Tweet
well, in the family we have a 05 GTO, '13 Escalade, '13 CTS-v, '11 Tahoe, and my 63 c10, so yeah 'we' support GM. but in all honesty I bought my ford and kinda fell in love with the quality of it. of course being the one to buck trends, now i have 3 fords sitting in the driveway, and just the lonely 63 sitting in the garage
-
THE BAD HOMBRE
-
The liberal bias thickens....
Crowley called Obama Admin out on not calling it as a terrorsit attack on SEPT 30th, specifically citing the rose garden speech and debunking it.
But that was before she was forced to defend Obama from a damning ending to a debate he needed to do good at.
Crowley to Axelrod: Obama Never Said Benghazi Attack Was 'Act of Terror'
Crowley to Axelrod: Obama Never Said Benghazi Attack Was 'Act of Terror'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Print Article
Send a Tip by Tony Lee 17 Oct 2012, 3:44 AM PDT post a comment
On CNN's "State of the Union" on September 30, Candy Crowley insisted David Axelrod, President Barack Obama's chief strategist, was wrong when Axelrod tried to claim President Barack Obama called the Benghazi attack "an act of terror" on the day after.
"First, they said it was not planned, it was part of this tape," Crowley said when Axelrod tried to spin her.
This was Crowley the journalist, unlike the pro-Obama advocate who moderated Tuesday's debate between Obama and Mitt Romney and interjected herself into an argument between Obama and Romney on the exact same issue -- and took Obama's side.
During the debate, Crowley affirmed Obama's assertion that he referred to the Benghazi attacks as acts of terror on the day after.
After Romney correctly said it took Obama 14 days before Obama said the the Benghazi attacks were acts of terror, Crowley took Obama's side -- to an ovation from the town hall audience -- and she proclaimed Obama had indeed claimed the Benghazi attacks were acts of terror the day after the attacks in the White House Rose Garden.
On September 12, the day after the attacks, Obama did say the words "acts of terror" but he was not referring to the attacks that killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens.
Crowley knew that on September 30 and she conceded it again hours after the debate when she went on CNN and said while Romney "was right in the main, but he just chose the wrong word." But the damage had already been done.
With Obama's reelection on the line, Crowley seemed to have conveniently forgotten the facts she knew two weeks before when she grilled Axelrod in a way she should have Obama.
Here is how Crowley questioned Axelrod then:
CROWLEY: ... There's a back and forth now about why didn't this administration -- why did it take them until Friday after a September 11th attack in Libya to come to the conclusion that it was premeditated and that there was terrorists involved. John McCain said it doesn't pass the smell test, or it's willful ignorance to think that they didn't know before this what was going on. Your reaction?
AXELROD: Well, first of all, Candy, as you know, the president called it an act of terror the day after it happened. But when you're the responsible party, when you're the administration, then you have a responsibility to act on what you know and what the intelligence community believes. This was -- this is being thoroughly investigated.
...
When Axelrod tried to tell Crowley that the "president called it an act of terror the day after it happened," Crowley rejected the spin and corrected Axelrod, telling him that Obama said the the attacks were not "planned" and was "part of this tape," in reference to the obscure anti-Muhammad Internet video the Obama administration blamed:
CROWLEY: First, they said it was not planned, it was part of this tape. All that stuff.
AXELROD: As the director of national intelligence said on Friday, that was the original information that that was given to us. What we don't need is a president or an administration that shoots first and asks questions later.
Crowley then accused the Obama administration of shooting first (not telling Americans terrorists were behind the Benghazi attacks) and asking questions later, which is what Obama accused Romney of doing when Romney released a statement
CROWLEY: But isn't that what happened?
AXELROD: And, you know, Governor Romney leaped out on this Libya issue on the first day, and was terribly mistaken about what he said. That is not what you want in a president of the United States. And as for Senator McCain, for whom I have great respect, he has disapproved of our approach to Libya from the beginning, including the strategy that brought Gadhafi to justice.
Crowley then called out Axelrod's spin again, saying the administration initially insisted the terrorist attacks were not preplanned:
CROWLEY: But this has to do not with the approach to Libya but with the murder of four Americans in Libya. And didn't the administration shoot first? Didn't they come out and say, listen, as far as we can tell, this wasn't preplanned, this was just a part of --
AXELROD: At this point, this is what we know, and we are thoroughly investigating. And that's exactly what you should do. That's what the responsible thing to do is. I was kind of shocked to see Representative King attack Ambassador Rice for what she said last Sunday here and elsewhere, because she was acting on the intelligence that was given to her by the intelligence community. To say she should resign -- she is one of the most remarkable, splendid public servants we have. That's thoroughly irresponsible.Comment
-
Understood.Originally posted by naynay View Post
Doesnt matter who made the quote...just the content of it.Originally posted by naynay View Post
Yes, I bought a CTSV, but Obama had nothing to do with my success. Actually, I am doing well despite his policies, but I am not so sure how long this success will last given the current political climate. He has done more to harm this country than to help it.Comment
-
you're an ER doctor, people will continue to fuck themselves up, so you will always have work
i'm a plumber/pipefitter by trade, as long as people are shitting and pissing they will need plumbing, so i will always have work.
there will be 6 figures in my salary this year just like yours. we are in the same boat brotha!THE BAD HOMBRE
Comment
-
Great article IMO about last night. I'm still baffled that romney didn't sink his fangs into the green energy fiasco and how neither (obama predictably) didn't speak about our currency when gasoline prices came up.
It began with the first question asked by a Hofstra College student who wanted to know what either would do to ensure that future grads like him will have jobs.
Presidential Debate: Romney Started Slow, Then Thoroughly Beat Obama John Tamny John Tamny Forbes Staff
Who Won the Second Presidential Debate in Terms of Temperament? Frederick E. Allen Frederick E. Allen Forbes Staff
Ryan Drew Blood Early, Then Cruised to Victory Over Unsteady, Flustered Biden John Tamny John Tamny Forbes Staff
Romney responded that (all quotes paraphrased) “We’ll have to make a college education more affordable for all, and I’ll do this through growth of the Pell Grant program.” The problem, of course, is that it’s the federal government’s existing subsidization of college loans through programs like the Pell Grant that reduce the incentives for colleges and universities to lower tuition costs. And then in promoting a boost in Pell Grant funding, Romney’s calling for more of the same whereby the feds take money from one set of American hands, and place those funds in the hands of others. On the street this would be called theft, but when politicians propose it, it’s “compassion.”
After that, Romney basically repeated the same line over and over again: “I know what it takes to create jobs, and I’m going to make sure you get a job.” The president as our nanny, one supposes. The sad thing is that Romney, far more than Obama, does know how to create jobs, but to explain how he does he’d have to be more up front that he’s rich precisely because he’s expert at turning around companies.
Obama’s response was no better. He added his support for expanding the Pell Grant program that makes college more expensive, and then “bragged” that funding for Pell Grants had already increased during his deficit-ridden presidency.
On jobs specifically, the nanny standard bearer for the Democrats said “We need good jobs, jobs that can support a family.” Having said this, he then said that he wanted to create manufacturing jobs which, even if he could, would in today’s world at best foot the bill for a Starbuck’s latte – once a day. Barack Obama to families: Drop dead!
Moderator Candy Crowley followed up with a query about what either candidate would do about the high number of jobless Americans overall.
This segment went to Romney for the former governor pointing out that the unemployment rate is the same today as when Obama entered office. He added that the number is only 7.8% because so many have exited the labor force due to a lack of job opportunities.
Obama responded with his stock line about 5 million jobs created since he entered office, plus his wildly questionable assertion that he saved 1 million automobile jobs; jobs that would have disappeared under Romney for the latter having wanted to send GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy. Romney’s response was fairly good for him pointing out that Obama too took the ailing carmakers into bankruptcy; Romney simply having wanted to do it the normal way (you know, without the fleecing of secured creditors, gifting the automakers to the UAW) whereby the company continues to operate while restructuring its debt.
In the next question Obama was asked about Energy Secretary Steven Chu having admitted three different times that he’d like to see gasoline prices higher.
Obama predictably talked up how much oil and natural gas exploration has increased during his administration, then pivoted to the green energy he likes so much, and then proclaimed that he would “not cede green energy jobs to China and Germany.” Funny how much us taxpayers have had to pay so that Obama could pursue his green fantasy, and as for China and Germany, if taxpayers in both countries are so eager to fund the economic lie that is green energy, and if skeptics like this one turn out to be wrong, the good news is that we’ll be able to import the energy at a market price as though it was conceived in Berkeley. Does anyone want to bet me on my assertion that green energy will never be able to stand on its own absent major subsidies? Can I pay you back ten lifetimes from now when you win the bet?
Romney then predictably responded that yes, oil and gas exploration is up under Obama, but none of it on federal lands. He also brought up a criminal action the Obama administration took against a producer in North Dakota. And then ever a me-too candidate, Romney said he too was for an “all of the above energy plan”, which on its own is strange for someone who claims to believe in the free market; free markets surely devoid of national energy plans. Puzzling to this writer is why Romney didn’t attack Obama again for not just the costs of his green energy fantasies, but also how much of the companies funded are now bankrupt. A lost opportunity for Romney.
Romney perhaps drew blood for pointing out that a gallon of gas in Nasssau was $1.84 when Obama entered office, and now it’s $4. Obama drew blood in return with his reminder that gasoline was relatively cheap when he entered office precisely because the U.S. economy was collapsing under Republican policies that Romney would supposedly like to revive. Of course neither made the obvious point that gasoline is only expensive insofar as the Obama dollar is very cheap; Obama failing to make that point for obvious reasons, Romney failing to make it because his economic advisers such as Greg Mankiw actually support the Treasury and Fed’s so far successful, and economy wrecking efforts to debase the greenback.
On taxes, Romney was asked what tax deductions he would limit in order to cut taxes for all Americans across the board.
Notable here was that the questioner pointed out the good in the Romney tax plan (20% across the board cuts for all earners); this something Romney has so far been reluctant to do given his odd and frustrating desire to not appear to support a reduction in the price of work for the top 1% in this country whose economic achievements improve all of our lives on a daily basis. Instead, Romney went out of his way yet again to oddly brag that the top 5% would still account for 60% of federal revenues (and you thought Obama was a socialist), while all the benefits would come to middle earners whose tax savings by virtue of them being middle earners can’t move the investment dial that leads to job creation. After that, Romney’s implicit message to middle income types with designs on making it into the 1% is essentially “If you have the temerity to achieve so much that you enter the 1%, your penalty will be higher taxes.” Romney’s the growth candidate. No seriously, he is.Comment
-
part II
Obama was naturally no better. He, much like his taxation doppelganger in Romney promised middle class tax relief, though in his case he proposed doing the impossible whereby he would try to fleece top earners even more than at present in order to close the deficit. Lots of luck with that. He then added that “Governor Romney thinks it’s fair and that it grows the economy when people making $20 million a year pay a lower tax rate than those making $50,000. That does not grow the economy.” Actually, Mr. President, it does grow the economy when you lower the tax burden on the vital few whose exploits elevate our economic existence, not to mention that any income not taxed away by the feds morphs into investment, investment authors all company formation, and through company formation there’s job creation. Economic growth is easy, though you wouldn’t know it from listening to either of the candidates.
Obama then asserted that Romney thinks economic growth can only occur if capital gains taxes on the rich are maintained at their present rate of 15%. Romney should have answered him in the affirmative, that capital gains taxes are a cost placed on investment, that if you want more jobs you need more investment, and that the job-maximizing capital gains rate is zero, but instead he repeated for seemingly the 6th time his platitudinous line about how “I know what it takes to create jobs, and my five point plan will get us there.” Those listening to the debate on the radio probably thought they were listening to a 4th grade debate, as opposed to a faceoff between two men vying to lead the richest, most important nation on earth. Seriously, we used to be a serious country with serious leaders.
On male/female income disparities, Obama talked about enforcing laws, ending discrimination and more education, and then Romney talked about how he made a point when governor to get more women into his cabinet. There was a time when Republicans decried affirmative action.
Up next was a question from an undecided voter who, though disappointed in our progress the last four years, is similarly worried that Romney would bring us back to the Bush policies that she similarly didn’t like. Good taste, this questioner.
Presidential Debate: Romney Started Slow, Then Thoroughly Beat Obama John Tamny John Tamny Forbes Staff
Who Won the Second Presidential Debate in Terms of Temperament? Frederick E. Allen Frederick E. Allen Forbes Staff
Ryan Drew Blood Early, Then Cruised to Victory Over Unsteady, Flustered Biden John Tamny John Tamny Forbes Staff
Romney’s response brought new meaning to the word hopeless. Once again he trotted out his “Five Point Plan”, after which he talked up a rush to energy independence that would cripple us economically for violating comparative advantage, then he said “I’ll crack down on China, Bush didn’t.” Actually Bush bashed the Chinese too, and the result was a severely debased dollar that drove oil to nosebleed heights, and a horrifying increase of investment into the sink of wealth that is housing (the middle classes have to hedge governmental destruction of the dollar too) which led to a recession, and then led to a financial crisis thanks to massive bipartisan support of bank bailouts. And then channeling Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis, two presidential candidates who pandered to the little guy on the way to landslide presidential losses, Romney said “I’m for small business, Bush wasn’t.” Ok, the problem here is that though small businesses create lots of jobs, they tend to be able to thanks to their proximity to large businesses. Rest assured, absent big business, there would be very few small businesses.
In his response, Obama once again blamed the Bush administration for all of the economic problems during his own presidency, then he turned to Romney and said “Governor, you’re the last person who’s going to get tough on China.” Second graders could doubtless relate to the two candidates as they tried to out-protectionist one another.
The next question went to Obama. The questioner had voted for Obama in 2008, didn’t think things were so hot economically in 2012, so how would they be different if Obama were handed a second term.
Obama naturally blamed Bush yet again before talking about the 5 million jobs he created. Romney perhaps did a little better in response as he rattled off the economic statistics of what is Obama’s failed economic presidency. Romney noted that during Reagan’s recovery, and despite a much smaller population, two times as many jobs were created. He then had a good line about how Obama “is great at describing his vision, but his record doesn’t match his rhetoric.” Round to Romney, flyweight division.
And then Obama took the next round when a Hispanic woman asked about their immigration policies for productive, but illegal immigrants. Romney gave the usual GOP line about how he wants immigration, if it’s legal. “But I won’t grant amnesty to illegals”, and then he talked about his support of a computer system that would crack down on companies that hire illegals. No joke, we used to be a free country, and Republicans used to be into freedom.
Obama seemed reasonable after Romney in the sense that he acknowledged the truth that we’re a nation of immigrants, not to mention the happy truth that the world’s talented still want to come to the U.S. Obama then opened himself up to major smackdown from Romney when he noted that the illegal inflow of workers across the border is the lowest it’s been in 40 years. Romney could have easily said that the “inflow has plummeted precisely because your economy is so bad”, but to do so, he would have had to acknowledge just how foolish is his own immigration stance. Round to Obama, featherweight division.
And then they returned to jobs, and a questioner asked what both would do about outsourcing; outsourcing the economically stimulative process whereby low value work is sent overseas, the outflow of jobs boosts profits for U.S. companies, then those U.S. companies use their profits to expand while creating higher-paying jobs stateside. If we didn’t send jobs overseas, we’d be a very poor country for so many Americans still stuck in low value work. In short, outsourcing is beautiful.
Not to these two amateurs. In Romney’s case, as though he felt he hadn’t stressed enough his plan to start an economy-wrecking, stock market crashing trade war with China, the former governor, as if on auto-pilot talked up again his promise to “crack down” on China in order to bring jobs back to the U.S.
And then Obama, never one to let a bad, economy crippling idea go unanswered, followed up with his own bad idea, contradicting himself in the process. Specifically, he drooled that “Some jobs won’t come back to America because they’re low wage and low skill, and that’s why I want to bring back manufacturing jobs to the United States.” Translated: “Low wage, low skilled jobs aren’t coming back to America, so I want to bring low wage, low skilled jobs back to America.”
Last night’s debate has to be considered a draw, albeit one in which both fighters punched themselves out in the first round. It was truly an embarrassing night for each candidate, and as the world was watching, an embarrassing night for the United States more broadly. It’s been said that “When a Democrat runs against a Democrat, a Democrat wins.” I’ll have neither.Comment
-
I saw the debate. This is just ANOTHER opinion. You know what they say about opinions, right?Comment
-
they hold a lot of weight and should be used to base ones opinion on a specific topic!?!1THE BAD HOMBRE
Comment
-
-
-
The company work for hires out of local 100 here in Dallas and 286 in Austin. Just curious if was union and might even be working for us!Comment
-
Doug, you've known Naynay 10 years... you know as well as I do... He ain't "working" for anyone.Originally posted by Doug Hatton View Post
Now he might be getting paid, and in a union.
Comment
-
Not this one. He says both lost. He likes neither candidate. What's the point? You have a choice between one or the other.Originally posted by naynay View PostComment
-
We haven't legalized that yet in texas.Originally posted by Silverback View PostNow he might be getting paid, and in a union.Originally posted by PGreenCobraOriginally posted by Trip McNeelyComment
-
Far from it...any man that votes for Obama is no brotha of mine.Originally posted by naynay View Post
Comment
Comment