This conversation is closed.

Romney's verbal attack on our President, over the Libyan terrorist strike at our embassy, border's on a stupid variety of treason

Nobody blamed Pres. Bush for the 9/11 attack. Nor was anyone blamed for the initial 90's terrorist attack in NY City.
But it is (at the very least) infantile foolishness to blame the US, in any manner, for attacks on its embassies. It is the internatilnally accepted obligation of various host countries to protect all diplomatic personnel, and all our embassies are legally considered to be US territory,
Whenever and wherever the US is attacked, patriots should unite to protect us (US!) all.

  • Sep 14 2012: Sixty-nine years ago I volunteered for the WW II Army of the U. S.; served until June '46, and was honorably discharged.My motivation? When I was a 14 year old I went to see the Battleship Oklahoma on its good-will visit. On 12/7/1941 I (by then, 15 years old) got up that (Sunday) morning, and heard (on the radio) that the USS Oklahoma was on the bottom at Pearl Harbor. I flat out cried.
    At 17 then, I went in for my shot, AT PEOPLE WHO HAD THE TEMERITY TO ATTACK U.S.A. Too late for me to abandon that same life-stance now, and I don't give a damn who knows it.
    Don't let politics make you support people who demean our US
    • thumb
      Sep 14 2012: And don't let politics make you support people who will separate this country into the haves and have-nots.
      • thumb
        Sep 14 2012: Do you think rank opinion has finally by passed honor in politics John? or is this a new era?
        • thumb
          Sep 14 2012: This is the new era ken. It is the end of politics as we know it. Those who would rule this country are pulling out all the stops.It is the beginning of the end. I would suggest you learn to speak Chinese. The only thing keeping these politicians and wealthy rulers at bay has been the one vote per person constitutional right. So they will seek other means. Stevens died in the line of duty. I have suspicions about these events. The timing is not right. Accomplishing such things outside our borders is harder than doing it inside.
        • thumb
          Sep 14 2012: I vote for a new era...one with intelligent, peaceful solutions:>)
    • thumb
      Sep 14 2012: By my (questionable) math you are 86 years-old,Mr. Poree. Thank you, sir, for your gallant service to America. Your post is provocative and, for me, a bit ambiguous. The fact that you are an honorable Army veteran and take offense at anyone who attacks the USA makes it hard for me to understand your condemnation of Mr. Romney's call for a more substantial, fitting response from the administration than the ill-advised one offered by some low-level bureaucrat. I see Mr. Romney's actions as consistent with what you call for in your post. . . " Whenever and wherever the US is attacked, patriots should unite to protect us (US!) all." God bless you, sir.
      • thumb
        Sep 14 2012: I'm sorry Edward but war, killing, collateral damage, dying babies, shattered bodies, blood and gore, our children maimed for life; it is not always the answer.

        If this is an example of how Romney would respond, I surely don't want him in the White House.
        • thumb
          Sep 15 2012: I'm having considerable trouble getting folks to quote the exact words spoken by Romney they, you, are speaking of. Please help by injecting some specificity into this lynch mob atmosphere. Thank you John!
  • thumb
    Sep 13 2012: Treason? Come on! Let's not trade indiscretion for hyperbole.
  • Sep 13 2012: I wouldn't agree with argument that Romney's verbal attack on the Presdient borders on treason. But I will say that his response was too early, as he gave his statement around an hour or two before any Americans died, which makes his response and verbal attack on Obama stupid. I mean he was demanding that Obama apologize and respond to something that hadn't even happened yet. Again, not treason. Just early, ill-advised and stupid.
    • thumb
      Sep 14 2012: Not true he responded to the Egyptian Ambassadors official statement made right after the attack. That statement constituted and appology from the US.
  • thumb
    Sep 13 2012: Do you believe Egyptian, or Lybian citizens should have a say in how American citizens exercise their First Amendment rights on American soil? The President distanced his administration from the controversial statement issued by the American embassy in Egypt which was basically an apology for the American film. Mr. Romney said the apology was inappropriate and consistent with the administration's policies. Why do you characterize that as a "verbal attack", "stupid", "treason"? No one blamed the President for the slaughter of peaceful American citizens. Do you think our embassy should apologize to Egypt or Lybia for the movie? (remember the 1st Amendment guarantee of freedom of expression).
    • thumb
      Sep 14 2012: Edward, do you really think that the President of the Untied States would apologize for something that only some people are just now coming to know about?

      The guy who made the movie says it is not the movie he made. It was cut up, overdubbed and turned into an animal that even he doesn't recolonize. It has all the hallmarks of an Al Qaeda style attack. Even the Egyptian President states the protests started before the move was even viewed by anybody in Egypt. YouTube took it down in the overseas nodes but it is still up in the USA. Even most Americans didn't know about the movie until after the attacks.

      The original name of the movies Title was "Desert Warriors" and was Muslim tested compliant with all things Islam. It was bastardized to use as a weapon to allow the militants (200 of them) to get in place and for the attack but they got their timing wrong. The protestors got in place and did their thing. Stevens and the peole inside didn't have a clue what was going on outside so this slowed down their getting the heck out of dodge.

      By the time they realizes what was going on, it was too late the attack had begun.

      The president didn't have a pre-authorize statement about the incident. (look at the timing of the operation, look at the tweets) He just acted on the info he had at that moment when asked for info by the presidents of the other countries. They wanted to know what the best course of action was, they were confused. It was a well planned well execute attack but it revealed too much about the planning. It reveled that someone on our side of the equation leaked information about the safe house. The only one with a prepared speech was....... Romney.
      • thumb
        Sep 14 2012: Are you hinting that Romney was part of some nefarious plot to foment these murderous attacks against American citizens? Please be clear, sir.
  • thumb
    Sep 15 2012: A very updating tidbit of information about Marines and American Embassies:

    "...In 1999, Ambassador Christopher Hill, was serving in Macedonia when local police officers were overwhelmed by demonstrators. He says people incorrectly believe U.S. Marines are based at embassies to stop violence.

    “The Marines are a very small unit and their primary job is protect American documents," Hill explained. "They are not there to provide a perimeter defense. Essentially you are looking for a local government to do that.”..."

    Read the whole articel here: http://www.voanews.com/content/us-beefs-up-security-after-embassy-attacks/1507773.html
  • thumb
    Sep 15 2012: Ok....pundits
  • thumb
    Sep 15 2012: There is a very wide ocean between us and them. Their arrows and rocks can't reach us.
    • Sep 15 2012: Wide Ocean???
      Didn't stop America haters' determination to damage us-- 9/11, remember?, abetted by typical lousy bureaucratic Intelligence work by our untouchables. Reminds me, a good while after the Soviets shot down Powers, those untouchables still sacrificed another U-2 (over Cuba). Good for Goof-ups, damn near all bureaucracies.
  • thumb
    Sep 14 2012: Developments has taken a new turn in the ME,it could spread across more than one part of the planet or calm down,Arab winter or cyclone? who knows? If Romney and your president stood together while your countrymen were brought home it could've brought things back to an even slate or ridiculed? again who knows but in a time of mourning things can be set aside even for just a moment,even if it looks false. it is remembered
  • Sep 14 2012: My point gets masked in all this politicizing chat.
    MY POINT: WHENEVER THE U.S.A. IS ATTACKED, ALL PATRIOTS PICK UP THE GUNS AND LINE UP- TOGETHER, AGAINST OUR AGGRESSOR.
    People who want to make political capital out of the USA getting hurt will never make sense to me.
    • thumb
      Sep 14 2012: Mr Poree, As I have stated and proven on the comments below. This was a response to the OFFICIAL release from the Egyptian Ambassador which was later affirmed by the Secretary of State Ms Clinton. Again confirmed and noted in my comments below. Gov Romney's response was in regards to the Ambassador and Secretary Clintons response in the form of an appology. Since these people work directly for the President guess who takes the heat. As Harry Truman once said the buck stops here (the desk of the president).

      Again this was not political gain it was an argument against the appology from the state department. This is not a new discussion as the president himself has appoligised for the United States in the past during his bow to the muslim kings tour.

      I accept your argument that we are are patriots and love the United states but before firing the first volley lets us do what Ambassador Steven died for ... seek a lasting solution that would preclude this type of event from reoccuring. I am a vet also ... but war should be the finial solution not the first.
  • thumb
    Sep 14 2012: Twit Rummy can't win the election. He can only steal it. Perhaps in a nation of sheep, he has a good chance......There is president after all...
    • thumb
      Sep 14 2012: Yep there is presidence ... happened in the last election but we can correct that this year.

      Thanks for the support.
    • thumb
      Sep 15 2012: Perhaps Ron Paul could be a consideration.

      Obama doesn't appear to be doing a lot on the issue of the Embassy attacks or the Iranian drive to develop a nuclear weapon. Romney, I agree, is a hopeless, republican castaway, of a party that really doesn't want to run against a president that is giving them most of what they want anyway.
      • thumb
        Sep 15 2012: RE: ABC speech by Romney on youtube. Thank you for the reference/link. I got this from it:
        The Conservative candidate for President offered condolences to survivors. He supported the long-standing policy of allowing no tolerance for physical attacks on the citizens and property of the USA. He defended the 1st Amendment rights of US citizens. He condemned the official government apology for the actions of a US citizen exercising his 1st Amendment rights. He referenced the President's effort to disassociate himself from the apology statement. He pointed-out the derision and lack of preparedness in the Administration. He suggested the need of the moment is for competent, decisive, prepared leadership. Which of those observations constitutes a verbal attack on our President and a stupid act of treason?
        • thumb
          Sep 15 2012: Again and again you and I have offered that perhaps there were other statements and that this was not a political attack but rather a statement condeming the yet again appoligy from the United States.

          I notice that neither the comments by you or me were responded to with the exception of Mr Poree who said that if the appology was made it would be cretinous and that I would believe anything.

          Facts be damned this is politics not about the event. A shame.

          Bob.
        • thumb
          Sep 15 2012: Treason is probably a bit over the hilltop as far as the truth is concerned. The word is sometimes used in the passion of the moment. Let it go Edward. It's enough to say that Romney is giving everyone in his party buyer's remorse, In fact the whole country appears to have buyers remorse. Like Robert implied. It's not about what's real it about politics.

          The green flag is up so let the race continue.

          Glancing at the news over coffee, I notice even the protesters have gone home.
  • thumb
    Sep 14 2012: I blame the killers.

    Cheap shot by Romney. But that is politics. Say it loud and often enough and those who want t believe will.

    Having said that, it is up to the punters to call politicians on their bull.
    • thumb
      Sep 14 2012: I refuse to consider blows below the belt to be considered as "politics".
      People who think dirty tactics are part of politics inherently accept it whereas they should be outraged by such tactics. Such practices actually reveal much more about its author than the person at whom these dirty shots are aimed.
      A political candidate should challenge his/her opponents with criticism of his or her actions and ideas. NOTHING ELSE. The rest is despicable and people who still believe that something can be done in politics should not view it as normal.
      "That's NOT politics!".
      • thumb
        Sep 14 2012: Which exact words of Mr. Romney's have aroused your ire ? I am trying to understand this issue. Thank you!
        • thumb
          Sep 14 2012: Mr Long,
          To have a view form both sides (left & right), a Google search "romney libya" would suffice.
          In a nutshell: Blaming your opponent only hours after a terrorist attack is beyond shameful. As a matter of fact, just u-s-i-n-g this to try to win an election is despicable.
        • thumb
          Sep 15 2012: Here's the youtube speech on ABC News, the morning after the attacks. Edward.
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5LmmnmYVwg

          This is what Clinton said:
          "Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet," Clinton said in a statement released by the State Department. "The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind. "

          This site tells the entire story from start to finish of the attack and Romney's responses and the times they occurred:
          http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57511707/how-badly-did-romney-botch-response-to-libya-attack/
      • thumb
        Sep 15 2012: Again, sir, which exact words spoken by Romney upset you?
    • thumb
      Sep 14 2012: Obey and Bruno,
      It seems like you are saying the same thing, which I agree with. Cheap shot by Romney...such practices actually reveal much more about its author than the person at whom these dirty shots are aimed.

      This practice is common politics for some people, and to try to demean another person simply to win an election gives us information about that person. Romney has the reputation of saying whatever he needs to say to try to "win". Is that the kind of leader we want? Hopefully, the American people have had enough, and are willing and able to "call politicians on their bull", when they/we go into the voting booth.
      • thumb
        Sep 14 2012: You should see nz politics Colleen

        It will shock you,we've even had what we call "Punch ups" in our parliament house and at one stage had to muzzle everyone through laws to stop it degrading to out right libel and lies being published by our 4th state(they can get a little excited sometimes) but compared to the rest of the planet,it's a rowdy townhall meeting on town business.
        • thumb
          Sep 14 2012: Hi Ken,
          Excitement is good! Continual fighting for political agendas is not good. Those we elect are thinking, feeling, intelligent adults who are often projecting something very different. It's amazing and sad what happens to some folks when they get into their particular mind-set. They sometimes totally forget why they are in that position.....or maybe THEIR agenda is more important to them than the whole.
    • thumb
      Sep 14 2012: "Punters"?
      • thumb
        Sep 15 2012: Ed I found it:

        Australian colloquial term for voting citizens

        I had to go through a number of definations ... and walla.

        Bob
        • thumb
          Sep 15 2012: Thanks for your research. I never would have decoded that one! It sounds derogatory, I wonder if it is meant to be?
    • thumb
      Sep 14 2012: Obey ... like Ed asked what are punters. In Brit speak that is betters at the races or pole boaters on the Thames. Help a yank out here ... define please.

      Bob.
      • thumb
        Sep 15 2012: Robert......Punsters.
        • thumb
          Sep 15 2012: Nope he was right:

          Australian colloquial term for voting citizens

          I had to go through a number of definations but there it is.

          Bob.
  • thumb
    Sep 13 2012: At the bottom of this ... which you ommited .. was the statement from the Egyptian Embassy. The official representative suggested that America should appolgise. If memory serves me the President has also taken that very same line.

    That an official statement was issued that was consistant with the administrations previous stand was not such a leap.

    Being a political sheeple makes one familiar with the taste of eating crow.

    Have a nice day.
    • Sep 14 2012: The Egyptian Embassy 's alleged proposal that we(!) apologize would be cretinous, if they truly did so

      And Mr. Winner, you make it clear to me that some people believe anything.
      • thumb
        Sep 14 2012: Thats ok I forgive you.
        • thumb
          Sep 14 2012: You both could argue or you could look at the tweets yourself and get the true picture.

          Most people find more enjoyment in making up their own points to have a good argument.

          Enjoy you two.
      • thumb
        Sep 14 2012: Found under Egypt Apology on the web:

        Instead, Clinton reiterates an apology issued earlier today by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo--now deleted--which said: "We condemn the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims."

        "The U.S. deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others," Clinton said. "Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation," she added.

        However, the White House has distanced itself from such apologies, according to Politico, saying that they were not "cleared by Washington."

        Clinton and Obama are fighting over this and .. this is funny ... what city is the capital of Israel.

        Evidently, there is some discord in Washington.

        Last week, the State Department contradicted the President when it reiterated its position that the U.S. does not consider Jerusalem the capital of Israel.

        President Obama was reported to have intervened with the Democratic Party leadership during the Democratic National Convention to re-insert language supporting Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

        However, Politico reported--and then quietly scrubbed--the fact that President Obama had likely insisted on the change, after a controversy on his administration's evolving Jerusalem policy.

        Regardless, at the end of the week the State Department and the White House found themselves at odds--just as they do today over the apology to Egypt for the attack on the U.S. embassy on 9/11.

        Look under Egypt apology and read for yourself ... Enjoy.

        John, I read the tweets also ...However that was not an official statement .. This was.
        • thumb
          Sep 14 2012: Okay Robert. If you were our diplomat on the scene, what would you have done or said?
      • thumb
        Sep 14 2012: John, That would be a tough call. However, Just being who I am I would have two things in place. 1) A standard contengency plan for actual and anticipated actions; 2) A complete news release blackout from the site. All information should go to Washington. The on scene ambassador should be directing his attention to the safety of his staff.

        By doing that the communications problems would have been focused to the Secretary of States office who could then have coordinated a response with the president for a joint news release accurately stating the US position.

        The politicians have allowed the media to dictate in these cases. The media wants an immediate response and that means sometimes prior to knowing all of the facts. We need a statement that says we are aware of a situation that occured in XYZ and are attempting to garner all of the facts. When we know the facts we will call a press meeting for a statement from the administration.

        Instead what we have is a cluster f... as we called them in the military. Statement from Cairo Embassy, backed by the Secretary of State, and rejected by the President. To me this was a real black eye. Not the attack, our lack of protocol.

        Anyway John does that give you some idea of where I would have went.

        Bob.
        • thumb
          Sep 15 2012: Mr. Winner, would you consider running for president? Somehow they do not understand protocol out east. Never thought I would say this, but I miss Henry Kissinger.

          I think both you and Mr. Poree are correct. Diplomacy first, and if that fails we let Mr. Poree at them. First things first.
        • thumb
          Sep 15 2012: Not too shabby.

          Everything I saved and bookmarked has been deleted. I no longer have any evidence of who said what or when they said it.

          I would suggest that everyone start saving a hard copy instead of bookmarking. There are many more players in the game than the candidates for the next election, who don't appear to know anything at all: perhaps David Hamilton has the best take on this issue yet.

          Obama's PR people are just as quirky as Romney's. It's almost like neither person cares if they win the next election.

          The only person who appears to have handled a situation much larger than this with better finesse is ..... I can't bring myself to say the name.......... George W. Bush. But, it should be noted there is a large handicap associated with the scale of the two events. I would add that The western worlds mindset is much better informed about the Middle Eastern situation than previous to September the 11th (my son's birthday), 2001. We appear to be less prone to apologize, and more inclined to attack.

          With this highly evolved, western world mindset, I think neither candidate has shown any resolve to deal with the Middle Eastern Mindset, which appears to remain, burn the flag, destroy Israel and the USA (I guess old habits are hard to break).

          I offer this overview written By DAVID E. SANGER and ASHLEY PARKER of the New York Times, written today, Sept. 14, 2012, which appears to summarize all our frustration and disbelief with either candidate:
          http://moonstroller.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=9.0

          It's starting to look like all of us in this commenting section have more in common than we realize. Perhaps we are all frustrated with so much to do and so little choice to accommodate our frustration.

          To me.... it's looking more like Ron Paul is the man for the job. Crazy as he is.... his ideas appear to have more bearing on the frustrations we voice. Never thought I'd say that either.
  • thumb
    Sep 13 2012: Aren't those pretty much the two options for identifying something Romney says? Isn't it always either stupid or treasonous?
    • thumb
      Sep 14 2012: So out of character for you sir. I must nominate you for "Sweeping Generalization of the Year". Unless, of course you can show that everything Mitt Romney has ever spoken has been stupid, treasonous, or both. By the way there is an unconfirmed report that Mrs. Clinton and Pres. Obama insisted that the Marines guarding the Lybian embassy not have ammunition for their firearms. If true does that bear on this discussion?
      • thumb
        Sep 14 2012: No... Obama is just as bad in regard to treason, provably, objectively.

        When either of them come out against the NDAA, and the Patriot Act, they will cease to be treasonous. Until then, any one under the command of the United States military has every right to arrest both of them for treason against the constitution of the United States, and formenting a revolution.

        Both acts, directly violate search and seizure, right to a trial, and jury of your peers. The entire United States government, which voiced support in congress for either act, should be in jail, and we should re elect new officials.

        Until either one, runs on the platform "Free Bradley Manning". I will continue to say, they are both objectively traitors. But, that was a sweeping generalization. It's not that everything he says is stupid, and treasonous, it's that everything he says, avoids numerous platform positions, which are direct violations of the US Constitution.
        • thumb
          Sep 14 2012: It is not likely that any presidential candidate will meet your stipulations, ever. Your points may be valid, only further investigation will tell. In the mean time you have positioned yourself outside the system for solving America's myriad problems. I encourage you to use your mind and energy to work within the system for the reclamation and restoration of our nation. Support the candidate you consider to be best for America. It's worth a try, David.
          --Edward
      • thumb
        Sep 14 2012: I do. Gary Johnson... I like Ron Paul too. I may seem pissed off about a whole lot, and to be fair, I am... but, the only things I feel are truly treasonous, are the patriot act, and the NDAA. If Obama would pardon Bradley Manning... I might even volunteer to help him out again, despite my frustration over the economy.

        I want a Bill of Rights again. I refuse to support any candidate willing to let it evaporate. I would happily rejoin society, if it was willing to abide by it's own rules. Also, I write a bit more crazy than I am. I already have a new political cause i'm supporting... That, to be honest, is purely socialist, so much for internal consistency. aguirreforgovernor.com Richard Aguirre, I volunteered for him last election as well, he's running for governor of California, and wants to desalinate ocean water, and put solar panels on our roofs.

        I'm active, I simply don't like paying taxes, and making money, while we're still at war, and have no constitution. Hopefully those circumstances will end in a few years. Otherwise, volunteering and stipend work is fun.
        • thumb
          Sep 14 2012: Even the outliers count! In November it is statistically certain that either Romney or Obama will become the next Pesident. We get 50 to pick from for Miss America, but only two for President. Only two! Support the candidate you consider to be best for America, or, to put it another way, support the candidate you believe has the best chance of defeating the candidate you really don't want to win. No surrender lad!
          --Edward
        • thumb
          Sep 14 2012: I'm a bit of a socialist myself David. We need you to be active. Let's give Obama one more shot. Edward is wise in these things. You should take his words and chew on them.


          You need to join my forum David. You too Edward. See my profile.
      • thumb
        Sep 14 2012: It's not true Edward. I wouldn't try walking past a marine at an Embassy without permission if I were you

        I could say more but I'm all written out at the moment. See my lates post to Linda at: I'll just go get it:
        Here it is:

        'Don't know what "It" is you are talking about Linda. Everyone is working as hard as they can to plug all the holes, looking at past Intell streams to find markers they missed. Etc.

        Somebody gave out info about Embassy security that only a few people would have known about.
        There is some problem with the timing of the video which was released in Egypt first, even before it was release in the USA. The video appears to follow the Attacks which make the video not the source of the protests. It looks like the first protest was staged to allow the terrorists to get into position (slow things down in the Embassy, creating confusion as to what was going on outside).,
        • thumb
          Sep 14 2012: This was a premeditated, direct, coordinated terrorist attack on the USA by Islamic terrorists (possibly to commemorate the events of 9-11-2001). Romney's remarks appear to represent the facts so I don't see them as "a stupid, treasonous, verbal attack" as Mr. Poree puts it. Thank you!
      • thumb
        Sep 14 2012: I'm going to vote for Johnson. If there was a chance Obama would lose California, I might be swayed to vote for him as the lesser of two evils... but I would prefer we abandon the 2 party system, so I will throw my vote away on a whole bunch of third party candidates... like I do most years.

        No surrender.
        • thumb
          Sep 14 2012: The only vote that is thrown away is the uncast vote.Whether America needs a third party or not is above my pay grade, but I know Socialism is contrary to individual freedom, which is what America has ALWAYS stood for. Many men have fought and many been wounded or killed to keep Totalitarianism, whether it be Socialism, or Communism, off our soil. You, sir, have chosen the tough row to hoe. The government is the problem, not the solution. Giving more power to the government (Socialism) exacerbates the problem. Use your vote, young man, to promote the solution. God Help Us! Be well,--Edward
      • thumb
        Sep 17 2012: I have not become a socialist... Simply the state of California is too socialist for capitalist solutions in the energy sector, and my candidate happens to be aware of that. The State of California owns all the beaches, and most of the deserts, so in order to concentrate solar power, or desalinate ocean water, the state needs to sell or use it's land.

        Richard Aguirre, has a plan to harness California's solar energy, and desalinate drinking water for the central valley so we can farm here again. I joke about him being a socialist, but aside from his energy and water solution, he is a capitalist. Actually running as a republican.

        The problem Edward, is that if the government is the problem... government reform is the answer. Not bigger government... but certainly dramatic reform. I refuse to accept the horrible, traitorous, and socialist government which currently controls us. I want creative problem solvers. While I wish the State of California, didn't already own all of our productive energy land... it does, so we have to implement state solutions.
        • thumb
          Sep 17 2012: A truly enlightening comment sir! Bravo! I fled Silicon Valley in '79 after 12 years, for the very conditions you mention. I just didn't realize those problems have continued to fester all this time.The good news is that some (more than a few) states are not so liberal (socialist). Perhaps the country will not follow the example set by the once great state of California. Maybe this coming Thanksgiving will bring a glimmer of bright hope for all 50 members of this union! Thank you David!
        • thumb
          Sep 17 2012: Quite a lively discussion you have here! allow me to stick my spoon in the jar (and take fire for it, of course). Embedded in the argument (more in Edward's than in yours) is the premise that government is bad and business is good. You provide an escape route, saying government might be bad but the solution then is to fix that bad government from within.

          Let me offer a different perspective. I do not buy the premise that business is good per se. In my view, as a social creature, i think a business is good if it creates more good for society than the bad that it creates. I an mot an idealist that thinks businesses can do zero bad and be pure and pristine. But if the balance is positive, i am ok with that kind of businesses.

          I have lived in the system long enough to know that the invisibly driven trickle down is not the kind of good that i value in a business (i am yet to see proof of trickle down benefit that goes beyond the 50% random chance of doing good or bad). Concrete benefits are my preference.

          So since my premise is, then that (forget government for a while), business is not good per se... why is it that people never discuss ways in which business (and capitalism in general) could be improved in order to benefit a larger number of individuals? Is thinking about others sacrilege within capitalism? (and i don't mean charity but thinking about ways of making business directly benefit others), is the libertarian point of view as fixed as a religion? how about the Austrian school of economics, is that fixed as a religion too? f not, where can these be improved?

          cheers
  • Sep 13 2012: Okay, I looked this up. While I support Obama, this is not bordering on treason. It's not wise for a political leader to criticize before getting his facts together. While Romney got his facts wrong, we have to wonder if this is the kind of thing that can decide a political race. It bothers me more that Romney had the city of LOndon yelling at him than this weird mistake. As this stuff continues it can stick. I am bothered more by who his supporters are. How can he deal with our real economic problems? This isn't baseball, there's no three strikes and your out rule. when the only person who agrees with you is Sarah Palin then the only person who agrees with you is Sarah Palin. Candidates have changed advisers during an election Romney probably has time. What would I really like - The kind of campaign that Barry Goldwater and Jack Kennedy discussed - civilized discourse and two(2) candidates on one(1) plane. Wouldn't the old way a Lincoln Douglas debate format be so much better than the way we do things now. Do better Mitt. Being President is not really that great a job.
  • Sep 12 2012: I'll read Huffington Post, read the local newspaper, and listen to NPR, before I decide what is happening. Your description sounds a little strong. I believe that the real problem with America is structural and both these men need to deal with it as Herbert Hoover did. How much more and what we need to do is something that should develop over time. It also probably involves doing stuff the big contributors don't want to do. Okay, now I have something to look for on the internet.