Political Roundtable Pulsar of Annihilation part IV

[hands11]

I thought she was trying to help Mitt out. "Psssst! Mitt! He did say "Acts of Terror"! The word you want is terrorism!" But Mitt was totally oblivious.

Anyone who read the WaPo fact checking article about this would remember that. The article makes a big deal about how the word "terrorism" doesn't get used until two weeks after.

Look, Romney was right. Obama did in fact refuse to use the word "terrorism" for two weeks, and when he said "acts of terror" he wasn't directly referring to what had just happened. But Romney blew it. Obama was wrong but his superior recall of details ended up making Romney appear to be an idiot. I feel bad for Romney 'cause I have the same thing happen to me all the time. Details, shmetails -- I'm an economist, not a CPA, dammit. But yeah. Presidents play high stakes games. You can't just be kinda right.

Hey Zonk. Answer me this because here I may be acting a little clueless.

Why does it matter either way ? So what if he said Acts of Terror the day after and there was a delay while they figured out what it was and what to say to America. What difference does it make. Acts or Terror vs Terrorism. Seems to me a lot of do about nothing. Obama 11, 12 and 13th calling it acts of terror. Obama on the view the following Monday 17th and 18th "it looks like more then a spontaneous act but they were gathering facts." Olson on the 19th to congress calls it a "terrorist attack" but don't know how far in advanced it was planned. Clinton two days later, the 21st calling it a terrorist attack.

http://cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2 ... meline.cnn

This seems like much to do about nothing to me. Looks more to me like the Republicans are trying to find an issue then that there is any worthy of complaining about. With something so sensitive, what the hell is wrong with getting the facts right. I mean one place was being attacked because of the movie. It is such a stretch to think it might happen in two places. It was also 9/11. Why put the country in a panic when you don't have all the facts. Obama did call it "acts of terror" the next day after mentioning the movie in the beginning of the speech. After eulogizing the people lost and after mentioning 9/11, he then says, act of terror .. that to me included both acts.

Just seems like a lot of splitting hairs and looking for something to complain about when there is really nothing of substance. And .. what difference would it have made if he said Terrorism instead of Act of Terror.

What of substance am I missing.

[hands11]

I thought she was trying to help Mitt out. "Psssst! Mitt! He did say "Acts of Terror"! The word you want is terrorism!" But Mitt was totally oblivious.

Anyone who read the WaPo fact checking article about this would remember that. The article makes a big deal about how the word "terrorism" doesn't get used until two weeks after.

Look, Romney was right. Obama did in fact refuse to use the word "terrorism" for two weeks, and when he said "acts of terror" he wasn't directly referring to what had just happened. But Romney blew it. Obama was wrong but his superior recall of details ended up making Romney appear to be an idiot. I feel bad for Romney 'cause I have the same thing happen to me all the time. Details, shmetails -- I'm an economist, not a CPA, dammit. But yeah. Presidents play high stakes games. You can't just be kinda right.

Romney was not smart to focus on the semantics anyway. He should have focused on why there wasn't enough protection for the Ambassador to begin with and why Obama choose to take such a strong position on the video, when the government is supposed to endorse and protect Free Speech and it appeared to be apologetic to the very people he was claiming killed his Ambassador.

And people say I view things blindly. There was noting anti first amendment about his comment. It was as classless stupid video provoking a religion that we know the people over there are back woods about. There was nothing wrong with what he said about the video. He commented on it. Not sure I would say he took a strong position. He was calm and deliberate.

What should he have said instead. Hey. We are Ameeerican. We will say and do what the hell we want. And if you don't like it. Though ****.

Or .. Hey. We have a first amendment thing here and sometimes people do stupid things with it. Sorry about that. Not everyone over here is a class act. No sense in pocking a hornets nest. After all, we are trying to help these people out of the 14th century.

Look, he took the high road in his comments. End result is the same. They are still going to go kill the people that did it when they identify them and have the right chance. Do we have to act all redneck before we do it or is it enough that we calmly tell them.... hey is was a classless video but when we figure out what happened over there, we are going to come and kill the people responsible for killing our ambassador. The second one works better.

[nate33]

I dunno, fishercob. I think trust is a big issue in the campaign, it always is. Voters expect politicians to "spin" a story to their greatest advantage. That's a given. But they are unforgiving about politicians who flat out make up stories to save their skin.

I don't know, I think I agree with Fishercob. The public didn't seem unforgiving when Clinton lied about having sex with Monica.

Clinton would never have won a third term thanks to the Lewinski scandal. Sure, the Democrats stuck with him, but he lost the independents.

[fugop]

Bill Clinton ended his second term with a 66% approval rating, the highest since WWII. He didn't lose independent support, he gained it.

[Zonkerbl]

I thought she was trying to help Mitt out. "Psssst! Mitt! He did say "Acts of Terror"! The word you want is terrorism!" But Mitt was totally oblivious.

Anyone who read the WaPo fact checking article about this would remember that. The article makes a big deal about how the word "terrorism" doesn't get used until two weeks after.

Look, Romney was right. Obama did in fact refuse to use the word "terrorism" for two weeks, and when he said "acts of terror" he wasn't directly referring to what had just happened. But Romney blew it. Obama was wrong but his superior recall of details ended up making Romney appear to be an idiot. I feel bad for Romney 'cause I have the same thing happen to me all the time. Details, shmetails -- I'm an economist, not a CPA, dammit. But yeah. Presidents play high stakes games. You can't just be kinda right.

Hey Zonk. Answer me this because here I may be acting a little clueless.

Why does it matter either way ? So what if he said Acts of Terror the day after and there was a delay while they figured out what it was and what to say to America. What difference does it make. Acts or Terror vs Terrorism. Seems to me a lot of do about nothing. Obama 11, 12 and 13th calling it acts of terror. Obama on the view the following Monday 17th and 18th "it looks like more then a spontaneous act but they were gathering facts." Olson on the 19th to congress calls it a "terrorist attack" but don't know how far in advanced it was planned. Clinton two days later, the 21st calling it a terrorist attack.

http://cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2 ... meline.cnn

This seems like much to do about nothing to me. Looks more to me like the Republicans are trying to find an issue then that there is any worthy of complaining about. With something so sensitive, what the hell is wrong with getting the facts right. I mean one place was being attacked because of the movie. It is such a stretch to think it might happen in two places. It was also 9/11. Why put the country in a panic when you don't have all the facts. Obama did call it "acts of terror" the next day after mentioning the movie in the beginning of the speech. After eulogizing the people lost and after mentioning 9/11, he then says, act of terror .. that to me included both acts.

Just seems like a lot of splitting hairs and looking for something to complain about when there is really nothing of substance. And .. what difference would it have made if he said Terrorism instead of Act of Terror.

What of substance am I missing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html

So here's a precise summary of what exactly was said and what wasn't

Obama did indeed say "Acts of terror" in the Rose garden. The word "terrorism" has a specific diplomatic meaning, that it was premeditated. So maybe there were some larger diplomatic motivations for being careful about using the word "terrorism". Who knows.

I was expecting you to ask, why is it even ok for Romney to try to make political points off of the brutal murder of four U.S. government workers?

[closg00]

Video included.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/10...hostage-video/

New Revelation At ’47%’ Dinner – Romney Was Hoping For Something Like Iran Hostage


It seems that for Romney, the “truths” told during that particular fundraiser are like any ghost worth his reputation, the haunting is relentless and this latest portion could be the most damaging of all. In the video, Romney is caught hoping for an Iran hostage type situation to help propel him into the White House. Is it any surprise that he has tried to make political hay out of the Benghazi terror attacks?

As you watch the video, notice the man (is that a British accent?) asking Romney how he can “duplicate” an Iran hostage type scenario. Instead of dismissing the question as going against American interests, Romney agrees that the strategy would be beneficial. The entire video is worth a listen but at the end, Romney says, “if something of that nature presents itself, I will work to take advantage of the opportunity.”

Just following-up on this post to say that the Romney team did not get a "hostage type scenario", but the Republican machine and their friends in blowhard TV/radio, would make you think that the we had suffered an attack on the scale of 911 with they way they have continued to exploit the Benghazi attack.

[montestewart]

RNC-Al Qaeda "arms for a hostage situation" deal to be revealed any time now.

[popper]

This thread has gone mostly dark since the first debate. Before that, there was much to say and enthusiastic confab on the wisdom of reelecting the preferred candidate. What's changed and what gives?

[montestewart]

This thread has gone mostly dark since the first debate. Before that, there was much to say and enthusiastic confab on the wisdom of reelecting the preferred candidate. What's changed and what gives?

Me, I'm just waiting for the season to start.

[Induveca]

Went to book my flight today to head up to Miami and vote, and clean up my condo. 900 dollars during election week!

HA! Won't be voting after all........and a mail in ballot from here requires a rental car to the capital (with potholes/need for SUV/tinted windows + two days full 3rd world insurance, 250 dollars) FedEx to a federal voting facility (80 dollars), and putting my dog in a kennel (100 bucks). That's not to mention the need to get my place cleaned in the capital, a few nights out eating it would be cheaper to fly to Miami! But then my girl would want to spend a few thousand bucks on clothes and shoes in the US.

I'll take my chance that one vote doesn't count, too damn expensive to vote to make someone even more rich! Still haven't voted in my lifetime.

That being said, if there was an online voting system I'd be 150% Romney. Still praying Obama loses. The guy has no clue what he's doing. The vast majority of American poor are poor, well because they're poor. I say this purely for the US. Multiple generations of welfare, unemployment and subsidies have weeded out most. Either they're addicted to government programs, or are lazy and/or too ignorant to raise themselves out into something better.

The true definition of "poor" also is up for debate, considering where I grew up. For those who missed the image I'll paste my childhood basketball court again, along with the projects in the LES of Manhattan.

SANTO DOMINGO


New York City


The NYC one would be considered paradise in most third world countries, but the Obama administration wants to give the "poor" even MORE aid? Give me a break. World class (outside of the Hamptons) sports facilities, food stamps via credit card, leased cars, unemployment, pell grants, family insurance via the one working parent......give me a **** break. The vast majority of *urban* American poor aren't poor, they're dependent.

And this coming from a Dominican immigrant who has seen his once semi-successful Dominican family fall victim to American programs to the point where they all pool their government funds together and eat like kings, buy good clothes......and never work a day in their life! Playing the system is too easy! Make more programs, they'll get gamed as well.

The real solution is to allow for the creation of more jobs, not more handouts.

[montestewart]

Looking at the huge speaker stack at courtside, I'm guessing games in the Dominican Republic come complete with a DJ. That looks a lot better than the other lonely view of a dull, empty court.

[nate33]

Went to book my flight today to head up to Miami and vote, and clean up my condo. 900 dollars during election week!

HA! Won't be voting after all........and a mail in ballot from here requires a rental car to the capital (with potholes/need for SUV/tinted windows + two days full 3rd world insurance, 250 dollars) FedEx to a federal voting facility (80 dollars), and putting my dog in a kennel (100 bucks). That's not to mention the need to get my place cleaned in the capital, a few nights out eating it would be cheaper to fly to Miami! But then my girl would want to spend a few thousand bucks on clothes and shoes in the US.

I'll take my chance that one vote doesn't count, too damn expensive to vote to make someone even more rich! Still haven't voted in my lifetime.

That being said, if there was an online voting system I'd be 150% Romney. Still praying Obama loses. The guy has no clue what he's doing. The vast majority of American poor are poor, well because they're poor. I say this purely for the US. Multiple generations of welfare, unemployment and subsidies have weeded out most. Either they're addicted to government programs, or are lazy and/or too ignorant to raise themselves out into something better.

The true definition of "poor" also is up for debate, considering where I grew up. For those who missed the image I'll paste my childhood basketball court again, along with the projects in the LES of Manhattan.

SANTO DOMINGO


New York City


The NYC one would be considered paradise in most third world countries, but the Obama administration wants to give the "poor" even MORE aid? Give me a break. World class (outside of the Hamptons) sports facilities, food stamps via credit card, leased cars, unemployment, pell grants, family insurance via the one working parent......give me a **** break. The vast majority of *urban* American poor aren't poor, they're dependent.

And this coming from a Dominican immigrant who has seen his once semi-successful Dominican family fall victim to American programs to the point where they all pool their government funds together and eat like kings, buy good clothes......and never work a day in their life! Playing the system is too easy! Make more programs, they'll get gamed as well.

The real solution is to allow for the creation of more jobs, not more handouts.

I think I might be in love with Induveca.

[Induveca]

Looking at the huge speaker stack at courtside, I'm guessing games in the Dominican Republic come complete with a DJ. That looks a lot better than the other lonely view of a dull, empty court.

Ha, actually it is a fun court....but that was a Dominican tourney of some kind. Sadly when I went to visit my old house a few weeks back it was knocked down and replaced with an apartment building.

Also the second shot was a court for public housing on the lower east side of Manhattan. For the "poor" of New York.

You have to work pretty damn hard at doing nothing for a long time, be unbelievably unlucky, have multiple illegitimate kids AND alienate your entire family to be TRULY poor in New York City. Far too many programs/jobs/opportunities to be had on the street.

I could get 500 bucks a month in food stamps, 1000 or so in unemployment and an apartment in one of the hottest areas of manhattan in the lower east side. Just takes some phone calls and government "interviews".

****, if I pooled that money with 3 or 4 cousins we could rent a 4 bedroom in the Bronx, cycle the unemployment off/on every year to ensure we appear like we're looking for work and still have 1500-2000 in free food monthly, and a few thousand of cash for clothes/drinks to score chicks!

This easy **** needs to stop.

I know American sensibilities hate to see poor living on the street, but desperation is the best motivation. A lot of my family are talented, with enough brains to contribute significantly to a company. But they'd actually live with less money/less family time by working than milking the government.

Seems odd unless you've been around it intimately, the case workers themselves have family that do it as well. It is a completely broken system.

Solution is easy in NYC.

1. No more food stamps, make people stand in line at soup kitchens. Pride won't allow most to do that. Immediate savings of hundreds of millions. People who truly need the food will be in line.
2. Weekly in person check-in when on unemployment. Yes, lines would be out the door and 4 hour waits would occur. But miss your appointment and you're cut off until you go through a similarly long wait for a reentry program.

This will weed out family members who are pulled into "government program" games by their families/friends.

Obvious answers, which won't happen anytime soon but 60 Minutes should go find a similar family who game these programs to the level I'm talking about. It's not an exception, but a rule for much of New York City.

[Zonkerbl]

Well, my girlfriend lost her job in 2009 and was on unemployment for a long, long, time, desperately looking for work the entire time. Making her come in and stand in line 4 hours a week would have 1) been a really unnecessarily mean and nasty thing to do to her and 2) reduced the amount of time she could spend looking for work by 4 hours. Why should she be punished because other people are cheating?

[closg00]

Stereotype and generalize much Induceva? Undoubtedly there are people that are out-there milking the system. There are also many people who want work, but there aren't enough jobs to go around.

[Nivek]

I don't doubt induveca's experience, but I do question whether it's true in a broad sense. My experiences are quite different. I dated a woman from NYC whose family was Caribbean. None of her extended family (and I met dozens of families) seemed the least bit interested in gaming the system. Except for one aunt/uncle combo who "gamed" the hospital where they worked. Their "game" was to use the hospital's policy of paying for relevant education to constantly earn additional certifications so they could work in MANY areas of the hospital.

Early in our relationship, my wife worked with young adults in crisis. A couple were interested in getting over -- one young woman was particularly good at it. But, most wanted education, a job and to get the hell away from abusive parents.

Speaking from my own experience losing a job a couple months before my daughter was born, I never once thought of taking unemployment. I just hunted another job. My one "welfare" request was asking the landlord to take half rent for a couple months with the understanding that I would pay it back as soon as possible.

I'm certain there are welfare cheats. I'm certain there are people who don't want to work, and who'd rather collect unemployment and food stamps. I'm highly unconvinced that it's as widespread as indu's anecdotes would suggest. I'm willing to be convinced, of course, but I'd need more than one man's experience -- no matter how convincingly the story is told.

[Induveca]

Well, my girlfriend lost her job in 2009 and was on unemployment for a long, long, time, desperately looking for work the entire time. Making her come in and stand in line 4 hours a week would have 1) been a really unnecessarily mean and nasty thing to do to her and 2) reduced the amount of time she could spend looking for work by 4 hours. Why should she be punished because other people are cheating?

Depends where you live. I'm talking about upper Manhattan where the jobless/welfare claims are off the charts.

[Induveca]

Stereotype and generalize much Induceva? Undoubtedly there are people that are out-there milking the system. There are also many people who want work, but there aren't enough jobs to go around.

Again I'm not stereotyping/generalizing I'm speaking of a lifestyle I've been around during most holidays (and a few flings) for over 35 years.

A huge percentage of recent Caribbean/south American immigrants come to the US for the promise/truth of "free money". It goes so far that many family members illegally collect social security for their parents/grandparents while they aren't even living in the US.

It goes even deeper than what I've explained. If you call that level of detail/experience stereotyping, we disagree.

[Zonkerbl]

Well, then why break the system all over to fix a local problem?

And isn't welfare and unemployment administered locally anyway? Sounds like this is a NY problem, not a US problem.

[Induveca]

Nivek....understood you need more than one perspective.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 04294.html

That's just a start.

1.8 million people in New York City collect food stamps. That's nearly 25% of the population.

http://www.vosizneias.com/70688/2010/12 ... raud-ring/

That's at a high level, the whole damn system is a joke for upper manhattan. You're almost looked at as a fool by many for not taking the "free money".

Just do a search yourself....it's a huge problem. I can speak for upper manhattan and the Bronx only. But considering the diversity/depths that I've personally seen these scams carried out by less than intelligent people you can be assured it's rampant.

The US government claims "only" 1% of funds dedicated to the program are used for fraud. That's 750 million a year. I call BS on that number and put it near 10-15%. One ex girlfriend's family of 7 was taking the government for around 65k yearly via various programs.

Needless to say I dumped her when she started asking for money. Wasn't a hard decision. But I did tag along with her for a family food stamp shopping trip once just to see how ridiculous they were! Lots of Gatorade, Doritos, steak, ANYTHING to exhaust the card prior to the end of the month so it wasn't reduced.

They actually had a very "difficult" problem of spending the 1200+ a month on food from all of their accounts! So they called around to friends to offer to take them shopping at the end of each month.