Sure a joke. We are having trouble telling them apart from your regular posts. Also, are you pro colonial?
Another Obama Lie : He knew Benghazi was terror attack, not protest
Posted 18 January 2014 - 11:20 AM
Posted 31 January 2014 - 12:51 PM
It was an embassy, man. Innocent diplomats, great people. You don't fire shoulder mounted rockets at embassies.
People deserve to be called out on Benghazi, though I think it's obvious that Republicans are more concerned with smearing the administration than they are with actual justice. But they aren't wrong.
The US embassy in Libya was and is in Tripoli, not Benghazi. The compound in Benghazi was a mission.
As is now common knowledge, the mission contained a CIA outpost that held locals. Additionally, weapons were moved through this outpost, with many reports linking those weapons to Syrian rebels. Ambassador Stevens also was instrumental in laying the groundwork for the Libyan rebels in their efforts to oust Qaddafi - Stevens was even dispatched as the US envoy to the Libyan opposition in April of 2011.
What happened in Benghazi was a classic case of blowback, the results of clandestine operations that the public is generally not made aware of - the unseen effects of imperialism. This was not a case of crazies attacking an official embassy of kind, gentle souls bringing light into the darkness of the world. Until Benghazi is discussed in this manner, and not in the foolish and childish rantings of Republicans wondering why Marines, tanks, and bombers weren't flown in to incinerate the area, or why there wasn't a military division stationed there to thwart potential attacks, it's detrimental to any serious attempts at finding a solution to the incident.
- mykevermin likes this
Posted 31 January 2014 - 02:34 PM
What happened in Benghazi was a classic case of blowback, the results of clandestine operations that the public is generally not made aware of - the unseen effects of imperialism.
No, no, no... It was because they hate our freedom and because someone released a video on the internet that attacked their religion. Duh.
Posted 31 January 2014 - 04:05 PM
It is easy to say now because we know he can never be elected but I GUARANTEE you Romney would have turned the economy around. I don't care if he dresses or acts like someone from the 1950s, he had good business sense and knew exactly what it took to get the economy running again and thats all that matters not all this other side distraction BS.
The reason why people don't see what you do is because EVEN serious libertarian economists will say "just because you know how to run a company, does not mean you know how to run the government."
My personal take on it is that companies can behave they way they do, BECAUSE the government offers support programs. (I think the American government offers TOO MANY programs, but SOME are necessary).
To take an example of all those successful businesses. Every time a company seems to go through hard times, they start firing their work force, while still giving the executives raises for doing such a great job. (For the record, this is not how trickle-down economics works)
Now, let's assume those companies are making the RIGHT decision to fire all those people (because they ARE successful). What lets them fire all those people without a care, is because the person getting fired knows that they have some time to search/get a job. Otherwise, being fired would = risking death for so many (because the average American does not apparently believe in saving money, or cutting back on entertainment or luxuries), and in this great nation with gun rights and the belief of not being oppressed by anyone, you can guess how people would respond. And the FEAR of that possible response, would keep those successful companies from doing the "right" thing of firing them in hard economic times, thus making them less successful.
Getting to your idea about Romney repealing the ACA, he probably would do it. Not because he knows any better (because remember Romney-care?), but because that's what the party would have demanded of him.
Next, I think it is interesting that in that article you cited, you focused on the 1/5 part of the GDP, and NOT the part where ACA is trying to REDUCE that, and you're still going on about this being some sort of power-grab.
And the ACA IS trying to reduce spending on Medicare/Medicaid. Because of the Baby Boomers, those programs are quickly headed for bankruptcy. (The problem with the ACA, is that it may shift the expense to the American people, or to people holding insurance)
Regardless, the point is to REDUCE government spending. You should be happy about that.
Lastly, as another piece of food for thought, here's the problem with the privatization of government services which is supposed to make them cheaper and more efficient. (Putting aside issues of accountability and transparency)
Take Blackwater for example. They actually took on a lot of the work in Iraq and Afghanistan. They pay their soldiers a BUTT-LOAD more than US Army pays theirs. As a result more soldiers would prefer to work for a private contractor instead of the army.
Here's where the problem comes in: WHO PAYS for the salaries of the Blackwater soldiers? Blackwater gets no-bid contract work for the government. The government gets its money from taxes.
So instead of paying $30,000 per soldier, the US taxpayer ends up paying $80,000-100,000 per soldier.