SarasotaSabre

Property? A hunk of cells like a tumor? That is your opinion but I think it is a crass one. I was tempted to not reply to this until I thought about the day I saw my unborn daughter's ultrasound for the first time - rest assured I did not view it as a "hunk of cells".

Abolition? now that's an entirely different subject..... :P

which is what both candidates try to do every Presidential election

I applaud you trying to establish a rational opinion on a very difficult subject.

you bet

Linked to insert a bit of levity....... EDIT: I am not intending this to be mean spirited or partisan. I'm sure you meant "secession", right ?

To be perfectly honest, I know there is a snowball in hell chance of something like this being enacted, so I have not thought about the requirements/variables you bring up. You raise good questions but at face value the determination of how to satisfy your questions would be impossible to fairly decide upon and manage.

that video is frightening. So much for an informed electorate. I really wish there was some form of basic civics test to pass in order to vote, but I am sure that would smack of disenfranchisement. I hope to hell I didn't sound like that in college..... :wallbash:

You are correct, but, again - the naming of the exact terrorist group was not the main thrust of my post. I have explained it already but will do so again....It was twofold: 1) I commented on the significance of the emails to the WH which attributed the Benghazi attack specifically to terrorist activity; 2) the speed with which the email transmissions were sent to the WH - within 2 hours of the onset of the attack.

No, you are dead wrong in that it was not necessary to throw in your snarky comment to me, and I was not "trying to slip a fast one in there." I suggest you carefully re-read my original post upthread in which I cited a credible news source (Reuters) which disclosed direct evidence of emails to the WH specifically identifying terrorist responsibility within 2 hours. If you take a moment to read the bolded part specifically, what I intended to convey was the significance of written correspondence to the WH alleging terrorist responsibility. This is not tantamount to Ansar Al-Sharia being unequivocally culpable for the attack - but I think this is what you wanted to read into my post. The important context of my original post was the very fast timeframe that these emails were sent, something I find significant. And it's not just Reuters.......http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57538689/emails-detail-unfolding-benghazi-attack-on-sept-11/?tag=AverageMixRelated +1

Nice try ? Really, is that necessary ? whatever, you have your opinion, I have mine.

So do you think she actually went on those shows and delivered that messaging on her own accord? Proof ? I haven't seen any to support this level of certainty you are positing.

My guess is twofold: 1) he did not want to appear to be too combative/aggressive to women/undecideds, & 2) in part because he expected Obama to be equipped with a prepared response. With regard to #1, this seems to match his overall tenor during the debate. This also resulted in his ability to not get suckered in by Obama's sniping. Somewhat of a rope-a-dope strategy. Not saying I agreed with it entirely, just trying to answer your question.

then why trot out Susan Rice the following Sunday to spout off nonsensically about the video crap ? That totally contradicts Carney. Sounds like something was clearly decided upon between Carney's statement & Rice's appearance on the Sunday talk shows. then why trot out Susan Rice the following Sunday to spout off nonsensically about the video crap ? That totally contradicts Carney. Sounds like something was clearly decided upon between Carney's statement & Rice's appearance on the Sunday talk shows.

I thought I spelled out my points very concisely. If I lost you, I honestly don't know how unless you are feigning ignorance, which I do not suspect. You strike me a competent and well-informed contributor. We obviously have a difference of opinion on "bumbling confusion" versus cover-up. Again, if there was so much confusion, why then not just say something to the effect of "we don't have all the facts in and thus cannot speculate on the root cause" versus trotting out Susan Rice 5 days later to pin it on the video? I guess we will have to agree to disagree, and I'm fine with that. that was a strategic decision - do you not know why he avoided what you are referring to ?

and what is my point? that for the first time it would appear a credible news source (Reuters) has disclosed direct evidence of emails to the WH specifically identifying terrorist responsibility within 2 hours. This was a 7 hour attack. No American security forces were effectively summoned as it could have saved at least 2 of the 4 lives lost. That seems to me a pretty big deal to me. It also tells me someone within the WH who does not want to fall on the sword went ahead and tipped off Reuters with this email evidence. My point is that a coverup on this scale was unnecessary and avoidable, and it undermines the credibility of this Administration from the top down. The known lies which were constructed and foisted upon the American public is sickening.

the problem with your statement is that he DID NOT mention the Benghazi attack as specifically attributable to act of terror, with the act of terror being the defined root cause of the attack. It stands to reason that your interpretation of his speech is that of a literal reference to the attack as an act of terror - that seems to be a stretch conisdering his exact words from the speech transcript. "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for." http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/10/16/replay-obamas-rose-garden-remarks-on-libya/ But hey, that's your opinion and you are entitled to it.

does not look good for our Commander in Chief ......... http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-benghazi-emails-idUSBRE89N02C20121024 is this the October surprise ? or does Gloria have something on Mitt? or does the Donald have something on Barry? Inquiring minds want to know ......

Probably true on your part. Among undecideds/independents, they concurred that Mitt was successful in holding his own in appearing to be knowledgeable, credible, and informed on foreign affairs. His strategy was not to try to win that fight in a knockout brawl, but to bring the debate back to a strong economy which enables our foreign policy. In this regard, Obama again continues to have no record to run on regarding the economy. All focus groups post-debate which I have heard and seen point to a draw or Obama eking out a debate victory on points, but not significantly enough to swing the Romney momentum. What did Obama talk about for the economic vision of his second term? Nothing again other than hiring more teachers and asking the rich "to pay their fair share" as a means of debt/deficit reduction.

Romney looked and sounded Presidential last night. Obama looked like the challenger; petulant, insulting, condescending, smirking, and channeling his inner Biden. Kudos to Mitt for not taking the bait and sticking to his plan.

sure, no problem boss .....

That is a great point, well-done ..... !

I have read and re-read NFreeman last point you bolded, which was to say the dialogue was "beneath both of you." - I honestly do not see how that comment could have been construed as sanctimonious, condescending, and/or hypocritical. I understand the passion & intensity of this topic overall, and I don't begrudge anyone for his/her reaction as such. I thought his comment was more to the point of "c'mon, you two are better than this". Not trying to stir the pot or play 3rd man in here (God knows there is alot of that on this thread), just trying to make an observation, an honest one at that.

I agree 100%, I have learned alot about some things I was not well-informed on, and have come to appreciate the viewpoints of those I may not totally agree with - and with that comes a sense of humility. OK, off my soapbox now ..... :flirt:

agreed - so are you saying that as a consumer-driven economy, people will always buy no matter if they can afford it? Speaking for myself, I have said no to a handful of home improvement projects/appliances over the last 2 years just because these purchases were outside the scope of my budget and I simply have not wanted to incur more debt.