2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Dark Sage]

Okay, answer me this if you will.

If you are so certain that Mr. Obama’s gross negligence caused him to ignore an obvious threat that led to four American deaths…

Then why did Romney’s most recent speech in Belmont not focus on this likely cause for impeachment, and instead focus on how Obama has contributed to the “fiscal cliff” that is looming at the end of the year? (Something that you could probably blame more on our lazy Congress cancelling all of its October sessions.)

I would love to accuse Romney of being a wimp, as George H. W. Bush’s rivals were so fond of calling him, but I have a more logical answer: Romney has at least some brains in his head, and knows that he would never get away with making such serious accusations against his opponent.

But if you’re so sure that they’re true… Feel free to pursue them.

Edit: Here's something else to consider.

This baseless accusation you make against Mr. Obama makes me think of how tempting – and easy – it would be to make baseless accusations against Romney.

As you know, Mr. Obama has been slandered repeatedly by people who say he’s a Muslim. Romney does not deny being a Mormon, and there are many who would say that his faith is worse than Islam.

Mormonism is a relatively new religion, compared to Islam, which has been around for thousands of years, so many consider it a cult. It was founded by a man who was clearly a bigot, who claimed that he was more important than Jesus.

The Book of Mormon claims that dark skin is a punishment from God, and Mormons did not acknowledge that blacks were even human until 1965.

Thus, it is very tempting for me to accuse Romney of being a bigot who belongs to a false religion, and it would be very easy for me to do so. But I do not do so. Despite the fact that he bullied a gay classmate while he was in prep school, I can’t say with certainty that such things are true, and I will not make baseless accusations.

You should not either.

[Roy Karrde]

Okay, answer me this if you will.

If you are so certain that Mr. Obama’s gross negligence caused him to ignore an obvious threat that led to four American deaths…

Then why did Romney’s most recent speech in Belmont not focus on this likely cause for impeachment, and instead focus on how Obama has contributed to the “fiscal cliff” that is looming at the end of the year? (Something that you could probably blame more on our lazy Congress cancelling all of its October sessions.)

I would love to accuse Romney of being a wimp, as George H. W. Bush’s rivals were so fond of calling him, but I have a more logical answer: Romney has at least some brains in his head, and knows that he would never get away with making such serious accusations against his opponent.

But if you’re so sure that they’re true… Feel free to pursue them.

Possibly because...

A: It is not the place of a Presidential Candidate to call for their rivals impeachment
B: Congress is beginning to investigate the matter, and it is only proper to wait for their findings.
C: The crux of the problem lays in the State Department which is under Hillary Clinton's purview, not Obama's.

Edit: Here's something else to consider.

This baseless accusation you make against Mr. Obama makes me think of how tempting – and easy – it would be to make baseless accusations against Romney.

As you know, Mr. Obama has been slandered repeatedly by people who say he’s a Muslim. Romney does not deny being a Mormon, and there are many who would say that his faith is worse than Islam.

Mormonism is a relatively new religion, compared to Islam, which has been around for thousands of years, so many consider it a cult. It was founded by a man who was clearly a bigot, who claimed that he was more important than Jesus.

The Book of Mormon claims that dark skin is a punishment from God, and Mormons did not acknowledge that blacks were even human until 1965.

Thus, it is very tempting for me to accuse Romney of being a bigot who belongs to a false religion, and it would be very easy for me to do so. But I do not do so. Despite the fact that he bullied a gay classmate while he was in prep school, I can’t say with certainty that such things are true, and I will not make baseless accusations.

You should not either.

Okay...

We agreed to treat eachother with more respect did we not? I have given you four different sources, spanning three countries, making every request you have asked for, and yet you still call it baseless. But also compare it to something akin to trutherism.

That is not being respectful to me, my argument, or even yourself.

So I am going to pretend that you did not post this, and we can continue to debate properly.

[Dark Sage]

Okay Roy...

I've read that article from beginning to end, and it does not mention even once that Mr. Obama was warned of an impending attack on the US consulate.

In fact, the article does not mention Mr. Obama's name even once. And the only place it mentions the State Department was where it said they didn't release the details of how Stevens died.

The article you posted seems to have almost nothing to do with warnings that officials received, other that one paragraph.

[Roy Karrde]

Okay Roy...

I've read that article from beginning to end, and it does not mention even once that Mr. Obama was warned of an impending attack on the US consulate.

In fact, the article does not mention Mr. Obama's name even once. And the only place it mentions the State Department was where it said they didn't release the details of how Stevens died.

The article you posted seems to have almost nothing to do with warnings that officials received, other that one paragraph.

And? That does not discount the fact they were warned. You wanted a american source for it and you got it.

[Dark Sage]

I think you're distorting the facts in one paragraph of a story to make them look like something bigger than they are.

The paragraph said that the consolate was warned of lax security, and you're making it look like the President knew of an impending attack, but chose to ignore it.

There's nothing in the story that actually says the President or the State Department knew anything at all. If I'm wrong, show me where it says so.

[Roy Karrde]

I think you're distorting the facts in one paragraph of a story to make them look like something bigger than they are.

The paragraph said that the consolate was warned of lax security, and you're making it look like the President knew of an impending attack, but chose to ignore it.

There's nothing in the story that actually says the President or the State Department knew anything at all. If I'm wrong, show me where it says so.

The paragraph says that they were warned and I quote ‘The situation is frightening, it scares us,’ when it comes to the deteriorating situation inside of Bengauzi. Seeing how it is the diplomat's duty to refer such things to the State Department, and that the Consulate staff was clearly frightened, there is no reason to say they did not report it. The State Department obviously choose to ignore a incredibly dangerous situation, if that made it all the way up to Obama's report ( Something we don't know, but due to the multiple warnings both from Bengauzi and Egypt I can't see how it didn't in some way ) is up for Congress to ask.

[Dark Sage]

Well, if they do intend to take action, as you suggest, they have only a week to do so, seeing as they cancelled all of their sessions from Friday up until the election, remember?

And I can guarantee, if Obama wins re-election, the first thing that the House will do is make another attempt to repeal Obamacare again, just to prove to him that they're still going to be making things hard for him.

By the way, it seems that Mr. Pants on Fire was caught lying again:

http://www.examiner.com/article/paul...?CID=obnetwork

[Roy Karrde]

Well, if they do intend to take action, as you suggest, they have only a week to do so, seeing as they cancelled all of their sessions from Friday up until the election, remember?

Well if Fast and Furious is any indication, the State Department will do their best to string this out for years, lie about it, and in the end Obama will claim executive privilege and the left will call it a witch hunt.

[Dark Sage]

You seem to forget, Roy, that was the only time thusfar that Mr. Obama has claimed Executive Privledge.

Compare that to Bush, who did so six times.

And I see you have not tried to defend Ryan.

[Roy Karrde]

You seem to forget, Roy, that was the only time thusfar that Mr. Obama has claimed Executive Privledge.

Compare that to Bush, who did so six times.

And that means Obama won't do it again to protect sensitive documents that could undermine the State Department? Say reports from the Consulate about how dangerous the situation is getting? And lets not forget that Obama being the "Constitutional Law Professor with 4 years of experience" incorrectly used Executive Privilege.

And I see you have not tried to defend Ryan.

Ryan was speaking of 23 million Americans that are underemployed or unemployed, last time I checked if you are underemployed you are still struggling to find work, and just taking what ever you can to currently make ends meet. As such to say Ryan lied would be... false.

[Dark Sage]

That's your opinion.

And the whole thing WAS a witch hunt. (Note I use past tense, because I'm sure it won't go any further.) To give a comparison, they could have arrested Rove any time they wanted to. The whole thing with Holder is dirty politics.

And I haven't given up. I just think your argument is so pathetic, that there's no point in talking about. I have not heard anyone on Capitol Hill mention this accusation at all, or speak of this investigation you say they are doing.

[Roy Karrde]

That's your opinion.

No.. that is the law, you cannot use Executive privilege to cover up a crime.

And the whole thing WAS a witch hunt. (Note I use past tense, because I'm sure it won't go any further.)

You may have noticed they have filed with the court?

To give a comparison, they could have arrested Rove any time they wanted to. The whole thing with Holder is dirty politics.

So trying to bring Holder to Justice for his crimes is now just dirty politics?

But please continue to compare the political works of Karl Rove to the DEATH of a U.S. Citizen

By the way I have edited my post to update for the Ryan comment.

[Dark Sage]

Btw, Roy, when I typed the words "Obama consulate investigation" into Google, all I got was this:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...-on-consulate/

As you can see, it's a story by Fox News that doesn't even address the accusation you made at all, and certainly doesn't say that Congress is investigating any suspicions of neglect on the President's part.

Ryan was speaking of 23 million Americans that are underemployed or unemployed, last time I checked if you are underemployed you are still struggling to find work, and just taking what ever you can to currently make ends meet. As such to say Ryan lied would be... false.

Good grief Roy, even Ryan himself had no defense when he was caught, and now you're making excuses for him?

[Roy Karrde]

Btw, Roy, when I typed the words "Obama consulate investigation" into Google, all I got was this:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...-on-consulate/

As you can see, it's a story by Fox News that doesn't even address the accusation you made at all, and certainly doesn't say that Congress is investigating any suspicions of neglect on the President's part.

Have I not maintained for many of the past few posts that the problems lie with the State Department? You are the one that seem to be bringing the President into this, not me.

Good grief Roy, even Ryan himself had no defense when he was caught, and now you're making excuses for him?

No I am stating a fact, there are 23 Million Underemployed or Unemployed, and Underemployed is measured by and I quote. "Underemployment refers to an employment situation that is insufficient in some important way for the worker, relative to a standard. Examples include holding a part-time job despite desiring full-time work, and overqualification, where the employee has education, experience, or skills beyond the requirements of the job"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underemployment

That fits perfectly into being a person still struggling to find work.

By the way I will note that the article has no response from Paul Ryan, as such it is false to claim that he has "No Defense".

[Dark Sage]

"here is what we got: prolonged joblessness across the country. 23 million Americans struggling to find work."

Did he say "underemployed"? No, he didn't. He first said "joblessness", as in without jobs, which implied that his "23 million" comment suggested people without jobs.

If the legal definition for "struggling to find work" is actually "underemployed", then I demand proof.

And Wikia is NOT an official source.

[Roy Karrde]

Did he say "underemployed"? No, he didn't. He first said "joblessness", as in without jobs, which implied that his "23 million" comment suggested people without jobs.

If the legal definition for "struggling to find work" is actually "underemployed", then I demand proof.

And Wikia is NOT an official source.

Here is what he said: "here is what we got: prolonged joblessness across the country. 23 million Americans struggling to find work."

Prolonged joblessness drives people to find work anyway they can, and struggle to find work in the field that they are actually qualified for, thus the reason for the underemployed number.

[Dark Sage]

You know, Roy, the sad part is, you're one of the more sane Republicans I've heard from.

You have no idea how many GOTPers I've heard this from: "If Obama had any backbone, he would nuke Libya."

They clearly don't realize that Obama would do THAT if he was insane dictator that the birthers claim he is. Such callous regard for life makes me wonder just who the bad guys are in this whole deal.

[Roy Karrde]

You know, Roy, the sad part is, you're one of the more sane Republicans I've heard from.

You have no idea how many GOTPers I've heard this from: "If Obama had any backbone, he would nuke Libya."

They clearly don't realize that Obama would do THAT if he was insane dictator that the birthers claim he is. Such callous regard for life makes me wonder just who the bad guys are in this whole deal.

Nice strawman argument, but I have a different question: Why hasn't Obama stood up in support or against the teacher's unions in his old home town?

The greedy unions are on strike, forcing kids out of class, and striking against Obama's own Chief of Staff, now Obama has once said that he would as President stand on the picket lines with unions. Well... where is he?

[Dark Sage]

Roy, as the son of two dedicated teachers who have spent their whole lives in the education business, I'm afraid I cannot support a teachers' strike, and you will forgive me if I don't give my reasons. I'm sorry.

And before you say it, yes, I do disagree with Mr. Obama on that issue.

[Roy Karrde]

Further proof Dark Sage...

The cable, dispatched from Washington on September 10, the day before protests erupted, advised the embassy the broadcasts [of the Mohammed movie] could provoke violence. It did not direct specific measures to upgrade security, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

However, under standard diplomatic procedures, Egyptian government officials and security forces were notified of U.S. concerns, since host governments are responsible for ensuring the security of foreign diplomatic missions on their soil, the sources said.

Copies of the cable were not sent to other U.S. outposts in the region, including the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, where violence took the life of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. The ties between the Benghazi violence and the crude anti-Muslim film are still unclear.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...88G1HG20120917

The reason apparently they did not send it to embassies in other countries, is because apparently the clip aired on a Egyptian Cleric show... however I do hope that is a Government lie, and the State Department is not stupid enough to think that such a thing would not spread quickly across borders.

[Dark Sage]

Yeah, I tend to think that it's a lie.

In the meantime, you've been rather quiet today since the videos surfaced.

I'd love to hear your response to what Romney said on them. The story seems to have broken a record for number of responses on the Huffington Post.

[Roy Karrde]

Yeah, I tend to think that it's a lie.

In the meantime, you've been rather quiet today since the videos surfaced.

Because I tend to not double post?

I'd love to hear your response to what Romney said on them. The story seems to have broken a record for number of responses on the Huffington Post.

What is to say about them? They are a rather non event, even less so than what Obama said about those clinging to their guns and religion.

[Dark Sage]

He said that 47% of Americans are freeloaders.

[Roy Karrde]

He said that 47% of Americans are freeloaders.

Yes and how many Americans do you actually think consider themselves freeloaders? To be offended they have to think of themselves as such in the first place, and not many people are ready to admit they are a taker and not a giver. That is why this seems to be even less of a non event than Obama's "Gun Clinger" comment, as while that insulted people who actually like guns or religion ( In a swing state no less! ), this really doesn't.

[Dark Sage]

Texas is a swing state???

That's the funniest thing you've said since you implied that the RNC was more successful than the DNC. Texas is a red state, and has been so for a LONG time.

Edit: I take that back, I thought you said "I'm in a swing state".

It's been a long day, and my eyes are a little blurry from writing so long.

[Roy Karrde]

Texas is a swing state???

That's the funniest thing you've said since you implied that the RNC was more successful than the DNC. Texas is a red state, and has been so for a LONG time.

Umm Obama was talking about Pennsylvania voters when he was talking about clinging to guns and religion.

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," Obama said in April 2008, before he was elected to the presidency. "It's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/p...163255831.html

[Dark Sage]

See my edit. It's been a long day.

Speaking of Pennsylvania, seems that the voter ID law there is soon to be on its last legs. The Supreme Court sent it back to the lower court for reconsideration, with instructions that they could only uphold it if proof could be found that NO voters would be disenfranchised by it.

Their deadline to find proof is October 2nd.

Btw, NONE of the justices voted to uphold it, not even the three Republicans.

[Roy Karrde]

Speaking of Pennsylvania, seems that the voter ID law there is soon to be on its last legs. The Supreme Court sent it back to the lower court for reconsideration, with instruction that they could only uphold it if proof could be found that NO voters would be disenfranchised by it.

Their deadline to find proof is October 2nd.

Seems pretty easy to do all they need to do is show how to get a ID.

I assume you have given up attacking Romney over the videos?

[Dark Sage]

Seems pretty easy to do all they need to do is show how to get a ID.

I assume you have given up attacking Romney over the videos?

There is ample proof that 750,000 voters will be disenfranchised.

And no, not on your life.

Btw, Roy, I don't know if you know this, but even if you apply for a state-issued ID, it takes six weeks to get it.

[Roy Karrde]

There is ample proof that 750,000 voters will be disenfranchised.

And that proof is?

And no, not on your life.

Then where are your arguments?

Btw, Roy, I don't know if you know this, but even if you apply for a state-issued ID, it takes six weeks to get it.

Seeing how the law was passed a while back you would think people would have ample time to get one.

[Dark Sage]

And that proof is?

Why don't you read it here? It's all in black and white:

http://www.propublica.org/article/ev...-voter-id-laws

[Roy Karrde]

Why don't you read it here? It's all in black and white:

http://www.propublica.org/article/ev...-voter-id-laws

I see no where in that article that it states that 750,000 voters would be disenfranchised.

[Dark Sage]

I see no where in that article that it states that 750,000 voters would be disenfranchised.

Read it more closely:

State figures also can be hard to nail down. In Pennsylvania, nearly 760,000 registered voters, or 9.2 percent of the state's 8.2 million voter base, don't own state-issued ID cards, according to an analysis of state records by the Philadelphia Inquirer. State officials, on the other hand, place this number at between 80,000 and 90,000.

Guess I was off by 10,000, if the Philadelphia Inquirer is right.

[Roy Karrde]

Read it more closely:

Guess I was off by 10,000, if the Philadelphia Inquirer is right.

If they are going off by the Department of Transportation records, which it seems that they are, then that is a flawed method.

" The 750,000-voter figure, however, includes some cases where there are database-matching problems: for instance, a woman is listed by her married surname in one database and her maiden surname in another may be included on that list, even though she should have few problems voting. It includes some cases of voters whose registrations are inactive. And it includes voters who will have some valid form of ID other than that issued by the Department of Transportation, like a passport, which would still make them eligible to vote. "

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...fication-laws/

[Dark Sage]

Roy... The Commonwealth Court must prove that NO-ONE will be disenfranchised if they want to uphold the law.

Read the PA Supreme Court's ruling and face reality. They won't be able to do it.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy... The Commonwealth Court must prove that NO-ONE will be disenfranchised if they want to uphold the law.

Read the PA Supreme Court's ruling and face reality. They won't be able to do it.

And yet they should only need to prove they are providing every opportunity to allow people to get free IDs.

[Dark Sage]

Roy, read this. It will tell you what the law truly requires:

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...or-review?lite

Now tell me that the free ID cards are easy to obtain.

Here, I'll spell it out for you:

The agencies are demanding that applicants produce a birth certificate stamped with a raised seal, a Social Security card, and two other forms of identification showing the current residence. The state agencies say if they give the cards out on the more relaxed basis spelled out in the new voter ID law, that would create a homeland security problem, because the cards can be used to board aircraft.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, read this. It will tell you what the law truly requires:

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...or-review?lite

Now tell me that this is easy to obtain.

Here, I'll spell it out for you:

So in other words, all the state has to do is relax the manner in which to get a card as the law says, seems pretty even handed and something the state should do.

[Dark Sage]

Maybe I should tell you that not one of the justices voted to uphold the law as it was. Not one of the three Republicans.

The two dissenting justices voted to block it entirely.

[Roy Karrde]

Maybe I should tell you that not one of the justices voted to uphold the law as it was. Not one of the three Republicans.

The two dissenting justices voted to block it entirely.

Yet from what I am reading, the Supreme Court only wishes to relax the standards back, NOT block the law in it's entirety, and is only threatening to do so if the relaxed standards do not return. As such it seems you are utterly misrepresenting what the article says.