DescentBB

....it looks like we have the same President, 2 more in the Senate for the Dem side, 4 more in the House for the GOP side. Can't help but think there is a cheaper way to go about such glacial change.......

My local libertarian proposed that all campaign donations (including pacs) should be taxes at 85% & the taxes be applied to the national debt....

I kinda like the idea. Just think, we could be 1 billion dollars less in debt as a nation right now....

snoopy wrote:My local libertarian proposed that all campaign donations (including pacs) should be taxes at 85% & the taxes be applied to the national debt....

I kinda like the idea. Just think, we could be 1 billion dollars less in debt as a nation right now....

not a bad idea.....not bad, at all. Certainly, 1 billion might not make a dent in the debt, but could at the very least help a lot of folks in need.

callmeslick wrote:

snoopy wrote:My local libertarian proposed that all campaign donations (including pacs) should be taxes at 85% & the taxes be applied to the national debt....

I kinda like the idea. Just think, we could be 1 billion dollars less in debt as a nation right now....

not a bad idea.....not bad, at all. Certainly, 1 billion might not make a dent in the debt, but could at the very least help a lot of folks in need.

I'm all for it.

as long as you also tax the media for any imbalance they have with their reporting of the news. FOX, MSNBC. don't care. if you run a negative story about a candidate then you must by law run one against the other. and Vice-verse. if a media outlet reports a story and the other ones don't follow-up on that same story. fine them. if the media hides a story until 24 hours before an election. fine them. lets hold our media accountable. A free press doesn't mean freedom to manipulate the people.


and throw ALL lobbyists in jail. NOW

The remote control is all you need to get away from the stupid media. The news is entertainment--that's all it is and will be. Those stations need ratings to make more money. As much as I dislike Sean Hannity (and wonder if he slit his wrists last night), there is a place for him with other people. Oh well, I don't expect Fox to shower the President with praise like MSNBC.

personally I can't stand Hannity, if you are a News Outlet, then be a news outlet if you want to be a commentary out let so be it. but the search for the News should be a search for the truth. and there is WAY too much slant going on (both sides) for the good of anyone

I agree 100%, Cuda. Add to that that the media makes money out of scares, controversy and close races (!), and then there is not much incentive to publish a honest view of the world. There's a reason its called infotainment now.

For these reasons, I have all but given up on reading the news. I read the headlines - the things that verifyably happend - but don't accept much more, without fact checking for an hour or so. I mostly focus on a few topics that I know I understand enough that nobody can mess with me, and stay out of the others, unless I care for them enough to put the work in to cut through the crap.

Look, I get what you are both saying but the fact is neither Hannity nor Maddow claim to be news. They are political commentary--there isn't much to do about that. They tell us their take and it's not hard to figure out their slant--there is no Cronkite anymore. But you're both right, it would be nice to get actual news without having to get the political slant of it all.

but they are both on a news network. it is guilt by association.

I'm not sure it is, really. I mean, newspapers have had editorial pages for more than a century. I think the key is making a clear delineation between theoretically-objective news reporting and opinion programming, which is something that cable news has basically stopped doing.

I think the problem is most of the public is not looking for outright honesty, so they seek out and encourage those of their own political slant. I can't figure out why the American people think any of these politicians are actually for them and stand blindly there supporting them.

I don't think the money spent on the campaign is so disgusting. Money paid is money earned by someone. Right? What's disgusting is that it was spent to deceive the general populace into believing a lie. Neither one of these guys belonged in the White House. I told someone today that if the media actually did their job Obama might have already been impeached for Fast and Furious (they brought it up). The media has a great responsibility, and a great opportunity, which they've long-since traded for greed. They could shine a light on all political bull★■◆● and play a huge part in educating the American public in general... but they don't. Makes me want to start up an alternative media business when I think about it.

Thorne, if you think ANYTHING about F and F was near impeachable, it isn't other people who need education. Just saying.....

To tell the truth that's one of the political issues I never looked into. I just gathered from some of the things I heard that it was a bad situation caused by allowing a shipment or shipments of weapons through to Mexican drug rings. The stink was that it was done or allowed at least in part to help swing the gun issue toward restrictive gun laws. Like I said I never looked into it, but I find that very plausible. Then some innocent or innocents died as a result.

I would impeach a president for being aware of such an operation. Specifically the part about trying to use leverage to override or infringe on the 2nd amendment, which I know is on the agenda anyway.

I'm not too worried about outright abolishment of the 2nd Amendment. NO ONE wants that trouble . Now, I fully expect it to be wittled away at, but considering the odds are so stacked against you, and the prohibitively high prices of automatic weapons and private ownership of them ($1500 a year just for the license), it's almost a non-issue at this point. If there is invasion by a foreign power, we will all be armed by our military, if there is actual assault on American's by our own government, Pfft, give me a break. We would barely be a nuisance against the resources and technology they possess. It's almost a non-issue at this point.

EDIT: "That's a smart boy." Is getting old at this point

callmeslick wrote:Thorne, if you think ANYTHING about F and F was near impeachable, it isn't other people who need education. Just saying.....

Nope but Benghazi sure is if they can impeach Nixon for lying about Watergate you know damn well they can get Obama for the death of an Ambassador

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I would impeach a president for being aware of such an operation. Specifically the part about trying to use leverage to override or infringe on the 2nd amendment, which I know is on the agenda anyway.

first off, the grounds for impeachment are pretty limited. Second, what on earth would make you(and I know you aren't alone) think that there is some agenda restricting or overriding the 2nd Amendment? I mean, in 4 years, despite some horrendous examples of how utterly stupid our gun procurement process is, utterly NOTHING has been done, or even proposed seriously. In fact, that is one of the many reasons that uber-liberals don't like Obama.

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:Thorne, if you think ANYTHING about F and F was near impeachable, it isn't other people who need education. Just saying.....

Nope but Benghazi sure is if they can impeach Nixon for lying about Watergate you know damn well they can get Obama for the death of an Ambassador

one. nothing whatsoever was said under oath(unlike Nixon). Secondly, it was called terrorism within 24 hours by the administration, so why the ongoind hard-on?

It really isn't a non-issue, flip. When it becomes a non-issue to them, it'll be a non-issue for me.

As to outright abolishment, I don't know. There are countries in the world where firearms are essentially banned. How that kind of trend would play out in the U.S. I'm not sure. There are people that want it to--the U.N. wants it to... Business in the firearms industry has been booming, so from an economical standpoint any trouble would receive a lot of resistance. Ammo may be another matter. I look for trouble their first.

I think the restriction on automatic weapons is a little ridiculous. Anyone can make a semi-auto into an auto with a little know-how, and why should we be concerned about law-abiding citizens owning full-autos when a criminal or psycho could just mod a semi-auto? That said, I really don't have any interest in owning a full-auto weapon. An AR-10 or AR-15 might be nice, though.

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:Thorne, if you think ANYTHING about F and F was near impeachable, it isn't other people who need education. Just saying.....

Nope but Benghazi sure is if they can impeach Nixon for lying about Watergate you know damn well they can get Obama for the death of an Ambassador

one. nothing whatsoever was said under oath(unlike Nixon). Secondly, it was called terrorism within 24 hours by the administration, so why the ongoind hard-on?

no they didn't, even Candy Crowley admitted such after she called out Romney during the Debate, she went back and said that he was not talking about the 2012 attack he was talking about the 2001 attack. and the CBS interview that was released just before the election confirms they they didn't call it terrorism. the President bumbled and stumbled his way to a uhm uhm uhm answer. and just for the sake of your argument "IF" they did call it terrorism. then why did the President go before the UN 2 weeks later and lie about it being about a video why did the WH press secretary refuse to call it terrorism during briefings. why did Susan Rice REPEATEDLY say it was about a video days later. which lie are we suppose to believe???

I don't worry about it too much. This is my plan, should complete chaos arise. Shotgun will get me out of the house and yard, drop it, my AK47 will get me down the road, Drop it, my M1 Garand will pick off the ones pursuing. Now, likely if that scenario ever existed I would probably be dusted off and if not I imagine firearms and ammo would be easily enough to procure . I don't worry about it much anymore.

It's privately donated money right?
And ends up all spent locally within USA.
That's gotta be good for the economy.

Think of it as a 1.2 Billion dollar festival

I was just reading an article on ROI(return on investment) for the super-pacs. They calculated success vs percent of PAC money spent on the range of candidates that PAC supported. Rove's Crossroads(500 million) had a 1% ROI, the Chamber of Commerce 1%, the NRA had a whopping 0%.
Perhaps, this will be the thing that limits these goofy super-PACs....rich people aren't going to pour money and get these kinds of numbers for many
election cycles.
Oh, and from what I read, total spending on all national candidates(not just President) approached $20 billion!!! I guess the point is valid that it goes back into the economy, but still.......

Sergeant Thorne wrote:To tell the truth that's one of the political issues I never looked into. I just gathered from some of the things I heard that it was a bad situation caused by allowing a shipment or shipments of weapons through to Mexican drug rings. The stink was that it was done or allowed at least in part to help swing the gun issue toward restrictive gun laws. Like I said I never looked into it, but I find that very plausible. Then some innocent or innocents died as a result.

I don't think it is plausible at all. F&F was part of a larger operation called "project gunrunner" that was started in 2006, way before Obama took office. Already in 2006 there was another operation ("Wide receiver") in which exactly the same things happened.

CUDA wrote:even Candy Crowley admitted such after she called out Romney during the Debate, she went back and said that he was not talking about the 2012 attack he was talking about the 2001 attack. and the CBS interview that was released just before the election confirms they they didn't call it terrorism. the President bumbled and stumbled his way to a uhm uhm uhm answer. and just for the sake of your argument "IF" they did call it terrorism. then why did the President go before the UN 2 weeks later and lie about it being about a video why did the WH press secretary refuse to call it terrorism during briefings. why did Susan Rice REPEATEDLY say it was about a video days later. which lie are we suppose to believe???

Can somebody clue me in about why it is so important whether and when it was called terrorism by the administration?

Pandora wrote:

CUDA wrote:even Candy Crowley admitted such after she called out Romney during the Debate, she went back and said that he was not talking about the 2012 attack he was talking about the 2001 attack. and the CBS interview that was released just before the election confirms they they didn't call it terrorism. the President bumbled and stumbled his way to a uhm uhm uhm answer. and just for the sake of your argument "IF" they did call it terrorism. then why did the President go before the UN 2 weeks later and lie about it being about a video why did the WH press secretary refuse to call it terrorism during briefings. why did Susan Rice REPEATEDLY say it was about a video days later. which lie are we suppose to believe???

Can somebody clue me in about why it is so important whether and when it was called terrorism by the administration?

Because Obama spiked the football and declared Dorothy killed the witch 6 months ago. The flying monkeys were on the run.

Pandora wrote:

CUDA wrote:even Candy Crowley admitted such after she called out Romney during the Debate, she went back and said that he was not talking about the 2012 attack he was talking about the 2001 attack. and the CBS interview that was released just before the election confirms they they didn't call it terrorism. the President bumbled and stumbled his way to a uhm uhm uhm answer. and just for the sake of your argument "IF" they did call it terrorism. then why did the President go before the UN 2 weeks later and lie about it being about a video why did the WH press secretary refuse to call it terrorism during briefings. why did Susan Rice REPEATEDLY say it was about a video days later. which lie are we suppose to believe???

Can somebody clue me in about why it is so important whether and when it was called terrorism by the administration?

because it is tied directly to the administration. either they lied to forward an agenda that they defeated Terrorism. or they lied to cover up and total inept failure by the administration to protect it's Ambassador.

Watergate took down an Administration, and it was a low level break in that really meant nothing. this administration is lying about a complete and totally forwarned and preventable security laps that cost 4 people their lives. this is Watergate on steroids.

CUDA wrote:Watergate took down an Administration, and it was a low level break in that really meant nothing. this administration is lying about a complete and totally forwarned and preventable security laps that cost 4 people their lives. this is Watergate on steroids.

It won't be of the same caliber unless actual wrongdoing is discovered and/or an attempted coverup of the facts are exposed. We've had neither yet.

callmeslick wrote:I was just reading an article on ROI(return on investment) for the super-pacs. They calculated success vs percent of PAC money spent on the range of candidates that PAC supported. Rove's Crossroads(500 million) had a 1% ROI, the Chamber of Commerce 1%, the NRA had a whopping 0%.
Perhaps, this will be the thing that limits these goofy super-PACs....rich people aren't going to pour money and get these kinds of numbers for many
election cycles.
Oh, and from what I read, total spending on all national candidates(not just President) approached $20 billion!!! I guess the point is valid that it goes back into the economy, but still.......

Yeah.. "but still...", is about the words i'd use atm too, i'm not entirely sure what words to use to express the discomfort. It's similar to the feeling i get when i think of how much money we feed into the military, or the prisons, sure it ends up supporting the local economy, but via a trickle down from the bloodiest and dirtiest of hands. And that trickle, all the way down, drives the waterwheels of so much evil before it gets to us.

And then there's the trend where Industries start to bend their business models to attract more of that $20B money stream to flow their direction. ie: The media: the outrage machine.

War is profit.
Punishment is profit.
Discord is profit.
Ignorance, Hatred, Fear, Violence, Revenge, Belligerence,
And they're not just profit, they're POWER.
*buries face in hands*

Because Obama spiked the football and declared Dorothy killed the witch 6 months ago. The flying monkeys were on the run.

hehe.

CUDA wrote:because it is tied directly to the administration. either they lied to forward an agenda that they defeated Terrorism. or they lied to cover up and total inept failure by the administration to protect it's Ambassador.

Thanks, Cuda. But is there any evidence for lying? To me it reads more as being a bit confused about what's going on. (isn't this a one of the proverbs for paranoids? don't attribute to malice what can be explained by simple incompetence?)

Watergate took down an Administration, and it was a low level break in that really meant nothing. this administration is lying about a complete and totally forwarned and preventable security laps that cost 4 people their lives. this is Watergate on steroids.

Do you have any links that back this up? i mean the forewarned and preventable bit?

Pandora wrote:

CUDA wrote:because it is tied directly to the administration. either they lied to forward an agenda that they defeated Terrorism. or they lied to cover up and total inept failure by the administration to protect it's Ambassador.

Thanks, Cuda. But is there any evidence for lying? To me it reads more as being a bit confused about what's going on. (isn't this a one of the proverbs for paranoids? don't attribute to malice what can be explained by simple incompetence?)

ya there is, a ton of it. you just dont hear about in on the lame stream media.

Watergate took down an Administration, and it was a low level break in that really meant nothing. this administration is lying about a complete and totally forwarned and preventable security laps that cost 4 people their lives. this is Watergate on steroids.

Do you have any links that back this up? i mean the forewarned and preventable bit?

there is plenty of warning, including an attack on the same consulate just a couple of months earlier that blew a huge hole in the wall that dozens of people could pass through. there are emails from personnel requesting more security because they knew of the dangers. even some from the Ambassador himself. honestly there is too much to list easily.

Very frustrating. I find it pretty hard to get some good, well-sourced information on that, other than the typical conjecture.

Are you aware of that, by the way? how does it fit in the narrative?

The Wall Street Journal said the consulate was being used as a CIA operation, adding that of the 30 American officials evacuated from Benghazi following the assault, just seven worked for the State Department.

Also seems that two of the killed "security contractors" were actually working for the CIA.

"Officially" the CIA had an office less then a mile away from the Consulate, that's where the SEALS came from that to evacuate the people that were ultimately killed.