS DAY, that the video was responsible, at least partially..

"None of these facts are in dispute, Mr President!!"
-Klingon Ambassador, STAR TREK VI, The Undiscovered Country

So, given these absolute and undeniable facts, I simply cannot understand why ya'all can't (or, more accurately, WON'T) concede that Obama et al scrooed the pooch....

They lied about a terrorist attack because they felt it would hurt the re-election chances..

Lowest of the low....

It is THIS exact kind of denial of reality that WILL cause Obama to lose the election...

Basically, Obama (and ya'all) are believing his own press releases and simply ignoring the reality of the here and now....

Michale.....

I wouldn't have tried for 10 days to cover up that it was a terrorist attack by blaming some obscure video and some non-existent protest...

CAN you admit that Obama et al screwed up by doing this??

If you can't, no reasonable discussion on this issue is possible..

Michale.....

I've read a lot about the Libya subject. From both credible and conservative sources.

From my understanding, it seems that early intelligence reports about the attacks were mixed and that government officials wanted to be cautious about pointing fingers prematurely.

What would you have done differently, Michale?

Seriously, the controversy really seems like much ado about nothing. Before an election.

How much do you want to bet that this issue disappears after the election?

-David

Who is "ya'll" in these statements? That old fictional character you invented that represents the 'left'?

It amazes me that this is front page news all day today for Fox. A guy running for US Senate said that pregnancies caused by rape were God's plan - yet this is completely ignored. To give you perspective, the Senate candidates comments were covered by the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20054737) but there isn't a chance in hell the moronic 'email intelligence' made up fiasco would be because they are a real news agency that covers real news...

As David pointed out from the second this attack happened Romney, Fox and all the right-wing news politicised it, using it to attack Obama and ignoring the actual issue at heart. Even though Romney has (smartly) stopped Fox just cannot let it go.

This I'll give you.

p.s. They may have got the guy ...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57539382/tunisia-libya-consulate-attack-suspect-arrested/

But until you can admit that, there doesn't really seem to be any point to moving on, since there is no common frame of reality...

Michale.....

How come all you're yelling about is Obama?

The same reason ya'all yelled at Bush because of the college pranks at Abu Ghraib...

Why is it when a Democrat screws up, all ya'all want to talk about are the perps??

When a Republicans screws up, all ya'all want to talk about is how badly the Republican screwed up..

As always, it works both ways... :D

Michale.....

The same way Fox/the right would react if there wasn't an election in two weeks.

We'd say it was a tremendously horrible incident and that we should hold those who committed the act accountable.

We'd pursue the people who committed the crime. Just like Obama did with bin Laden.

I mean, if the killing of Americans makes you so angry, Michale, how come you're not yelling for someone to get the bastards who did it?

How come all you're yelling about is Obama?

Seriously, it's just an election.

-David

Lolol. Seriously? You don't see the difference?

Yes those are 2 completely different things. CT is a legitimate debate to set what the US policies, rules and legislation will be; Benghazi is a terrorist attack on Americans that Fox is turning into a personal attack on Obama. There is no legitimate debate (or debate of any sorts) just screaming that it's Obama's fault/Obama lied etc. Absolutely nothing to do with policy, everything to do with politicising.

Nothing like putting Party before Country, eh???

Michale.....

As opposed to all the desperate attempts by Democrats to politicize torture, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib etc etc etc ad nasuem...

The difference is that the Democrats' politicizing actually endangered this country's security..

In other words, all the CT policies that Democrats fought Bush over were the very policies that actually got the job done...

Michale.....

I am glad ya'all can find humor in our ambassador and three other Americans being brutally murdered...

Just ask yourself... How would you react if it were a GOP President..

We saw how the Left went apeshit over nothing more than college hazing at Abu Ghraib....

But Americans getting brutally murdered???

We'll crack jokes and say "it's not optimal"...

Yea... No double standard there, eh?? :^/

Michale.....

Thanks for the chuckles. :-)

Rogue! Scoundrel!

Stand and deliver ... and give me all of your lupins!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLkhx0eqK5w

Awww, Michale. We're just having a little fun. Sometimes ya gotta remember that no matter who gets elected in a couple weeks the world's not going to end.

-David

Those who laugh on 7 November, laugh best... :D

It's undeniable that Obama lied... When it's a GOP president, this is an unpardonable sin...

When it's a Dem president, it's defended to the hilt..

Go figger...

Michale.....

There's a King of England ...?!

Quick, we'll need guns. And plenty of them. Wifey, fetch my horse. And attach my bayonet. We have plenty of powder, no?

I must ride ... The British are back and apparently they have a new King!!!

It's you who are blind, Michty! Not only blind but British which means you like to drink tea in the afternoon which means you're effeminate.

I don't believe you understand our ways here in America. What is important is that you will never force us to do anything we don't want to do and we know you're trying to force us to do it because someone we trust has told us you liberals would try to force us!

We're rebels here in America!

Even if we're rebels fighting for the wealthiest individuals in the nation (not quite sure why we're doing that but ... nevermind ... it's not important). What's important is that you ... a foreigner ... clearly do not understand this great nation of ours. A nation which was founded in seventeen seventy something on the principle of trickle down theory.

People are taxed you see ... and then the money goes to a few selected individuals (not sure how they're selected but they're probably upstanding ...) and these people then send the money to China and India to hire people there to create products which can be sold here to the people who are taxed. Don't you get it you foolish limey ... this is how business works!

-David

:)

You do know what the word 'fewer' means right? Lol right-wing news and their attempts to redeem their candidate... Of course then there is the fact that the entire statement about 'fewest ships sine 1917' is a complete lie but then most people probably already knew that since everyone is aware of the following formula:

It came out of Romney's mouth = It is probably a lie

Obama's re-election chances just sunk to zero.
People died and Obama lied...

You really do live in a fantasy world. Fox has being trying to sell you and the people this for months and they still won't give up. If the administration performed so badly why didn't Romney take them to task in the FOREIGN POLICY debate? Of course you are so blind to reality you completely ignore this and will never see past Fox News' latest headlines...

Yep...

Obama's re-election chances just sunk to zero.

People died and Obama lied...

Michale.....

This is everyone ... period.

You can't ask one side to not take money and allow another to. This guarantees a winner.

Now I know you feel good because the money is allowing Romney to pull even and who knows? Maybe even win.

But what happens when you wake up the next morning and Romney is President?

I mean, I guess you can still feel good about taking down Obama for a little bit. But then what? Ah ... nevermind, conservatives will find someone else for you to fight and feel good about.

-David

p.s. What actually amazes me is how ... even with all of the money Romney has behind him ... how hard he's still finding it.

No protest.. Just I said..

Video was completely irrelevant.. Just as I said...

Obama lied and people died...

Strange how we don't hear that from the Left, eh??

Once again, the all important '-D' raises it's ugly head...

What's REALLY sad is that, TO THIS DAY, Obama and his minions STILL claim that that stupid video was the reason behind the attack...

And ya'all wanna give this administration four more years!???

Michale.....

Obama had the chance to do the right thing back in 2008...

He chose to go with the big money..

You can't castigate the Right without including the Left... It's against the rules.. :D

Michale.....

Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington..... http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-benghazi-emails-idUSBRE89N02C20121024

Oh, you've got to at least watch the "the 1980s called" and the "these things called aircraft carriers"... you'll get a chuckle out of them, I promise!

"The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back" ... President Obama

Heh.

Mitt Romney sure sounded an awful lot like Ronald Reagan did back then with the comments he made on the military and the projection of US power as the major component of US leadership. But, alas, he's a few decades out of touch with what the reality of the situation is today.

Furthermore, Romney doesn't seem to understand that America's global leadership role is strengthened when American leads by the power of its example as much as, if not more than, by the example of its power. I learned all about that from Senator Biden, by the way.

Speaking of whom ... why on earth do you suppose the president was so quick to say, when talking about his decision to go after bin Laden in Pakistan, that his current vice president had the same (implying wrong-headed) critique as Romney did? I'm surprised and grateful that those words have not, to my knowledge, been used to denigrate Vice President Biden throughout the far reaches of the blogosphere. The only apologizing that President Obama needs to be doing publically is to his vice president who just happens to be the most loyal vice president in the history of the United States of America and whose sound judgement and advice - on both foreign and domestic policy - the president has had the singular luxury of being able to rely on over the course of his entire presidency.

It was the first time I'd seen it posted. And yeah, it was eye opening. It also kind of makes you wonder where the "liberal" media is.

Of course I'm joking ... the corporate media cares more about the ad dollars than actually reporting anything on either candidate.

Do you REALLY want to go there, considering how much money Obama has taken from anonymous donors?

Absolutely, Michale. Here's an excellent graph showing the breakdown of SuperPAC spending ...

http://graphics.latimes.com/2012-election-superpac-spending/

SuperPACs have spent $184 million against Obama.

They've spent $70 million against Romney.

This is the difference in the election. Not any debates. It will be interesting though to see if the presidential race can be bought. This is the big Republican bet.

They don't "buy elections" ...

Really? Then why is who raises the most money so important ...

I tell you what Chris. If this is really the case, why don't we simply put a cap on how much each candidate gets to spend?

Or just ban money entirely ... You've got three debates. Then vote.

BTW- Isn't your entire career based on the fact that advertising influences people?

-David

Ya'all realize that a bayonet is STILL standard issue for the USMC, right???

Michale.....

Nothing to worry about???

I bet if these were threats against Obama, the Left would be singing a different tune, no???

The Left would be screaming to the high heavens...

But, since the threats are against a Republican, no one seems to care....

Iddn't it funny how all-mighty that '-D' is after the name, eh?? :D

Michale.....

D, I don't fear/loathe SuperPACs any more than I do businesses or the wealthy. No SuperPAC representative is standing outside the voting booth, paying people to vote for their guy. SuperPACs = free speech, is all. They don't "buy elections," as the Left likes to contend.

THAT discussion would be a hoot, eh? :D

Michale.....

No.. The "scary" thing is giving Obama and the Democrats 4 more years to wreck the country....

THAT is scary....

Michale.....

But it's ok, Chris, it's not what Romney is banking on. The anonymous money has come through for him and this could very well tip the scales.

Do you REALLY want to go there, considering how much money Obama has taken from anonymous donors??

Michty,

Your only defense are "polls" and even THEY are against Obama...

Face the facts.. Obama is going down... On 6 Nov, Americans are going to say, "YOU'RE FIRED" to Obama...

David,

Just like his "strategy" with Bain.

Bain?? Wasn't that the organization that Romney worked for when Clinton said his character was "sterling"???? :D

Ya'all can throw as much crap on the wall as you wish..

None of it's going to stick.... In 2 weeks, we'll have President-Elect Romney and ya'all will be dining on Roast Crow, Sauteed Crow, Crow Souffle and, for dessert, Crow-Creme Pie..

Bring yer appetites, cuz there's gonna be LOTS to go around... :D

Michale.....

I wish that we had politicians who saw the threats to elective democracy as clearly as Mr. Farage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YSoCZs8WlDg

The scary thing is that these are his policies and this is entirely plausible...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/23/bayonets-still-standard-issue-despite-obama-debate-jab/

I just skimmed it then I saw the section on economic issues. Boy is it bad reading considering what Romney is saying he is going to do:

- State spending increased at well over rate of inflation under Romney’s watch, estimated at 24% - more than $5 billion – over Romney’s final three years.
- Under Romney, Massachusetts dramatically underperformed the rest of the nation in terms of job growth.
- Romney has been criticized by experts for failing to deliver on issues of business development and economic growth after selling himself as the “CEO governor.”
- 2006 report issued by quasi-public Massachusetts Technology Collaborative warned the state was losing its grip as leader in “innovation economy” and that tech job was alarmingly slow.
- Romney left his successor to fill a budget deficit exceeding $1 billion.

So he ran as the business CEO, was awful in job growth and left a massive deficit. Seems like he is running on the same policies now then!

Sorry, Chris. Maybe so. But his strategy is dodgy and mostly consists of help from lots of SuperPACs.

Just like his "strategy" with Bain. Check out that McCain file. The list of shady Romney/Bain goings on is amazing.

Everything from deals with jailed junk bond kind Michael Milken to Bain outsourcing the Maytag man.

-David

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/McCain-2008-Oppo-File-on-Romney.pdf

It's a bit much, but kind of interesting to see the research.

Lookup Damon Clinical Laboratories ...

"A Needham clinical laboratory agreed yesterday to pay $119 million in criminal and civil fines after pleading guilty to charges that it defrauded the nation’s Medicare system by seeking reimbursements on millions of dollars worth of unnecessary blood tests. … Damon Clinical Laboratories Inc. admitted it tried to boost its profits by submitting the unnecessary tests. The company, the government said,
misled doctors into ordering the tests, ensuring that they would be covered by Medicare, the federal health care program for the elderly.”

-David

Campaign Moods Shift as Contest Tightens

With a last aggressive debate performance behind him and 14 grueling days ahead, President Obama is now facing what he worked so hard to avoid: a neck-and-neck race with a challenger gaining ground when it matters most.

Over the last month, through the debates and a gradual moderation of the conservative tone he struck during the Republican primaries, Mitt Romney undermined the Democrats’ expensive summertime work of casting him as the candidate of and for the rich, emerging as a far more formidable opponent than Mr. Obama had ever expected....
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/us/politics/campaign-moods-shift-as-contest-tightens.html?_r=0

I've said it before and I'll say it again: This is a CEO who knows how to stick to a strategy.

Yes just like Romney was destroyed by Independents and NPA after the first debate when Romney was childish and immature and the CBS poll give him a big victory... Oh wait.

Obama won with his base, who ate all his zippy one-liners up...

But he looked childish and immature to Independents and NPAs..

Romney was the only adult in the debate by far...

Like Biden, Obama was the class clown.... Very UN-presidential....

Michale....

TRANSLATION: I pick the polls that most favor OBAMA to show that Obama is going to win the election..

:D

My friend, you are in for a really rude awakening.. :D

Michale.....

No mention of climate change in that debate. Wow!

There's a reason for that...

A: Scientists in Europe have discovered evidence that the planetary temp has been dropping steadily for the last two thousand years.. Yes, a PEER REVIEWED paper....

2: The UK Met Office quietly released a data paper on a Friday (thereby insuring it wouldn't get much notice) that stated there has been no appreciable global warming in the last 2 decades...

Global Warming is going the way of the dinosaurs and the Global Cooling fanatics of the 1970s....

I'll get to the rest later....

Michale

Given the orientation of the Tunisian government, it's not out of the realm of possibility that the US may be able to threaten Gitmo against spilling the names and staying in Tunisia.

If that happens, it's not out of the realm that there might still be a drone or special forces hit yet before the election; the President has repeated played the "bring to justice" line in the debates and the stump.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/25-things-obama-supporters-like-about-mitt-romney

I thought professionals used focus groups so they wouldn't let their own bias intrude.

-David

No, I'm the advertising professional who's trained to view things through the eyes of the target audience (in this case, undecideds). And O didn't do himself any favors with that surly reply of his.