(10-13-2012 07:09 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(10-12-2012 09:50 PM)TOGC Wrote:  

(10-12-2012 08:27 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(10-12-2012 06:57 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I've seen this rodeo before. This is 1980 all over again.

The Democrats look inept in office with the world's problems overwhelming them. The American people take a long, hard look at the Republicans and determine just prior to the election that the media is full of sh-- and the Republicans are a better alternative than extending our national nightmare.

Oh so Romney is Reagan?

If he is, then we're all f*cked.

Yes, we wouldn't want all that economic growth that we had with Reagan. We could use a little more big government, European-style, economic meltdown.

What's also funny is that we often heard of Reagan being typecast as a militaristic "cowboy." But can anyone name a country that he invaded with ground forces? Aside from our 3-day Grenada one, that is. Can anyone name a country we occupied and nation-built under Reagan? Me neither.

Meanwhile, our arch-enemy at the time was the USSR and the Cold War was at its most tense when he took office. Yet despite Reagan's tough talk, he sat with Gorbachev and signed several high profile treaties, virtually unheard of in previous administrations. Simply put, his foreign policy - despite being looked on as being aggressive and 'cowboy' - would be considered peacenik compared to some of the things following it (and certainly compared to the Vietnam era prior).

I'm far from a Reagan worshipper. But a solid economy and very little in the way of wars sounds good right about now, and I'd vote for him in a heartbeat over Mitt/Obama (then again, I'd vote for Slick Willy before these two guys as well). He expanded government more than conservatives may like to admit, but it was a molehill combined with the mountain built by Bush's 2nd term and now Obama's 1st.

(10-13-2012 08:48 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  What's also funny is that we often heard of Reagan being typecast as a militaristic "cowboy." But can anyone name a country that he invaded with ground forces? Aside from our 3-day Grenada one, that is. Can anyone name a country we occupied and nation-built under Reagan? Me neither.
Meanwhile, our arch-enemy at the time was the USSR and the Cold War was at its most tense when he took office. Yet despite Reagan's tough talk, he sat with Gorbachev and signed several high profile treaties, virtually unheard of in previous administrations. Simply put, his foreign policy - despite being looked on as being aggressive and 'cowboy' - would be considered peacenik compared to some of the things following it (and certainly compared to the Vietnam era prior).
I'm far from a Reagan worshipper. But a solid economy and very little in the way of wars sounds good right about now, and I'd vote for him in a heartbeat over Mitt/Obama (then again, I'd vote for Slick Willy before these two guys as well). He expanded government more than conservatives may like to admit, but it was a molehill combined with the mountain built by Bush's 2nd term and now Obama's 1st.

I'd tend to agree with all of that.

I think the lesson of Regan, or at least one lesson, may be that being ready to fight is the best way to avoid having to fight. What's difficult is being ready to fight while resisting the temptation to use that readiness to jump into every little fight.

He just pulled out his wallet and dared the USSR to keep pace with our spending. We were lucky we had more money than they did.

(10-13-2012 09:29 PM)TOGC Wrote:  He just pulled out his wallet and dared the USSR to keep pace with our spending. We were lucky we had more money than they did.

We weren't lucky. We knew we had more money. That's why it was a brilliant strategy. And in subsequent years, the peace dividend has paid back more than it cost, even on a present value basis.

(10-12-2012 09:46 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(10-12-2012 08:27 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(10-12-2012 06:57 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I've seen this rodeo before. This is 1980 all over again.

The Democrats look inept in office with the world's problems overwhelming them. The American people take a long, hard look at the Republicans and determine just prior to the election that the media is full of sh-- and the Republicans are a better alternative than extending our national nightmare.

Oh so Romney is Reagan?

Romney is a mild version of Reagan. He's against bloated government, but only because it's vastly less efficient than the private sector at creating wealth for all.

Reagan saw the bigger picture ... big government is a threat to freedom.

Again, ninerfan and sumofallfears, it's clear and well documented that the initial riots which took place were a response to the viral video produced in the United States. Too much Fox News makes for misinformation all planned by conservatives. That's perfectly clear too.

(10-14-2012 07:07 AM)Vewb1 Wrote:  Again, ninerfan and sumofallfears, it's clear and well documented that the initial riots which took place were a response to the viral video produced in the United States. Too much Fox News makes for misinformation all planned by conservatives. That's perfectly clear too.

No, it's not. In fact it's well documented the exact opposite is true of Benghazi. But when you get your news from the Daily Kos like you do it's no surprise you miss it. There was no riot or protest in Libya and the State Department has said so.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/...53263.html

You are willfully ignorant about this because you are a sheep. Everything we know contradicts your assertions. Even the Huffpo won't support your ignorance.

(10-14-2012 02:34 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-12-2012 09:46 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(10-12-2012 08:27 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(10-12-2012 06:57 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I've seen this rodeo before. This is 1980 all over again.

The Democrats look inept in office with the world's problems overwhelming them. The American people take a long, hard look at the Republicans and determine just prior to the election that the media is full of sh-- and the Republicans are a better alternative than extending our national nightmare.

Oh so Romney is Reagan?

Romney is a mild version of Reagan. He's against bloated government, but only because it's vastly less efficient than the private sector at creating wealth for all.

Reagan saw the bigger picture ... big government is a threat to freedom.

You know what I hate? Morons that just ridicule but aren't intelligent enough to debate and make a valid point.

Are you a moron??? It looks that way.

(10-14-2012 07:07 AM)Vewb1 Wrote:  Again, ninerfan and sumofallfears, it's clear and well documented that the initial riots which took place were a response to the viral video produced in the United States. Too much Fox News makes for misinformation all planned by conservatives. That's perfectly clear too.

You've been watching too much MSNBC. You need to get out more.

(10-13-2012 08:48 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(10-13-2012 07:09 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(10-12-2012 09:50 PM)TOGC Wrote:  

(10-12-2012 08:27 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(10-12-2012 06:57 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I've seen this rodeo before. This is 1980 all over again.

The Democrats look inept in office with the world's problems overwhelming them. The American people take a long, hard look at the Republicans and determine just prior to the election that the media is full of sh-- and the Republicans are a better alternative than extending our national nightmare.

Oh so Romney is Reagan?

If he is, then we're all f*cked.

Yes, we wouldn't want all that economic growth that we had with Reagan. We could use a little more big government, European-style, economic meltdown.

What's also funny is that we often heard of Reagan being typecast as a militaristic "cowboy." But can anyone name a country that he invaded with ground forces? Aside from our 3-day Grenada one, that is. Can anyone name a country we occupied and nation-built under Reagan? Me neither.

Meanwhile, our arch-enemy at the time was the USSR and the Cold War was at its most tense when he took office. Yet despite Reagan's tough talk, he sat with Gorbachev and signed several high profile treaties, virtually unheard of in previous administrations. Simply put, his foreign policy - despite being looked on as being aggressive and 'cowboy' - would be considered peacenik compared to some of the things following it (and certainly compared to the Vietnam era prior).

I'm far from a Reagan worshipper. But a solid economy and very little in the way of wars sounds good right about now, and I'd vote for him in a heartbeat over Mitt/Obama (then again, I'd vote for Slick Willy before these two guys as well). He expanded government more than conservatives may like to admit, but it was a molehill combined with the mountain built by Bush's 2nd term and now Obama's 1st.

Revisionist history. The economy under Reagan didn't take off until his second term. UE was 7.3% when he got re-elected.

(10-13-2012 11:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-13-2012 09:29 PM)TOGC Wrote:  He just pulled out his wallet and dared the USSR to keep pace with our spending. We were lucky we had more money than they did.

We weren't lucky. We knew we had more money. That's why it was a brilliant strategy. And in subsequent years, the peace dividend has paid back more than it cost, even on a present value basis.

Yeah, he increased the debt and the size of the government by doing it. Republicans keep talking about fiscal responsibility and reducing the size of government but they always do the opposite when they're in office.

(10-14-2012 07:48 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(10-13-2012 08:48 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(10-13-2012 07:09 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(10-12-2012 09:50 PM)TOGC Wrote:  

(10-12-2012 08:27 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Oh so Romney is Reagan?

If he is, then we're all f*cked.

Yes, we wouldn't want all that economic growth that we had with Reagan. We could use a little more big government, European-style, economic meltdown.

What's also funny is that we often heard of Reagan being typecast as a militaristic "cowboy." But can anyone name a country that he invaded with ground forces? Aside from our 3-day Grenada one, that is. Can anyone name a country we occupied and nation-built under Reagan? Me neither.

Meanwhile, our arch-enemy at the time was the USSR and the Cold War was at its most tense when he took office. Yet despite Reagan's tough talk, he sat with Gorbachev and signed several high profile treaties, virtually unheard of in previous administrations. Simply put, his foreign policy - despite being looked on as being aggressive and 'cowboy' - would be considered peacenik compared to some of the things following it (and certainly compared to the Vietnam era prior).

I'm far from a Reagan worshipper. But a solid economy and very little in the way of wars sounds good right about now, and I'd vote for him in a heartbeat over Mitt/Obama (then again, I'd vote for Slick Willy before these two guys as well). He expanded government more than conservatives may like to admit, but it was a molehill combined with the mountain built by Bush's 2nd term and now Obama's 1st.

Revisionist history. The economy under Reagan didn't take off until his second term. UE was 7.3% when he got re-elected.

Educate yourself on the GDP growth rate starting his third year. It will show you you're wrong.

In the fourth quarter of 1982, the economy grew at a slow 0.3 percent rate. Starting in 1983 the quarterly growth rates were 5.1 percent, 9.3 percent, 8.1 percent and 8.5 percent, respectively. Compared to Reagan's years Obama's is beyond pathetic and paltry.

(10-14-2012 07:07 AM)Vewb1 Wrote:  Again, ninerfan and sumofallfears, it's clear and well documented that the initial riots which took place were a response to the viral video produced in the United States. Too much Fox News makes for misinformation all planned by conservatives. That's perfectly clear too.

Those two statements back to back define irony.

Succinct, too. Nice work.

My further understanding from watching Meet the Press this morning is that requests were made to the embassy in Tripoli for increased security, not for the compound in Benghazi where the ambassdor was murdered. Secondly, conservatives CUT the budget for security at US embassies and compounds across the world by 300 million in the last budget. Does that help put things into persepctive? I hope so. Also, take note that many conservatives don't know the difference between an embassy and a compound.

(10-14-2012 09:26 AM)Vewb1 Wrote:  My further understanding from watching Meet the Press this morning is that requests were made to the embassy in Tripoli for increased security, not for the compound in Benghazi where the ambassdor was murdered. Secondly, conservatives CUT the budget for security at US embassies and compounds across the world by 300 million in the last budget. Does that help put things into persepctive? I hope so. Also, take note that many conservatives don't know the difference between an embassy and a compound.

You're such a raging idiot.

First since you ignored being called out on your moronic "it was the video" comment we can assume you concede you were wrong yet lack the backbone to admit it.

Second requests were made for both Tripoli AND Benghazi

Quote:State Department and military officials painted a horrific picture for lawmakers on Wednesday as they detailed a series of refused requests for added security at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Third, the State Department has stated money wasn't the issue.

Quote:the question was put directly to Charlene Lamb, the State Department's deputy assistant secretary for international programs, yesterday by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.):

"It has been suggested that budget cuts are responsible for a lack of security in Benghazi, and I'd like to ask Miss Lamb.You made this decision personally. Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which lead you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?"

"No, sir," said Lamb.

Word of advice. Refrain from trying to ridicule others for lack of understanding when your rampant ignorance is so blatantly obvious. Before you can have "further" understanding you need to at least have some understanding. Clearly you've not even advanced off of Go yet.

Ninerfan: I'm not one to offer alot of advice, but calling someone moronic or an idiot because they disagree with your comments or suggestions show nothing but a lack of intelligence. Secondly, calling someone those names on a message board and face to face are two different things. I highly doubt you would call me such names in person. Thus, showing how much of a coward you are. In the future, I would suggest you leave those names on your keyboard and for somone else. Finally, you know for a fact that security improvements were made for both locations? The report from "The Hill" is merely a conservative slant on the issue. Anyone can say at anytime, they were warned against one thing or another. I'm certain, thousands could say they warned George W. Bush about the original 9/11 attacks, claim they were whistleblowers and no one listened. The Hill article lacks specifics as to when the requests were made, why and by whom and under what circumstances. We also don't know what evidence or information was actually provided. Maybe the consolate was short on facts like conservatives? The officials ran the information by two additional state department officials who argreed with Lamb. Why do you think that happened? Did they want those in Benghazi to die? I think not. Do you in your right mind believe that requests for security were turned down by Lamb when she knew or had serious reason to believe that officials would be attacked or killed? How many and how often do such consolates and other embassies ask for increased security? I'm certain it happens all the time, I'm certain that many times it's provided and I'm certain that sometimes it's not. How do you know that or prove it? Most conservatives are short on facts and details and long on inuendo and lies. My guess is you have no idea where security requests were made unless you have security clearance with the US gov't. As a rule, 49 fans are left out in the cold on those matters.

That was precious fool.

I didn't call you a moron for disagreeing with my opinion. I called you a moron for stating as facts things that are completely counter to the facts. Note you didn't dispute a single fact I posted because you can't. You are wrong in absolutely every way. You said it was the video, it wasn't. You said no requests were made for more security in Benghazi, there were. I don't need security clearance to know what multiple news outlets have reported as fact. I even gave you one to click and read though you're too lazy to do it. You said the money was to blame, a State official testifying under oath before Congress said it wasn't.

Your effort to deflect from being proven wrong on every point you made is admirable, though pathetically transparent. You're a sheep. When faced with facts that run counter to your view all you can do is stick your head in the sand.

(10-14-2012 10:27 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  That was precious fool.

I didn't call you a moron for disagreeing with my opinion. I called you a moron for stating as facts things that are completely counter to the facts. Note you didn't dispute a single fact I posted because you can't. You are wrong in absolutely every way. You said it was the video, it wasn't. You said no requests were made for more security in Benghazi, there were. You said the money was to blame, a State official testifying under oath before Congress said it wasn't.

Your effort to deflect from being proven wrong on every point you made is admirable, though pathetically transparent. You're a sheep. When faced with facts that run counter to your view all you can do is stick your head in the sand.

I that would be an ostrich, not a sheep, although I believe it's more legend than truth about ostriches. Otherwise, spot on.

(10-14-2012 10:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-14-2012 10:27 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  That was precious fool.

I didn't call you a moron for disagreeing with my opinion. I called you a moron for stating as facts things that are completely counter to the facts. Note you didn't dispute a single fact I posted because you can't. You are wrong in absolutely every way. You said it was the video, it wasn't. You said no requests were made for more security in Benghazi, there were. You said the money was to blame, a State official testifying under oath before Congress said it wasn't.

Your effort to deflect from being proven wrong on every point you made is admirable, though pathetically transparent. You're a sheep. When faced with facts that run counter to your view all you can do is stick your head in the sand.

I that would be an ostrich, not a sheep, although I believe it's more legend than truth about ostriches. Otherwise, spot on.

Fair point. Mixing metaphors is always a taboo.

(10-14-2012 09:26 AM)Vewb1 Wrote:  My further understanding from watching Meet the Press this morning is that requests were made to the embassy in Tripoli for increased security, not for the compound in Benghazi where the ambassdor was murdered. Secondly, conservatives CUT the budget for security at US embassies and compounds across the world by 300 million in the last budget. Does that help put things into persepctive? I hope so. Also, take note that many conservatives don't know the difference between an embassy and a compound.

With your statements in this thread, you show you have no capacity for understanding. Now, STFU.