For the love of God, do not elect Hilary Clinton next election. (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

igbomb, I agree with much of what you've written. Personally, I don't hold out the 50s as an example- much of that prosperity was a result of World War II, plus cheap energy. I also won't claim here, as Sand did, that cutting corporate tax rates will produce more revenue. Sometimes that works, sometimes that doesn't. We live in a very complicated world, and it's extremely difficult to predict what's going to happen to the economy. So I can't promise you that cutting corporate tax rates will result in more jobs and more revenue. It very well might not, or it might take years to accomplish.

All I can do is make the argument that the more free private enterprise is, the less burdens are placed on it, the greater it will grow. Sometimes it can take a long time, but eventually it will grow if you just free it up.

Would you also then suggest greater deregulation?

Yes and no. It depends. There is waste and excessive red tape out there, and I want to remove as much of that as possible. But we also have to be careful, and look at the ramifications of everything before we do it.For instance, we have FDIC for the banks, which is a good thing overall. But so long as we have that, we can't deregulate the banks, because then they can give irresponsible loans all the time knowing the government won't let them fail. On the other hand, we shouldn't be pushing the banks to make loans for political reasons- that's doomed to fail as well, and it has.

We also have environmental concerns, and I am not in favor of simply lifting controls that are designed to protect us. Some maybe, that are excessive. But I'm frankly sick and tired of knee-jerk responses to these issues- conservatives in favor of every sort of deregulation, no matter how dangerous it might be, and liberals in favor of denying ANY deregulation, no matter how onerous to business the current laws may be. We have to be careful and smart, but there ARE regulations we should remove.

How about having corporations pay no income tax? If a little tax decrease is a good thing, wouldn't a lot be even better? Or do you see diminishing returns in which case, what's the magical rate?

I don't know. There are no simple answers here. I would start by reducing the corporate tax rate down to make it globally competitive.

As usual, Timscrotch, you have no idea what you are talking about.

The US corporate tax rate is largely irrelevant.

No no no. It's not irrelevant, because it inhibits start up corporations, which is exactly what I want to encourage. The corporations that have been around a long time take advantage of all the neat loopholes that the government provides them because they're so established and well connected. But the newcomer on the block can't do that. That's why you get rid of all the loopholes and decrease the tax rate, and have a level playing field.So as usual, YOU have no idea what you are talking about.

You really think a new company cant hire an accountant to help them avoid paying the full corporate tax rate? My god you are silly.

To an extent, sure. I'm not so sure a start-up can hide profits off shore like GE though. Isn't a big part of the tax breaks to big corporations based on counting revenue in other countries?

Not just that. There are loopholes out there specific to certain corporations that allow them to be non-competitive yet still profitable. For example, our oil companies.

 

[igbomb]

I agree with your first two points to a certain extent, but I disagree strongly with your third one. In fact it is government interference with the marketplace, and not the marketplace itself, which ends up putting the wealth in the hands of the few. Simply put, every new regulation makes competition harder, and the larger companies which are already established are able to sustain the additional costs, while newer ones and smaller ones are not. Our system of regulation, high corporate tax, and loophole is in essence a form of protection for the big boys and allows them to centralize their wealth and power. If you truly want to redistribute wealth, the ultimate way to do so is by really freeing up the marketplace and allowing the young and hungry to compete against the establishment.

Tim - It's a total myth that we have high corporate tax rates. Due to our wonky tax system, on paper we appear to have a high rate. But the effective rate in the U.S. is quite low relative to the rest of the developed world. And it's very low relative to our own history.

And I'm sorry, but the fallacy that if we just free up the market a little more that all of our economic issues will get better is tiresome. The 80s and 90s is the most open system we've had in the post-WW era and the wealth distribution went the opposite direction that the free marketers promise it will. Conservatives need to pay a bit more attention to our own history and to the rest of the world. We have perhaps the most free system in the developed world and our wealth distribution is the worst of them all.

 

[timschochet]

I agree with your first two points to a certain extent, but I disagree strongly with your third one. In fact it is government interference with the marketplace, and not the marketplace itself, which ends up putting the wealth in the hands of the few. Simply put, every new regulation makes competition harder, and the larger companies which are already established are able to sustain the additional costs, while newer ones and smaller ones are not. Our system of regulation, high corporate tax, and loophole is in essence a form of protection for the big boys and allows them to centralize their wealth and power. If you truly want to redistribute wealth, the ultimate way to do so is by really freeing up the marketplace and allowing the young and hungry to compete against the establishment.

Tim - It's a total myth that we have high corporate tax rates. Due to our wonky tax system, on paper we appear to have a high rate. But the effective rate in the U.S. is quite low relative to the rest of the developed world. And it's very low relative to our own history.

And I'm sorry, but the fallacy that if we just free up the market a little more that all of our economic issues will get better is tiresome. The 80s and 90s is the most open system we've had in the post-WW era and the wealth distribution went the opposite direction that the free marketers promise it will. Conservatives need to pay a bit more attention to our own history and to the rest of the world. We have perhaps the most free system in the developed world and our wealth distribution is the worst of them all.

I appreciate your POV but respectfully disagree.

That's fine, though. Hillary Clinton will be President, and she at least gets the free market enough to support free trade, which even more than corporate taxes is the most important element IMO.

 

[humpback]

I agree with your first two points to a certain extent, but I disagree strongly with your third one. In fact it is government interference with the marketplace, and not the marketplace itself, which ends up putting the wealth in the hands of the few. Simply put, every new regulation makes competition harder, and the larger companies which are already established are able to sustain the additional costs, while newer ones and smaller ones are not. Our system of regulation, high corporate tax, and loophole is in essence a form of protection for the big boys and allows them to centralize their wealth and power. If you truly want to redistribute wealth, the ultimate way to do so is by really freeing up the marketplace and allowing the young and hungry to compete against the establishment.

Tim - It's a total myth that we have high corporate tax rates. Due to our wonky tax system, on paper we appear to have a high rate. But the effective rate in the U.S. is quite low relative to the rest of the developed world. And it's very low relative to our own history.

And I'm sorry, but the fallacy that if we just free up the market a little more that all of our economic issues will get better is tiresome. The 80s and 90s is the most open system we've had in the post-WW era and the wealth distribution went the opposite direction that the free marketers promise it will. Conservatives need to pay a bit more attention to our own history and to the rest of the world. We have perhaps the most free system in the developed world and our wealth distribution is the worst of them all.

You didn't answer earlier so I'll try again here- why are corporations keeping trillions of dollars overseas?

 

[Rove!]

I agree with your first two points to a certain extent, but I disagree strongly with your third one. In fact it is government interference with the marketplace, and not the marketplace itself, which ends up putting the wealth in the hands of the few. Simply put, every new regulation makes competition harder, and the larger companies which are already established are able to sustain the additional costs, while newer ones and smaller ones are not. Our system of regulation, high corporate tax, and loophole is in essence a form of protection for the big boys and allows them to centralize their wealth and power. If you truly want to redistribute wealth, the ultimate way to do so is by really freeing up the marketplace and allowing the young and hungry to compete against the establishment.

Tim - It's a total myth that we have high corporate tax rates. Due to our wonky tax system, on paper we appear to have a high rate. But the effective rate in the U.S. is quite low relative to the rest of the developed world. And it's very low relative to our own history.

even more protection for the big boys who are in a better position to do whatever they need to do to pay the lower rate....

 

[igbomb]

I agree with your first two points to a certain extent, but I disagree strongly with your third one. In fact it is government interference with the marketplace, and not the marketplace itself, which ends up putting the wealth in the hands of the few. Simply put, every new regulation makes competition harder, and the larger companies which are already established are able to sustain the additional costs, while newer ones and smaller ones are not. Our system of regulation, high corporate tax, and loophole is in essence a form of protection for the big boys and allows them to centralize their wealth and power. If you truly want to redistribute wealth, the ultimate way to do so is by really freeing up the marketplace and allowing the young and hungry to compete against the establishment.

Tim - It's a total myth that we have high corporate tax rates. Due to our wonky tax system, on paper we appear to have a high rate. But the effective rate in the U.S. is quite low relative to the rest of the developed world. And it's very low relative to our own history.

And I'm sorry, but the fallacy that if we just free up the market a little more that all of our economic issues will get better is tiresome. The 80s and 90s is the most open system we've had in the post-WW era and the wealth distribution went the opposite direction that the free marketers promise it will. Conservatives need to pay a bit more attention to our own history and to the rest of the world. We have perhaps the most free system in the developed world and our wealth distribution is the worst of them all.

You didn't answer earlier so I'll try again here- why are corporations keeping trillions of dollars overseas?

Our system is a mess. That's not news. But in order to stop companies from hiding cash overseas, you would have to drop our tax rate to zero.

 

[humpback]

I agree with your first two points to a certain extent, but I disagree strongly with your third one. In fact it is government interference with the marketplace, and not the marketplace itself, which ends up putting the wealth in the hands of the few. Simply put, every new regulation makes competition harder, and the larger companies which are already established are able to sustain the additional costs, while newer ones and smaller ones are not. Our system of regulation, high corporate tax, and loophole is in essence a form of protection for the big boys and allows them to centralize their wealth and power. If you truly want to redistribute wealth, the ultimate way to do so is by really freeing up the marketplace and allowing the young and hungry to compete against the establishment.

Tim - It's a total myth that we have high corporate tax rates. Due to our wonky tax system, on paper we appear to have a high rate. But the effective rate in the U.S. is quite low relative to the rest of the developed world. And it's very low relative to our own history.

And I'm sorry, but the fallacy that if we just free up the market a little more that all of our economic issues will get better is tiresome. The 80s and 90s is the most open system we've had in the post-WW era and the wealth distribution went the opposite direction that the free marketers promise it will. Conservatives need to pay a bit more attention to our own history and to the rest of the world. We have perhaps the most free system in the developed world and our wealth distribution is the worst of them all.

You didn't answer earlier so I'll try again here- why are corporations keeping trillions of dollars overseas?

Our system is a mess. That's not news. But in order to stop companies from hiding cash overseas, you would have to drop our tax rate to zero.

Why, are their corporate tax rates zero?

 

[NutterButter]

I agree with your first two points to a certain extent, but I disagree strongly with your third one. In fact it is government interference with the marketplace, and not the marketplace itself, which ends up putting the wealth in the hands of the few. Simply put, every new regulation makes competition harder, and the larger companies which are already established are able to sustain the additional costs, while newer ones and smaller ones are not. Our system of regulation, high corporate tax, and loophole is in essence a form of protection for the big boys and allows them to centralize their wealth and power. If you truly want to redistribute wealth, the ultimate way to do so is by really freeing up the marketplace and allowing the young and hungry to compete against the establishment.

Tim - It's a total myth that we have high corporate tax rates. Due to our wonky tax system, on paper we appear to have a high rate. But the effective rate in the U.S. is quite low relative to the rest of the developed world. And it's very low relative to our own history.

And I'm sorry, but the fallacy that if we just free up the market a little more that all of our economic issues will get better is tiresome. The 80s and 90s is the most open system we've had in the post-WW era and the wealth distribution went the opposite direction that the free marketers promise it will. Conservatives need to pay a bit more attention to our own history and to the rest of the world. We have perhaps the most free system in the developed world and our wealth distribution is the worst of them all.

You didn't answer earlier so I'll try again here- why are corporations keeping trillions of dollars overseas?

Our system is a mess. That's not news. But in order to stop companies from hiding cash overseas, you would have to drop our tax rate to zero.

Why, are their corporate tax rates zero?

I'm curious about this myself. Where are they keeping their money and why? If it has to do with their tax rate, what would we have to lower the US corporate tax rate to in order for them to bring that money back?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I never understood why Benghazi became a political issue. I didn't follow it all that closely, but my understanding is that there was a terrorist attack by Muslims on the U.S. embassy (or something) in Libya. The next day, Obama called it an "act of terror," but he also said that it was a spontaneous attack that had something to do with an anti-Muslim movie. The reality is that it was a planned "act of terrorism" (not terror -- there's a huge difference) that didn't really have anything to do with the movie, and Obama wears mom jeans. Or whatever.

I'm sure I'm missing something. Can anyone else give a brief summary of why the Tea Partiers love Benghazi so much? Unless I'm missing something really big (which is perfectly plausible), I can't fathom how Benghazi will help the Republicans in an election any more than Obama's (alleged lack of) birth certificate did.

 

[rockaction]

I never understood why Benghazi became a political issue. I didn't follow it all that closely, but my understanding is that there was a terrorist attack by Muslims on the U.S. embassy (or something) in Libya. The next day, Obama called it an "act of terror," but he also said that it was a spontaneous attack that had something to do with an anti-Muslim movie. The reality is that it was a planned "act of terrorism" (not terror -- there's a huge difference) that didn't really have anything to do with the movie, and Obama wears mom jeans. Or whatever.

I'm sure I'm missing something. Can anyone else give a brief summary of why the Tea Partiers love Benghazi so much? Unless I'm missing something really big (which is perfectly plausible), I can't fathom how Benghazi will help the Republicans in an election any more than Obama's (alleged lack of) birth certificate did

I think because they knew blaming it on the movie was false, blamed the director of the movie, escaped political liability, and got the director arrested for copyright laws. So goes the right-wing version.

It's unseemly, at best, corrupt, at worst.

The more I look into Benghazi and the IRS, the worse I think I think it is, frankly. But that's me.

 

[Daywalker]

I never understood why Benghazi became a political issue. I didn't follow it all that closely, but my understanding is that there was a terrorist attack by Muslims on the U.S. embassy (or something) in Libya. The next day, Obama called it an "act of terror," but he also said that it was a spontaneous attack that had something to do with an anti-Muslim movie. The reality is that it was a planned "act of terrorism" (not terror -- there's a huge difference) that didn't really have anything to do with the movie, and Obama wears mom jeans. Or whatever.

I'm sure I'm missing something. Can anyone else give a brief summary of why the Tea Partiers love Benghazi so much? Unless I'm missing something really big (which is perfectly plausible), I can't fathom how Benghazi will help the Republicans in an election any more than Obama's (alleged lack of) birth certificate did.

They thought Obama "lied" because somehow telling the truth about a coordinated Al Qaeda attack would have diminished his strong image against terrorism. With the election right around the corner. Fits their Obama is a "liar" characterization.

Think most feel it's a ridiculous claim because a cover up was not needed. This incident was not going to change Obama's resume on terrorism. It was just a cluster-eff and ##### happens. It got politicized immediately by Romney and the admin's response was clunky.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I agree with your first two points to a certain extent, but I disagree strongly with your third one. In fact it is government interference with the marketplace, and not the marketplace itself, which ends up putting the wealth in the hands of the few. Simply put, every new regulation makes competition harder, and the larger companies which are already established are able to sustain the additional costs, while newer ones and smaller ones are not. Our system of regulation, high corporate tax, and loophole is in essence a form of protection for the big boys and allows them to centralize their wealth and power. If you truly want to redistribute wealth, the ultimate way to do so is by really freeing up the marketplace and allowing the young and hungry to compete against the establishment.

Tim - It's a total myth that we have high corporate tax rates. Due to our wonky tax system, on paper we appear to have a high rate. But the effective rate in the U.S. is quite low relative to the rest of the developed world. And it's very low relative to our own history.

And I'm sorry, but the fallacy that if we just free up the market a little more that all of our economic issues will get better is tiresome. The 80s and 90s is the most open system we've had in the post-WW era and the wealth distribution went the opposite direction that the free marketers promise it will. Conservatives need to pay a bit more attention to our own history and to the rest of the world. We have perhaps the most free system in the developed world and our wealth distribution is the worst of them all.

I appreciate your POV but respectfully disagree.

We collect half (as a rate) of the rest of the modern world in corporate taxes.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

The more I look into Benghazi and the IRS, the worse I think I think it is, frankly. But that's me.

The IRS guy making the orders was republican. Worse for whom?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think because they knew blaming it on the movie was false, blamed the director of the movie, escaped political liability, and got the director arrested for copyright laws.

That's what I don't understand. Since when do people assign different levels of blame to the White House depending on whether a terrorist act was spontaneous or planned?

Fits their Obama is a "liar" characterization.

I get that part. But name one successful politician who isn't a compulsive liar. If people at the White House lied about Benghazi, they should be called on it. But it's not exactly a huge "gotcha" to make the rare observation that a politician's lips are moving.

 

[Rove!]

I never understood why Benghazi became a political issue. I didn't follow it all that closely, but my understanding is that there was a terrorist attack by Muslims on the U.S. embassy (or something) in Libya. The next day, Obama called it an "act of terror," but he also said that it was a spontaneous attack that had something to do with an anti-Muslim movie. The reality is that it was a planned "act of terrorism" (not terror -- there's a huge difference) that didn't really have anything to do with the movie, and Obama wears mom jeans. Or whatever.

I'm sure I'm missing something. Can anyone else give a brief summary of why the Tea Partiers love Benghazi so much? Unless I'm missing something really big (which is perfectly plausible), I can't fathom how Benghazi will help the Republicans in an election any more than Obama's (alleged lack of) birth certificate did.

They thought Obama "lied" because somehow telling the truth about a coordinated Al Qaeda attack would have diminished his strong image against terrorism. With the election right around the corner. Fits their Obama is a "liar" characterization.

Think most feel it's a ridiculous claim because a cover up was not needed. This incident was not going to change Obama's resume on terrorism. It was just a cluster-eff and ##### happens. It got politicized immediately by Romney and the admin's response was clunky.

Then why did they lie about it and deliberately mislead the world?

 

[Rove!]

I never understood why Benghazi became a political issue. I didn't follow it all that closely, but my understanding is that there was a terrorist attack by Muslims on the U.S. embassy (or something) in Libya. The next day, Obama called it an "act of terror," but he also said that it was a spontaneous attack that had something to do with an anti-Muslim movie. The reality is that it was a planned "act of terrorism" (not terror -- there's a huge difference) that didn't really have anything to do with the movie, and Obama wears mom jeans. Or whatever.

I'm sure I'm missing something. Can anyone else give a brief summary of why the Tea Partiers love Benghazi so much? Unless I'm missing something really big (which is perfectly plausible), I can't fathom how Benghazi will help the Republicans in an election any more than Obama's (alleged lack of) birth certificate did.

1) The administration clearly lied about the attack. They knew the circumstances of the ambassador's death and chose to concoct a cover story. Why did they do this? We may never find out

2) The lack of security was appalling. In light of the recent strife in Libya, the fact that it was 9/11, the fact that there had been warnings from Libya's security, the fact that there had already been attacks, the fact that the UK had already evacuated their embassy...in light of all of these things, the US chose to reduce security. Why would they do this? It seems inexplicable. We may never find out.

3) What happened on the night of the attack? The attack last for several hours. Where were our armed forces? Why did we not attempt to help? Who was calling the shots while the President was flying to Las Vegas during the attack?

 

[rockaction]

I think because they knew blaming it on the movie was false, blamed the director of the movie, escaped political liability, and got the director arrested for copyright laws.

That's what I don't understand. Since when do people assign different levels of blame to the White House depending on whether a terrorist act was spontaneous or planned?

Fits their Obama is a "liar" characterization.

I get that part. But name one successful politician who isn't a compulsive liar. If people at the White House lied about Benghazi, they should be called on it. But it's not exactly a huge "gotcha" to make the rare observation that a politician's lips are moving.

I guess it started with the blame game after 9/11. R's blamed Clinton's reticence to use force after attacks on the WTC and embassies abroad, D's blamed Bush's ability to gather intelligence.

So we have this.

Benghazi was actually a disaster, IMO, despite the left-wing political protestations to the contrary. A filmmaker -- a terrible one -- sits in jail because of Al-Qaeda? No sense.

Don't care what this means for Hillary! Just would like a reasonable explanation. Just like Lerner and the IRS. There's a lot of stuff to answer for in this administration; we just don't have the ANSWER.

 

[3C's]

Here we go again...

 

[D_House]

Will have to see tha alternatives before making a decision...

 

[fatness]

I'm sure I'm missing something. Can anyone else give a brief summary of why the Tea Partiers love Benghazi so much? Unless I'm missing something really big (which is perfectly plausible), I can't fathom how Benghazi will help the Republicans in an election any more than Obama's (alleged lack of) birth certificate did.

It's those 2 things together, plus vacations, plus Michelle Obama being in favor of eating healthy, plus plus plus plus. Nothing that will help win an election on a nationwide level, but horses that can be beaten to win state and local elections because NEVER FORGET!

 

[fatness]

There's a lot of stuff to answer for in this administration; we just don't have the ANSWER.

People are still saying this about the birth certificate thing too. "There are questions!"

 

[rockaction]

There's a lot of stuff to answer for in this administration; we just don't have the ANSWER.

People are still saying this about the birth certificate thing too. "There are questions!"

All I can say to that is "Child, please."

Bad answer, bad framework.

 

[fatness]

There's a lot of stuff to answer for in this administration; we just don't have the ANSWER.

People are still saying this about the birth certificate thing too. "There are questions!"

All I can say to that is "Child, please."

Bad answer, bad framework.

Embarrassing, wasn't it?

 

[Todd Andrews]

I agree with your first two points to a certain extent, but I disagree strongly with your third one. In fact it is government interference with the marketplace, and not the marketplace itself, which ends up putting the wealth in the hands of the few. Simply put, every new regulation makes competition harder, and the larger companies which are already established are able to sustain the additional costs, while newer ones and smaller ones are not. Our system of regulation, high corporate tax, and loophole is in essence a form of protection for the big boys and allows them to centralize their wealth and power. If you truly want to redistribute wealth, the ultimate way to do so is by really freeing up the marketplace and allowing the young and hungry to compete against the establishment.

Tim - It's a total myth that we have high corporate tax rates. Due to our wonky tax system, on paper we appear to have a high rate. But the effective rate in the U.S. is quite low relative to the rest of the developed world. And it's very low relative to our own history.

And I'm sorry, but the fallacy that if we just free up the market a little more that all of our economic issues will get better is tiresome. The 80s and 90s is the most open system we've had in the post-WW era and the wealth distribution went the opposite direction that the free marketers promise it will. Conservatives need to pay a bit more attention to our own history and to the rest of the world. We have perhaps the most free system in the developed world and our wealth distribution is the worst of them all.

You didn't answer earlier so I'll try again here- why are corporations keeping trillions of dollars overseas?

Because they dont have to pay any taxes on that money, not too high taxes.

 

[rockaction]

There's a lot of stuff to answer for in this administration; we just don't have the ANSWER.

People are still saying this about the birth certificate thing too. "There are questions!"

All I can say to that is "Child, please."

Bad answer, bad framework.

Embarrassing, wasn't it?

Yes.

 

[The Commish]

Our corporate tax code is pretty much a "name only" approach. The amount of loopholes far exceeds the rate we collect at. The bottom of the bucket has a huge gaping hole while the faucet is set to "trickle". Return rates oversees drive our very large businesses overseas. Foreign countries give our companies tax breaks all the time, so it becomes an exercise in futility to simply look at the rates per country. There's so much more to it than the rate each country claims they charge. The Cook Islands are the place to be now for both individuals and corporations. It's the wild wild west and if you can find a rule they abide by, chances are it was written by American lawyers.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I never understood why Benghazi became a political issue. I didn't follow it all that closely, but my understanding is that there was a terrorist attack by Muslims on the U.S. embassy (or something) in Libya. The next day, Obama called it an "act of terror," but he also said that it was a spontaneous attack that had something to do with an anti-Muslim movie. The reality is that it was a planned "act of terrorism" (not terror -- there's a huge difference) that didn't really have anything to do with the movie, and Obama wears mom jeans. Or whatever.

I'm sure I'm missing something. Can anyone else give a brief summary of why the Tea Partiers love Benghazi so much? Unless I'm missing something really big (which is perfectly plausible), I can't fathom how Benghazi will help the Republicans in an election any more than Obama's (alleged lack of) birth certificate did.

No, he didn't. Obama went out of his way not to call this particular attack an "act of terror." That phrase appeared exactly once in Obama's speech, in the final paragraph, in the context of terrorism in general as opposed to this particular terrorist attack. There were lots of other places in the speech where he could have unambiguously called the Benghazi attack a "terrorist attack" as opposed to an "attack," and at every opportunity he (or more appropriately his speechwriters) declined to do so. That's not an accident -- these sorts of speeches have their words chosen carefully

I thought a lot of the criticism that the administration and Hillary Clinton in particular got on this topic was off-base and in some cases unhinged, but the specific criticism of mendacity immediately after the attack was spot-on IMO.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I never understood why Benghazi became a political issue. I didn't follow it all that closely, but my understanding is that there was a terrorist attack by Muslims on the U.S. embassy (or something) in Libya. The next day, Obama called it an "act of terror," but he also said that it was a spontaneous attack that had something to do with an anti-Muslim movie. The reality is that it was a planned "act of terrorism" (not terror -- there's a huge difference) that didn't really have anything to do with the movie, and Obama wears mom jeans. Or whatever.

I'm sure I'm missing something. Can anyone else give a brief summary of why the Tea Partiers love Benghazi so much? Unless I'm missing something really big (which is perfectly plausible), I can't fathom how Benghazi will help the Republicans in an election any more than Obama's (alleged lack of) birth certificate did.

No, he didn't. Obama went out of his way not to call this particular attack an "act of terror." That phrase appeared exactly once in Obama's speech, in the final paragraph, in the context of terrorism in general as opposed to this particular terrorist attack. There were lots of other places in the speech where he could have unambiguously called the Benghazi attack a "terrorist attack" as opposed to an "attack," and at every opportunity he (or more appropriately his speechwriters) declined to do so. That's not an accident -- these sorts of speeches have their words chosen carefully

I thought a lot of the criticism that the administration and Hillary Clinton in particular got on this topic was off-base and in some cases unhinged, but the specific criticism of mendacity immediately after the attack was spot-on IMO.

This election will be a vital opportunity to focus on the truly important national security issues- subjective interpretations of word choice.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I never understood why Benghazi became a political issue. I didn't follow it all that closely, but my understanding is that there was a terrorist attack by Muslims on the U.S. embassy (or something) in Libya. The next day, Obama called it an "act of terror," but he also said that it was a spontaneous attack that had something to do with an anti-Muslim movie. The reality is that it was a planned "act of terrorism" (not terror -- there's a huge difference) that didn't really have anything to do with the movie, and Obama wears mom jeans. Or whatever.

I'm sure I'm missing something. Can anyone else give a brief summary of why the Tea Partiers love Benghazi so much? Unless I'm missing something really big (which is perfectly plausible), I can't fathom how Benghazi will help the Republicans in an election any more than Obama's (alleged lack of) birth certificate did.

No, he didn't. Obama went out of his way not to call this particular attack an "act of terror." That phrase appeared exactly once in Obama's speech, in the final paragraph, in the context of terrorism in general as opposed to this particular terrorist attack. There were lots of other places in the speech where he could have unambiguously called the Benghazi attack a "terrorist attack" as opposed to an "attack," and at every opportunity he (or more appropriately his speechwriters) declined to do so. That's not an accident -- these sorts of speeches have their words chosen carefully

I thought a lot of the criticism that the administration and Hillary Clinton in particular got on this topic was off-base and in some cases unhinged, but the specific criticism of mendacity immediately after the attack was spot-on IMO.

This election will be a vital opportunity to focus on the truly important national security issues- subjective interpretations of word choice.

Good point. I definitely won't be voting for Obama this time around.

 

[Rove!]

I never understood why Benghazi became a political issue. I didn't follow it all that closely, but my understanding is that there was a terrorist attack by Muslims on the U.S. embassy (or something) in Libya. The next day, Obama called it an "act of terror," but he also said that it was a spontaneous attack that had something to do with an anti-Muslim movie. The reality is that it was a planned "act of terrorism" (not terror -- there's a huge difference) that didn't really have anything to do with the movie, and Obama wears mom jeans. Or whatever.

I'm sure I'm missing something. Can anyone else give a brief summary of why the Tea Partiers love Benghazi so much? Unless I'm missing something really big (which is perfectly plausible), I can't fathom how Benghazi will help the Republicans in an election any more than Obama's (alleged lack of) birth certificate did.

No, he didn't. Obama went out of his way not to call this particular attack an "act of terror." That phrase appeared exactly once in Obama's speech, in the final paragraph, in the context of terrorism in general as opposed to this particular terrorist attack. There were lots of other places in the speech where he could have unambiguously called the Benghazi attack a "terrorist attack" as opposed to an "attack," and at every opportunity he (or more appropriately his speechwriters) declined to do so. That's not an accident -- these sorts of speeches have their words chosen carefully

I thought a lot of the criticism that the administration and Hillary Clinton in particular got on this topic was off-base and in some cases unhinged, but the specific criticism of mendacity immediately after the attack was spot-on IMO.

This election will be a vital opportunity to focus on the truly important national security issues- subjective interpretations of word choice.

you're a smart guy TF, I thought you to be above this sort of post.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I never understood why Benghazi became a political issue. I didn't follow it all that closely, but my understanding is that there was a terrorist attack by Muslims on the U.S. embassy (or something) in Libya. The next day, Obama called it an "act of terror," but he also said that it was a spontaneous attack that had something to do with an anti-Muslim movie. The reality is that it was a planned "act of terrorism" (not terror -- there's a huge difference) that didn't really have anything to do with the movie, and Obama wears mom jeans. Or whatever.

I'm sure I'm missing something. Can anyone else give a brief summary of why the Tea Partiers love Benghazi so much? Unless I'm missing something really big (which is perfectly plausible), I can't fathom how Benghazi will help the Republicans in an election any more than Obama's (alleged lack of) birth certificate did.

No, he didn't. Obama went out of his way not to call this particular attack an "act of terror." That phrase appeared exactly once in Obama's speech, in the final paragraph, in the context of terrorism in general as opposed to this particular terrorist attack. There were lots of other places in the speech where he could have unambiguously called the Benghazi attack a "terrorist attack" as opposed to an "attack," and at every opportunity he (or more appropriately his speechwriters) declined to do so. That's not an accident -- these sorts of speeches have their words chosen carefully

I thought a lot of the criticism that the administration and Hillary Clinton in particular got on this topic was off-base and in some cases unhinged, but the specific criticism of mendacity immediately after the attack was spot-on IMO.

This election will be a vital opportunity to focus on the truly important national security issues- subjective interpretations of word choice.

you're a smart guy TF, I thought you to be above this sort of post.

Above pointing out the absurdity of the various conservative BENGHAZI!!!!! talking points? Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not above that.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I never understood why Benghazi became a political issue. I didn't follow it all that closely, but my understanding is that there was a terrorist attack by Muslims on the U.S. embassy (or something) in Libya. The next day, Obama called it an "act of terror," but he also said that it was a spontaneous attack that had something to do with an anti-Muslim movie. The reality is that it was a planned "act of terrorism" (not terror -- there's a huge difference) that didn't really have anything to do with the movie, and Obama wears mom jeans. Or whatever.

I'm sure I'm missing something. Can anyone else give a brief summary of why the Tea Partiers love Benghazi so much? Unless I'm missing something really big (which is perfectly plausible), I can't fathom how Benghazi will help the Republicans in an election any more than Obama's (alleged lack of) birth certificate did.

No, he didn't. Obama went out of his way not to call this particular attack an "act of terror." That phrase appeared exactly once in Obama's speech, in the final paragraph, in the context of terrorism in general as opposed to this particular terrorist attack. There were lots of other places in the speech where he could have unambiguously called the Benghazi attack a "terrorist attack" as opposed to an "attack," and at every opportunity he (or more appropriately his speechwriters) declined to do so. That's not an accident -- these sorts of speeches have their words chosen carefully

I thought a lot of the criticism that the administration and Hillary Clinton in particular got on this topic was off-base and in some cases unhinged, but the specific criticism of mendacity immediately after the attack was spot-on IMO.

This election will be a vital opportunity to focus on the truly important national security issues- subjective interpretations of word choice.

you're a smart guy TF, I thought you to be above this sort of post.

Above pointing out the absurdity of the various conservative BENGHAZI!!!!! talking points? Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not above that.

???

Everything in my post is 100% true. It's easy to google up a transcript of Obama's speech on the issue.

 

[Rove!]

I never understood why Benghazi became a political issue. I didn't follow it all that closely, but my understanding is that there was a terrorist attack by Muslims on the U.S. embassy (or something) in Libya. The next day, Obama called it an "act of terror," but he also said that it was a spontaneous attack that had something to do with an anti-Muslim movie. The reality is that it was a planned "act of terrorism" (not terror -- there's a huge difference) that didn't really have anything to do with the movie, and Obama wears mom jeans. Or whatever.

I'm sure I'm missing something. Can anyone else give a brief summary of why the Tea Partiers love Benghazi so much? Unless I'm missing something really big (which is perfectly plausible), I can't fathom how Benghazi will help the Republicans in an election any more than Obama's (alleged lack of) birth certificate did.

No, he didn't. Obama went out of his way not to call this particular attack an "act of terror." That phrase appeared exactly once in Obama's speech, in the final paragraph, in the context of terrorism in general as opposed to this particular terrorist attack. There were lots of other places in the speech where he could have unambiguously called the Benghazi attack a "terrorist attack" as opposed to an "attack," and at every opportunity he (or more appropriately his speechwriters) declined to do so. That's not an accident -- these sorts of speeches have their words chosen carefully

I thought a lot of the criticism that the administration and Hillary Clinton in particular got on this topic was off-base and in some cases unhinged, but the specific criticism of mendacity immediately after the attack was spot-on IMO.

This election will be a vital opportunity to focus on the truly important national security issues- subjective interpretations of word choice.

you're a smart guy TF, I thought you to be above this sort of post.

Above pointing out the absurdity of the various conservative BENGHAZI!!!!! talking points? Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not above that.

You know as well as I do that the intent of this administration in the days/weeks following Benghazi was to put forth and coddle this (stereotypical) narrative that there was a protest over a YouTube video that got out of hand and led to the fatal attack (i.e. it was those cwazy fundie Muslims).

To come in after the fact and pretend there it was anything else is intellectually dishonest.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I never understood why Benghazi became a political issue. I didn't follow it all that closely, but my understanding is that there was a terrorist attack by Muslims on the U.S. embassy (or something) in Libya. The next day, Obama called it an "act of terror," but he also said that it was a spontaneous attack that had something to do with an anti-Muslim movie. The reality is that it was a planned "act of terrorism" (not terror -- there's a huge difference) that didn't really have anything to do with the movie, and Obama wears mom jeans. Or whatever.

I'm sure I'm missing something. Can anyone else give a brief summary of why the Tea Partiers love Benghazi so much? Unless I'm missing something really big (which is perfectly plausible), I can't fathom how Benghazi will help the Republicans in an election any more than Obama's (alleged lack of) birth certificate did.

No, he didn't. Obama went out of his way not to call this particular attack an "act of terror." That phrase appeared exactly once in Obama's speech, in the final paragraph, in the context of terrorism in general as opposed to this particular terrorist attack. There were lots of other places in the speech where he could have unambiguously called the Benghazi attack a "terrorist attack" as opposed to an "attack," and at every opportunity he (or more appropriately his speechwriters) declined to do so. That's not an accident -- these sorts of speeches have their words chosen carefully

I thought a lot of the criticism that the administration and Hillary Clinton in particular got on this topic was off-base and in some cases unhinged, but the specific criticism of mendacity immediately after the attack was spot-on IMO.

This election will be a vital opportunity to focus on the truly important national security issues- subjective interpretations of word choice.

you're a smart guy TF, I thought you to be above this sort of post.

Above pointing out the absurdity of the various conservative BENGHAZI!!!!! talking points? Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not above that.

You know as well as I do that the intent of this administration in the days/weeks following Benghazi was to put forth and coddle this (stereotypical) narrative that there was a protest over a YouTube video that got out of hand and led to the fatal attack (i.e. it was those cwazy fundie Muslims).

To come in after the fact and pretend there it was anything else is intellectually dishonest.

The only thing I know is that it doesn't matter. At all. It's a ridiculous "controversy" fabricated by people whose primary response to any tragedy is to figure out some way to point fingers their political enemies, and idiots like that shouldn't be indulged regardless of what side of the aisle they line up on. And I'm pretty sure most of the public sees it the same way, and that's why it's a political loser, as Maurile rightly points out.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The only thing I know is that it doesn't matter. At all. It's a ridiculous "controversy" fabricated by people whose primary response to any tragedy is to figure out some way to point fingers their political enemies, and idiots like that shouldn't be indulged regardless of what side of the aisle they line up on. And I'm pretty sure most of the public sees it the same way, and that's why it's a political loser, as Maurile rightly points out.

None of that has anything to do with whether any of the assorted criticism is warranted or not. The administration did a poor job of handling the immediate aftermath of this attack, but I also agree with you that that doesn't matter politically now. I didn't think it was a major issue in 2012, and it's definitely not a substantive issue for 2016.

 

[timschochet]

Benghazi became a big story on Fox News for a very simple reason: ratings. Fox noticed that whenever they ran with the conspiracy aspects of the story, their ratings spiked. So for months that network featured it constantly. Tobias is correct that it's not a winner politically, but it was a big winner for Fox.

 

[Slapdash]

It's pretty clear that the administration told the story of the video-inspired attack much longer than they knew it to be true. Did they do it help his electoral chances, cover up some secret activity going on in Benghazi, or just the painfully messaging consistency large organizations strive for? Probably some combination of all of those in my estimation.

However, Romney (and most of the far-right) saw a flash of red and charged down the wrong path on this "act of terror" nonsense. This was right into Obama's trap in the debate. Its hard to have any sympathy for Romney falling into the meme that Obama wouldn't call it terrorism; when you're entire campaign is built around throwing red meat to an unbelieving base you're bound to say some stupid ####.

 

[avoiding injuries]

Whether it's a legitimate issue or not, the majority of the public just don't seem to care. It would be a mistake to spend time bringing it up years later.

 

[TobiasFunke]

The only thing I know is that it doesn't matter. At all. It's a ridiculous "controversy" fabricated by people whose primary response to any tragedy is to figure out some way to point fingers their political enemies, and idiots like that shouldn't be indulged regardless of what side of the aisle they line up on. And I'm pretty sure most of the public sees it the same way, and that's why it's a political loser, as Maurile rightly points out.

None of that has anything to do with whether any of the assorted criticism is warranted or not. The administration did a poor job of handling the immediate aftermath of this attack, but I also agree with you that that doesn't matter politically now. I didn't think it was a major issue in 2012, and it's definitely not a substantive issue for 2016.

If there was any criticizing to be done at all, it should have been measured and understated critiques, not outraged cries for justice On the scale of political scandals, improper initial characterization of the exact cause or nature of an attack is hardly Iran-Contra. But Obama/Clinton political opponents acted like this basically irrelevant error was the worst thing that's happened to the country since 9/11. That was the mistake, and if they bring it up again they'll be making it again.

 

[Rove!]

The only thing I know is that it doesn't matter. At all. It's a ridiculous "controversy" fabricated by people whose primary response to any tragedy is to figure out some way to point fingers their political enemies, and idiots like that shouldn't be indulged regardless of what side of the aisle they line up on. And I'm pretty sure most of the public sees it the same way, and that's why it's a political loser, as Maurile rightly points out.

if it's so "ridiculous" then the below three ares must have reasonable/justifiable answers. If you can clarify, it would help

1) The administration clearly lied about the attack. They knew the circumstances of the ambassador's death and chose to concoct a cover story. Why did they do this? We may never find out

2) The lack of security was appalling. In light of the recent strife in Libya, the fact that it was 9/11, the fact that there had been warnings from Libya's security, the fact that there had already been attacks, the fact that the UK had already evacuated their embassy...in light of all of these things, the US chose to reduce security. Why would they do this? It seems inexplicable. We may never find out.

3) What happened on the night of the attack? The attack last for several hours. Where were our armed forces? Why did we not attempt to help? Who was calling the shots while the President was flying to Las Vegas during the attack?

and a proper rebuttal to these point is not "...but but but oh it's not politically popular" because that doesn't address anything

 

[Clifford]

Just curious, who are the likely GOP contenders?

Christie

Rand Paul

Cruz

Jeb

Romney

Kasich

Because it will work this time?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The only thing I know is that it doesn't matter. At all. It's a ridiculous "controversy" fabricated by people whose primary response to any tragedy is to figure out some way to point fingers their political enemies, and idiots like that shouldn't be indulged regardless of what side of the aisle they line up on. And I'm pretty sure most of the public sees it the same way, and that's why it's a political loser, as Maurile rightly points out.

None of that has anything to do with whether any of the assorted criticism is warranted or not. The administration did a poor job of handling the immediate aftermath of this attack, but I also agree with you that that doesn't matter politically now. I didn't think it was a major issue in 2012, and it's definitely not a substantive issue for 2016.

If there was any criticizing to be done at all, it should have been measured and understated critiques, not outraged cries for justice On the scale of political scandals, improper initial characterization of the exact cause or nature of an attack is hardly Iran-Contra. But Obama/Clinton political opponents acted like this basically irrelevant error was the worst thing that's happened to the country since 9/11. That was the mistake, and if they bring it up again they'll be making it again.

I agree. That doesn't change that I'm completely right about Obama's Rose Garden speech and the youtube thing.

 

[timschochet]

Eminence strikes me as just the sort of guy who would blame his personal misfortunes in whomever the President is. Not surprised, though, that he hasn't returned to this thread after the first post. Based on that post, he doesn't impress me as somebody with much political knowledge or depth.

 

[TobiasFunke]

The only thing I know is that it doesn't matter. At all. It's a ridiculous "controversy" fabricated by people whose primary response to any tragedy is to figure out some way to point fingers their political enemies, and idiots like that shouldn't be indulged regardless of what side of the aisle they line up on. And I'm pretty sure most of the public sees it the same way, and that's why it's a political loser, as Maurile rightly points out.

if it's so "ridiculous" then the below three ares must have reasonable/justifiable answers. If you can clarify, it would help

1) The administration clearly lied about the attack. They knew the circumstances of the ambassador's death and chose to concoct a cover story. Why did they do this? We may never find out

2) The lack of security was appalling. In light of the recent strife in Libya, the fact that it was 9/11, the fact that there had been warnings from Libya's security, the fact that there had already been attacks, the fact that the UK had already evacuated their embassy...in light of all of these things, the US chose to reduce security. Why would they do this? It seems inexplicable. We may never find out.

3) What happened on the night of the attack? The attack last for several hours. Where were our armed forces? Why did we not attempt to help? Who was calling the shots while the President was flying to Las Vegas during the attack?

and a proper rebuttal to these point is not "...but but but oh it's not politically popular" because that doesn't address anything

This is perhaps my favorite part of the shtick. "What happened??? Also, I know what happened, stop lying about it!!!!" Priceless.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Eminence strikes me as just the sort of guy who would blame his personal misfortunes in whomever the President is. Not surprised, though, that he hasn't returned to this thread after the first post. Based on that post, he doesn't impress me as somebody with much political knowledge or depth.

Thanks for sharing that. If you haven't noticed he doesn't have much knowledge or depth about anything. He reminds me of you at times.

 

[Slapdash]

Eminence strikes me as just the sort of guy who would blame his personal misfortunes in whomever the President is. Not surprised, though, that he hasn't returned to this thread after the first post. Based on that post, he doesn't impress me as somebody with much political knowledge or depth.

Thanks for sharing that. If you haven't noticed he doesn't have much knowledge or depth about anything. He reminds me of you at times.

Certainly the need for attention.

 

[Stinger Ray]

Eminence strikes me as just the sort of guy who would blame his personal misfortunes in whomever the President is. Not surprised, though, that he hasn't returned to this thread after the first post. Based on that post, he doesn't impress me as somebody with much political knowledge or depth.

Thanks for sharing that. If you haven't noticed he doesn't have much knowledge or depth about anything. He reminds me of you at times.

Certainly the need for attention.

 

[Rove!]

The only thing I know is that it doesn't matter. At all. It's a ridiculous "controversy" fabricated by people whose primary response to any tragedy is to figure out some way to point fingers their political enemies, and idiots like that shouldn't be indulged regardless of what side of the aisle they line up on. And I'm pretty sure most of the public sees it the same way, and that's why it's a political loser, as Maurile rightly points out.

if it's so "ridiculous" then the below three ares must have reasonable/justifiable answers. If you can clarify, it would help

1) The administration clearly lied about the attack. They knew the circumstances of the ambassador's death and chose to concoct a cover story. Why did they do this? We may never find out

2) The lack of security was appalling. In light of the recent strife in Libya, the fact that it was 9/11, the fact that there had been warnings from Libya's security, the fact that there had already been attacks, the fact that the UK had already evacuated their embassy...in light of all of these things, the US chose to reduce security. Why would they do this? It seems inexplicable. We may never find out.

3) What happened on the night of the attack? The attack last for several hours. Where were our armed forces? Why did we not attempt to help? Who was calling the shots while the President was flying to Las Vegas during the attack?

and a proper rebuttal to these point is not "...but but but oh it's not politically popular" because that doesn't address anything

This is perhaps my favorite part of the shtick. "What happened??? Also, I know what happened, stop lying about it!!!!" Priceless.

clearly you just want to play games with words w/o any real discussion

 

[Scoresman]

Kicking the pillows away from the top of the bed, Palin braced her bare feet flush against the headboard. Taking her sweaty and crumpled tee-shirt and pulling it over her head, Palin tossed it aside before balancing herself on her knees and elbows. My eyes fizzing like neon orbs as the Governor seemingly stared straight into the disguised lens of the camera, I could see a wanton tint of psychotic glee in her gaze as she hurled her rear end backwards.

 

[TobiasFunke]

The only thing I know is that it doesn't matter. At all. It's a ridiculous "controversy" fabricated by people whose primary response to any tragedy is to figure out some way to point fingers their political enemies, and idiots like that shouldn't be indulged regardless of what side of the aisle they line up on. And I'm pretty sure most of the public sees it the same way, and that's why it's a political loser, as Maurile rightly points out.

if it's so "ridiculous" then the below three ares must have reasonable/justifiable answers. If you can clarify, it would help

1) The administration clearly lied about the attack. They knew the circumstances of the ambassador's death and chose to concoct a cover story. Why did they do this? We may never find out

2) The lack of security was appalling. In light of the recent strife in Libya, the fact that it was 9/11, the fact that there had been warnings from Libya's security, the fact that there had already been attacks, the fact that the UK had already evacuated their embassy...in light of all of these things, the US chose to reduce security. Why would they do this? It seems inexplicable. We may never find out.

3) What happened on the night of the attack? The attack last for several hours. Where were our armed forces? Why did we not attempt to help? Who was calling the shots while the President was flying to Las Vegas during the attack?

and a proper rebuttal to these point is not "...but but but oh it's not politically popular" because that doesn't address anything

This is perhaps my favorite part of the shtick. "What happened??? Also, I know what happened, stop lying about it!!!!" Priceless.

clearly you just want to play games with words w/o any real discussion

Nothing worse than people who just want to play games with words.