"The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior." -Dr. Phil
(1:00 am) This may be my last post before the election. If you have been unhappy with both major candidates, I am definitely with you on that. I hope that the information and approaches I've provided in this blog have been helpful in your decision process. But it's time to decide.
For this post, I've researched info on the candidates as relates to character. There is far too much to even just list here, so I'm going to focus just on the net difference on what I've found and concluded. You may think I'm partial to one side - I suspect that by now, everyone is to some degree - hopefully based on good research.
It's common knowledge that the mainstream media is biased, and so is Fox, so we still must distill the truth from all sources. My distillation is that, while both the Democrats and Republicans make some very good points, the Republicans make more sense to me, based on what I've learned in my nearly 70 years. While both parties have made a lot of gaffs and errors and shown a lot of mean-spirited attitudes, the Democrats have an edge there.
In my research on character, I've found more negative factors for Obama than for Romney. The main media has made Romney's negative factors quite well known, but have been lax in pointing out Obama's. So that's what I will work with here. At the bottom, I've linked to several sites that compare both fairly evenly. If you are interested, I encourage you to add to my research yourself - I think you'll be surprised how the media have left people uninformed. Just be sure to verify what you read/see.
Obama has some very positive personal traits that are very powerful: his legendary oratorical skills, and his amazing ability to see and articulate what people want deeply to hear. I saw both of those when I first heard him speak at the 2004 Democratic Convention.
What's been disturbing is how strong Obama's negative character traits are.
It is these traits that have come to weigh most heavily on my voting decision - even more that my opinions relative to Platforms and Plans. These concerns have far outweighed my concerns about Romney's unknowns (and negative knowns).
Some of Obama's Traits That Worry Me:
1. Obama's background
(which can't help but influence his character) as described in the movie 2016: Obama's America (available on Amazon and Redbox). Definitely different from Romney's background.
2. Blatantly broken campaign promises.
Note: This video says 65 Lies - I consider them broken promises (unless he had no intention of doing them), and I really count only about 30 or 40 as really broken - is that enough? For example: transparency, open meetings, 5 days posting of bills before he signs, find out what's in it before he signs it, names of corporations benefiting from bills, tax breaks posted online, negotiations on CSPAN, lobbyists won't drown out people's voices, Guantanamo base to close, no tax increase if income < $250,000, can keep your doctor & insur. plan, lots of shovel-ready projects, etc.
65 Outrageous Lies by President Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg9m1F8B2_c&feature=player_embedded#!
3. Self-centered, inconsiderate, and/or uneducated, and unwilling to do the required research (same for his staff).
He gave Prime Minister Gordon Brown a set of CDs that don't work on the British player equipment. He gave the Queen some cheap gifts he picked up at the airport gift shop, and gave them to her in a shopping bag.
London aghast at President Obama over gifts given to Prime Minister Brown
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-03-06/news/17918273_1_mr-obama-prime-minister-brown-michelle-obama
Obama’s Gift to the Queen
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/179711/obamas-gift-queen/jonah-goldberg#
A Picture Says a Thousand Words
The president simply can't be bothered to help his infirm friend down the stairs and instead leaves that task to the very police officer he belittled in front of the entire nation.
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2009/07/31/a-picture-says-a-thousand-words.php
4. Covering up bad effects of his own party's legislation.
His administration is giving waivers/delays to businesses til after the election. He told some that the government would pay any legal penalties they incurred for not following the law.
White House to contractors: Hold off on layoff warnings.
Defense contractors warn sequester would cost jobs in their industry
http://www.ksat.com/lifestyle/money/White-House-to-contractors-Hold-off-on-layoff-warnings/-/2602640/16783720/-/4gnmglz/-/index.html
EPA 'Punting Regs Until After Election That 'Spell Doom' for Jobs, Economy
http://www.freemarketamerica.org/web/media-2/articles-2/83-inhofe-epa-punting-regs-until-after-election-that-spell-doom-for-jobs-economy.html
5. Insensitive to the true gravity of situations.
He referred to the death of Ambassador Stephens and 3 others as "not optimal" and the Arab Spring violence as "bumps in the road."
MSM on Benghazi: “not optimal”
http://blog.sfgate.com/djsaunders/2012/10/30/msm-on-benghazi-not-optimal/
Obama: Sacked consulate and dead ambassador “bumps in the road”
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/24/obama-sacked-consulate-and-dead-ambassador-bumps-in-the-road/
6. Real problems with decision-making and/or truthfulness.
He and his top people have apparently grossly mishandled the Benghazi incident. See my Nov. 2 posts and these.
Latest Benghazi Bombshells Rock Scandal November 2, 2012 by Tim Brown
journalists were still locating sensitive State Department items in the burned out compound. Six weeks after the attack.
http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/11/latest-benghazi-bombshells-rock-scandal/#
More White House Cover-Up Lies On Benghazi? posted on November 3, 2012
http://godfatherpolitics.com/7877/more-white-house-cover-up-lies-on-benghazi/#
Obama's Benghazi investigator tied to Libya bombing
http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/obamas-benghazi-investigator-tied-to-libya-bombing/#
U.S. general: Obama paralyzed by fear
http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/u-s-general-obama-paralyzed-by-fear/#
7. He continually blames others for his problems.
It's Bush's fault, or the economy he inherited, or Congress, or the video about Mohammed, or the State Department, or the military, etc. This is so well documented that I won't link except this new one I saw.
Axelrod: ‘I’m Not in the White House, Privy to All the Discussions’ on Benghazi.
Axelrod: "The President convened the top military officials that evening and told them to do whatever was necessary and they took the steps that they thought, they took every step they could take."
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/332432/axelrod-im-not-white-house-privy-all-discussions-benghazi-%5Bfield_authors-title-raw%5D#
---LINKS to OTHER COMPARISONS---------------------
A Rare Positive Look at Both Presidential Candidates
http://oregoncoast.craigslist.org/pol/3377199063.html
Obama and Romney: candidate comparisons (Oct 24 2012)
http://www.ksat.com/news/2012-elections/-/6153890/16154398/-/76y21j/-/index.html
Artifacts of Character
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/choice-2012/the-artifacts/
2012 Candidate Comparison - (comprehensive)
http://2012.candidate-comparison.org/?compare=Romney&vs=Obama
---LINKS with RELATED INFO---------------------------------
Independent Blog - "I WAS a lifelong Conservative Democrat (Reagan Democrat) for 35+ years until the Democratic Party became something I no longer recognize. I am not a Republican."
http://romanticpoet.wordpress.com/about/
http://romanticpoet.wordpress.com/independents-are-gaining-steam-for-2010-elections/
Retired Military Overwhelming Endorses Mitt Romney (233 to 5)
http://godfatherpolitics.com/7881/retired-military-overwhelming-endorses-mitt-romney/#
Explosive video indictment of Obama rocks YouTube "CONSERVATISM IS CALLING"
I found this intriguing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsa4uLmTw0M&feature=player_embedded
May the better man win, and soon, and clearly.
"Thatch"
Showing posts with label Benghazi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Benghazi. Show all posts
Monday, November 5, 2012
Friday, November 2, 2012
CHARACTER - A LIFE & DEATH MATTER?
PHOTOSHOPPED FAMILY & BENGHAZI SWAP?
(5:30 am) The plan for this post was to look at the character of both candidates, and I typically start with Obama (alphabetically, both Obama and Democrat come before Romney and Republican). As I was doing my research, the inevitable rabbit trails led me down one of Alice's rabbit holes, and I came across stuff that was "interestinger and interestinger."
I don't know just what to make of it. I'm a technical person by profession (engineering, math, science). I don't care for fiction - I want to know what's real. But this stuff I've found is...either tabloid trash... or... critical to the election. It's too astounding to be believable but it fits the facts better than any explanation I know of. I URGE you to check this out fully before you dismiss it as junk, and before you vote.
There are 2 items I want to share in this post. The first is less critical, but quicker to state and verify. And it raises the question that other issues may shed some light on.
FIRST: The Photoshopped Family Photo.
This will take less than 60 seconds.
Go to Obama's Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/barackobama).
Then click in sequence: Photos / Albums / the photo labeled "Barack and his mother, Ann" (4th row, right side). Then pick the photo with 3 persons standing in front of chairs. This should show a larger version of Ann, Barack, and Ann's dad (I think) (the URL of that page:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150902091511749&set=a.10150902090006749.401812.6815841748&type=3&theater
Notice that Ann's right hand is... black! And this is on Obama's official page! Why would he post a photoshopped family photo??? For a further description of this photo, see:
http://www.obamashopped.com/
SECOND: The Benghazi Swap
Now for the more significant issue. Most of us have heard of the controversy about the confusion surrounding the Benghazi consulate attack and the death of the ambassador and 3 others. The President and his administration are all over the map on just what happened, who said what, and when. It was even brought up during one of the debates. The confusion is not over and there is Congressional investigation, with conflicting answers.
I've found many links on the issue, and many are lengthy and with overlapping info. To be informed, you need to read/watch all of them. However, let me give the gist of the story, and a few key links, and then you can fill in the blanks by following more links.
For several weeks, the administration was saying that the event was a spontaneous demonstration in response to that obscure YouTube video that supposedly insulted Mohammed. But the facts and claims that continued to unfold from day one contradicted that story, and contradicted each other. The mainstream media have covered it somewhat, but the alternative media have provided much more detail and perspective. Most of these reports are from credible respected sources (CIA officials, retired senior military officers, and government officials).
Here is a FoxNews video report as of Sep 22 (11 days after the attack).
Fox News Extensive Report On The Benghazi Cover-Up (details, 7:50)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrWKyTwNxtQ&NR=1&feature=endscreen
Here is a FoxNews video overview as of Oct. 26 (over 6 weeks after the attack).
Benghazi's fatal timeline How 4 Americans were failed (Fox-Greta) (9:18)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuxUUXrwBLU&feature=relmfu
For many more details as they unfolded, go to my Benghazi LINKS page.
WHY SO DISJOINTED?
Everyone is puzzled because the pieces are not fitting together. The administration is self-contradicting and morphing the story, but there seems to be no explanation as to why. I came across two theories: one plausible but damning, and one hardly believable, except that it explains a lot that seems to have no other explanation. These sources are not as credible as the ones relating to the basic situation and questions (and I found nothing on Fox about these theories), but Theory #2 does explain an awful lot.
I would normally never give either of these theories any credence. However, there has been an accumulation of puzzling things* about Obama that are suddenly adding up and fitting together to paint a disturbing picture. I bring these things up rather suddenly because the election is upon us, and these issues are exceedingly serious. They are certainly making me consider that Romney might be the less questionable bet. You decide.
Theory #1
"The U.S. was running arms to the Syrian rebels through Turkey. They had to coordinate it in an obscure place like Benghazi to keep it secret. The reason they wanted to keep it secret is because the administration didn’t want another 'Fast and Furious' on their hands… especially before a debate on foreign policy and an election. And they let the 4 Americans die because dead men tell no tales." Dennis Marcellino
Is there a deeper plot to Benghazi? (October 27, 2012 by Dennis Marcellino)
http://patriotupdate.com/articles/is-there-a-deeper-plot-to-benghazi#
Theory #2
The Benghazi attack was a planned kidnapping of the ambassador, so Obama could rescue him before the election (with a quiet exchange for the Blind Sheik), but it went awry. This theory was proposed by Kevin DuJan, Oct 8, 2012. Here are 4 links on the story.
Benghazi Attack Was Botched Kidnapping To Trade Blind Sheik (10/17) (4:41 + text)
http://www.westernjournalism.com/benghazi-attack-was-botched-kidnapping-to-trade-blind-sheik/
Benghazi a Botched MB Kidnapping To Trade Blind Sheik for Amb.? (4:41 + text) (10/20)
http://www.alipac.us/f9/benghazi-botched-mb-kidnapping-trade-blind-sheik-amb-265629/
BENGHAZI-GATE: Did two heroic SEALs ruin Obama's October Surprise? [UPDATED!] (10/26, text)
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2012/10/benghazi-gate-did-two-heroic-seals-ruin.html
OBAMA Arranged For Muslim Brotherhood To Kidnap Ambassador Stevens For Prisoner Trade – Killed Him Instead!! (2:43 + text) (10/30)
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/10/obama-arranged-for-muslim-brotherhood-to-kidnap-ambassador-stevens-for-prisoner-trade-killed-him-instead-2488232.html
*The Puzzling Things About Obama
I plan to discuss those in the next post or 2. For now, I'll just mention a few videos (with links) that will give some examples of these "puzzling things." Both are rather partisan and have some questionable parts, but I feel they both have some things to consider, that do raise yellow flags.
An Urgent Message for America (Trevor Loudon, a New Zealander) (29 min)
(Speaks on Obama at 10:20 into the video, Panetta at 18:15, and the Left's agenda at 21:45)
http://gulagbound.com/35038/trevor-loudon-an-urgent-message-for-america-please-help-this-go-viral/#.UJLVhq5RZBk
2016: Obama's America (a theater movie, now on DVD)
Movie Trailer: http://2016themovie.com/media/
Review: http://www.christianpost.com/news/2016obamas-america-co-producer-wants-ap-to-apologize-for-fact-check-story-81029/
Review: http://reason.com/archives/2012/08/24/2016-obamas-america
Review: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/316019/reality-check-vs-fact-check-lee-habeeb#
Amazon.com Buy instant video or DVD
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1/182-9856671-7262150?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=2016+obama%27s+america+dvd&sprefix=2016%2Caps%2C256
This whole Benghazi thing, as well as Obama himself, is such an enigma, with so much unknown, so many inconsistencies. But I feel like it's part of the picture, and so should be shown. I'm looking forward to discussing Romney - should be wonderfully boring.
"Thatch"
(5:30 am) The plan for this post was to look at the character of both candidates, and I typically start with Obama (alphabetically, both Obama and Democrat come before Romney and Republican). As I was doing my research, the inevitable rabbit trails led me down one of Alice's rabbit holes, and I came across stuff that was "interestinger and interestinger."
I don't know just what to make of it. I'm a technical person by profession (engineering, math, science). I don't care for fiction - I want to know what's real. But this stuff I've found is...either tabloid trash... or... critical to the election. It's too astounding to be believable but it fits the facts better than any explanation I know of. I URGE you to check this out fully before you dismiss it as junk, and before you vote.
There are 2 items I want to share in this post. The first is less critical, but quicker to state and verify. And it raises the question that other issues may shed some light on.
FIRST: The Photoshopped Family Photo.
This will take less than 60 seconds.
Go to Obama's Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/barackobama).
Then click in sequence: Photos / Albums / the photo labeled "Barack and his mother, Ann" (4th row, right side). Then pick the photo with 3 persons standing in front of chairs. This should show a larger version of Ann, Barack, and Ann's dad (I think) (the URL of that page:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150902091511749&set=a.10150902090006749.401812.6815841748&type=3&theater
Notice that Ann's right hand is... black! And this is on Obama's official page! Why would he post a photoshopped family photo??? For a further description of this photo, see:
http://www.obamashopped.com/
SECOND: The Benghazi Swap
Now for the more significant issue. Most of us have heard of the controversy about the confusion surrounding the Benghazi consulate attack and the death of the ambassador and 3 others. The President and his administration are all over the map on just what happened, who said what, and when. It was even brought up during one of the debates. The confusion is not over and there is Congressional investigation, with conflicting answers.
I've found many links on the issue, and many are lengthy and with overlapping info. To be informed, you need to read/watch all of them. However, let me give the gist of the story, and a few key links, and then you can fill in the blanks by following more links.
For several weeks, the administration was saying that the event was a spontaneous demonstration in response to that obscure YouTube video that supposedly insulted Mohammed. But the facts and claims that continued to unfold from day one contradicted that story, and contradicted each other. The mainstream media have covered it somewhat, but the alternative media have provided much more detail and perspective. Most of these reports are from credible respected sources (CIA officials, retired senior military officers, and government officials).
Here is a FoxNews video report as of Sep 22 (11 days after the attack).
Fox News Extensive Report On The Benghazi Cover-Up (details, 7:50)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrWKyTwNxtQ&NR=1&feature=endscreen
Here is a FoxNews video overview as of Oct. 26 (over 6 weeks after the attack).
Benghazi's fatal timeline How 4 Americans were failed (Fox-Greta) (9:18)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuxUUXrwBLU&feature=relmfu
For many more details as they unfolded, go to my Benghazi LINKS page.
WHY SO DISJOINTED?
Everyone is puzzled because the pieces are not fitting together. The administration is self-contradicting and morphing the story, but there seems to be no explanation as to why. I came across two theories: one plausible but damning, and one hardly believable, except that it explains a lot that seems to have no other explanation. These sources are not as credible as the ones relating to the basic situation and questions (and I found nothing on Fox about these theories), but Theory #2 does explain an awful lot.
I would normally never give either of these theories any credence. However, there has been an accumulation of puzzling things* about Obama that are suddenly adding up and fitting together to paint a disturbing picture. I bring these things up rather suddenly because the election is upon us, and these issues are exceedingly serious. They are certainly making me consider that Romney might be the less questionable bet. You decide.
Theory #1
"The U.S. was running arms to the Syrian rebels through Turkey. They had to coordinate it in an obscure place like Benghazi to keep it secret. The reason they wanted to keep it secret is because the administration didn’t want another 'Fast and Furious' on their hands… especially before a debate on foreign policy and an election. And they let the 4 Americans die because dead men tell no tales." Dennis Marcellino
Is there a deeper plot to Benghazi? (October 27, 2012 by Dennis Marcellino)
http://patriotupdate.com/articles/is-there-a-deeper-plot-to-benghazi#
Theory #2
The Benghazi attack was a planned kidnapping of the ambassador, so Obama could rescue him before the election (with a quiet exchange for the Blind Sheik), but it went awry. This theory was proposed by Kevin DuJan, Oct 8, 2012. Here are 4 links on the story.
Benghazi Attack Was Botched Kidnapping To Trade Blind Sheik (10/17) (4:41 + text)
http://www.westernjournalism.com/benghazi-attack-was-botched-kidnapping-to-trade-blind-sheik/
Benghazi a Botched MB Kidnapping To Trade Blind Sheik for Amb.? (4:41 + text) (10/20)
http://www.alipac.us/f9/benghazi-botched-mb-kidnapping-trade-blind-sheik-amb-265629/
BENGHAZI-GATE: Did two heroic SEALs ruin Obama's October Surprise? [UPDATED!] (10/26, text)
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2012/10/benghazi-gate-did-two-heroic-seals-ruin.html
OBAMA Arranged For Muslim Brotherhood To Kidnap Ambassador Stevens For Prisoner Trade – Killed Him Instead!! (2:43 + text) (10/30)
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/10/obama-arranged-for-muslim-brotherhood-to-kidnap-ambassador-stevens-for-prisoner-trade-killed-him-instead-2488232.html
*The Puzzling Things About Obama
I plan to discuss those in the next post or 2. For now, I'll just mention a few videos (with links) that will give some examples of these "puzzling things." Both are rather partisan and have some questionable parts, but I feel they both have some things to consider, that do raise yellow flags.
An Urgent Message for America (Trevor Loudon, a New Zealander) (29 min)
(Speaks on Obama at 10:20 into the video, Panetta at 18:15, and the Left's agenda at 21:45)
http://gulagbound.com/35038/trevor-loudon-an-urgent-message-for-america-please-help-this-go-viral/#.UJLVhq5RZBk
2016: Obama's America (a theater movie, now on DVD)
Movie Trailer: http://2016themovie.com/media/
Review: http://www.christianpost.com/news/2016obamas-america-co-producer-wants-ap-to-apologize-for-fact-check-story-81029/
Review: http://reason.com/archives/2012/08/24/2016-obamas-america
Review: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/316019/reality-check-vs-fact-check-lee-habeeb#
Amazon.com Buy instant video or DVD
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1/182-9856671-7262150?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=2016+obama%27s+america+dvd&sprefix=2016%2Caps%2C256
This whole Benghazi thing, as well as Obama himself, is such an enigma, with so much unknown, so many inconsistencies. But I feel like it's part of the picture, and so should be shown. I'm looking forward to discussing Romney - should be wonderfully boring.
"Thatch"
Friday, October 19, 2012
October 16th Presidential Debate - Part 2
More on Benghazi and a Few More Details
I did some fact checking, and was still confused (are you surprised?). But let me mention a few things I found. Often, the accumulation of minutiae can lead to a decision.
I watched several days of CBS evening news to catch up on events, and was a bit surprised that they were doing a bit of fact-checking, so I took notes. Of course, they were careful to report an equal number of errors by each candidate. But here are a few news items, fact-checks, and my observations.
I don't put much stock in the polls, especially when things are so close, and so fast-changing. But I have questions. If 65% to 34% say Romney is better on the economy, and the economy is the main issue, why do the polls show the election as even?
Most of the commentators said the debate was combative, and made a big repeated issue of it. I felt it was lively, with very strong differences and disagreements, but I saw NO signs that either candidate might hit or push or even touch the other in any negative way. But that's not to say they weren't both rude.
Regarding the "binders of women," I think both men will be helpful to women in jobs, but in different ways. Just read their party platforms. Overall, I think the president that fixes the economy will help women's pay the most.As they say, a rising tide raises all boats. In economics, some boats rise higher than others, and that is better than all boats going down.
Now here's more that has come out on the Benghazi issue. It's details, but I think it reveals one's character and integrity - this time about Obama.
In the debate, Romney accused Obama of misleading us about the cause of the attack, and Obama denied it, saying that he said, on the day after the attack, that it was an act of terror. When Romney tried to verify that Obama was really claiming that, Obama looked at the moderator (Crowley) and said to her, "Get the transcript." Now, when I was watching the debate, I thought Obama said to Romney something to the effect of 'If you get the transcript you will see that I'm correct.' But in watching a replay, I saw that Obama was looking at Crowley, gestured to her as he spoke, and that she already had a copy of the transcript in her hand, and quickly jumped in to support Obama, saying that he was correct, that he had indeed said that. That seemed to take the wind from Romney's accusation.
However... On CBS News, the next day I think, Jan Crawford exposed the truth about Obama's statement. The truth is that in the Rose Garden he said, "No act of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation" but he indicated earlier in that statement that the attack was due to demonstrations against the YouTube video. And Ambassador Rice and others in the administration continued for 5 days to attribute the attack to spontaneous demonstrations against the video. This story is documented very well at several places:
CBS News video:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50133344n&tag=showDoorFlexGridLeft;flexGridModule
NewRepublic (succinct text article):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2946658/posts
NewsBusters (transcript of the whole news item):
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2012/10/18/cbss-crawford-exposes-obamas-deception-benghazi-attack
Susan Rice on Meet The Press
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50133344n
Another aspect of this issue is Obama's apparent premeditated collusion with Crowley to disprove Romney's valid accusation. First, it was not appropriate for the moderator to be involved in doing fact-verification during the debate. At first, I thought she just was caught up in the moment and tried to settle a dispute to move the debate forward. The video replay revealed that she had the transcript in hand, and that Obama knew she had it - clearly premeditated collusion. To me, this is more than being vague with numbers; it's just plain blatant deception, both in the debate and in the media presentation of the causes of the attack.
Other observations:
Romney seemed to be ready with his points and facts (such as he had). Obama had to think a while and preface with history or stories. I would think that as current President, he would have his facts on the tip of his tongue.
Romney talked about supporting free trade. I'm not sure that is a good thing. Central America is so different from the U.S. in its cost of labor that there would need to be tariffs to equalize prices (level the playing field). Originally, most or all of the federal government's income was from tariffs. It certainly helped us become self sufficient. I know the world is different now, but maybe tariffs have a place in the mix.
Obama had a quotable quote: "Weapons for soldiers don't belong on the streets" or something very close to that. I'm almost certain he meant that "assault rifles" don't belong in the hands of ordinary citizens. Sounds good. But casual quotes can lead to harmful mindsets. My wife often says, "If it's not working, don't do it harder." At first it made sense, until I realized that some things weren't working because I wasn't doing them hard enough, or long enough.
The right to keep and bear arms was put into the Constitution to enable the citizens to protect themselves not so much against crime as against an oppressive government (as they had just done against the British). If the government (soldiers) have "assault rifles" and even heavy weapons, then it makes sense that the citizens are authorized to have them also. There are dangers of citizenry misusing their power, but there are greater dangers of the government doing the same. Look around the world; governments and criminals will have guns, and when the citizens do not, they suffer greatly.
If you want to dig further into the economics issues and claims, check out some of these links below. As I've read a bit on them, I've found both meaning and overload. But I do learn a bit from most attempts to understand. I've listened to both of the people referenced below and they make sense and seem to be not particularly partisan.
Wikipedia article on Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_a_Responsible_Federal_Budget
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget a public policy think tank
President: Maya MacGuineas
http://crfb.org
Wikipedia article on David Walker (Former Comptroller General of the United States; Author of 'Comeback America')
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_M._Walker_%28U.S._Comptroller_General%29
Comeback America Initiative (David M. Walker, Founder & CEO)
http://keepingamericagreat.org/
Hope this has been informative. Since time is getting short for voting, things may get more abbreviated and to the point. My own opinions are getting more focused as I collect and digest more and more information. I expect I'll be adding a lot more links and less narrative.
"Thatch"
I did some fact checking, and was still confused (are you surprised?). But let me mention a few things I found. Often, the accumulation of minutiae can lead to a decision.
I watched several days of CBS evening news to catch up on events, and was a bit surprised that they were doing a bit of fact-checking, so I took notes. Of course, they were careful to report an equal number of errors by each candidate. But here are a few news items, fact-checks, and my observations.
I don't put much stock in the polls, especially when things are so close, and so fast-changing. But I have questions. If 65% to 34% say Romney is better on the economy, and the economy is the main issue, why do the polls show the election as even?
Most of the commentators said the debate was combative, and made a big repeated issue of it. I felt it was lively, with very strong differences and disagreements, but I saw NO signs that either candidate might hit or push or even touch the other in any negative way. But that's not to say they weren't both rude.
Regarding the "binders of women," I think both men will be helpful to women in jobs, but in different ways. Just read their party platforms. Overall, I think the president that fixes the economy will help women's pay the most.As they say, a rising tide raises all boats. In economics, some boats rise higher than others, and that is better than all boats going down.
Now here's more that has come out on the Benghazi issue. It's details, but I think it reveals one's character and integrity - this time about Obama.
In the debate, Romney accused Obama of misleading us about the cause of the attack, and Obama denied it, saying that he said, on the day after the attack, that it was an act of terror. When Romney tried to verify that Obama was really claiming that, Obama looked at the moderator (Crowley) and said to her, "Get the transcript." Now, when I was watching the debate, I thought Obama said to Romney something to the effect of 'If you get the transcript you will see that I'm correct.' But in watching a replay, I saw that Obama was looking at Crowley, gestured to her as he spoke, and that she already had a copy of the transcript in her hand, and quickly jumped in to support Obama, saying that he was correct, that he had indeed said that. That seemed to take the wind from Romney's accusation.
However... On CBS News, the next day I think, Jan Crawford exposed the truth about Obama's statement. The truth is that in the Rose Garden he said, "No act of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation" but he indicated earlier in that statement that the attack was due to demonstrations against the YouTube video. And Ambassador Rice and others in the administration continued for 5 days to attribute the attack to spontaneous demonstrations against the video. This story is documented very well at several places:
CBS News video:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50133344n&tag=showDoorFlexGridLeft;flexGridModule
NewRepublic (succinct text article):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2946658/posts
NewsBusters (transcript of the whole news item):
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2012/10/18/cbss-crawford-exposes-obamas-deception-benghazi-attack
Susan Rice on Meet The Press
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50133344n
Another aspect of this issue is Obama's apparent premeditated collusion with Crowley to disprove Romney's valid accusation. First, it was not appropriate for the moderator to be involved in doing fact-verification during the debate. At first, I thought she just was caught up in the moment and tried to settle a dispute to move the debate forward. The video replay revealed that she had the transcript in hand, and that Obama knew she had it - clearly premeditated collusion. To me, this is more than being vague with numbers; it's just plain blatant deception, both in the debate and in the media presentation of the causes of the attack.
Other observations:
Romney seemed to be ready with his points and facts (such as he had). Obama had to think a while and preface with history or stories. I would think that as current President, he would have his facts on the tip of his tongue.
Romney talked about supporting free trade. I'm not sure that is a good thing. Central America is so different from the U.S. in its cost of labor that there would need to be tariffs to equalize prices (level the playing field). Originally, most or all of the federal government's income was from tariffs. It certainly helped us become self sufficient. I know the world is different now, but maybe tariffs have a place in the mix.
Obama had a quotable quote: "Weapons for soldiers don't belong on the streets" or something very close to that. I'm almost certain he meant that "assault rifles" don't belong in the hands of ordinary citizens. Sounds good. But casual quotes can lead to harmful mindsets. My wife often says, "If it's not working, don't do it harder." At first it made sense, until I realized that some things weren't working because I wasn't doing them hard enough, or long enough.
The right to keep and bear arms was put into the Constitution to enable the citizens to protect themselves not so much against crime as against an oppressive government (as they had just done against the British). If the government (soldiers) have "assault rifles" and even heavy weapons, then it makes sense that the citizens are authorized to have them also. There are dangers of citizenry misusing their power, but there are greater dangers of the government doing the same. Look around the world; governments and criminals will have guns, and when the citizens do not, they suffer greatly.
If you want to dig further into the economics issues and claims, check out some of these links below. As I've read a bit on them, I've found both meaning and overload. But I do learn a bit from most attempts to understand. I've listened to both of the people referenced below and they make sense and seem to be not particularly partisan.
Wikipedia article on Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_a_Responsible_Federal_Budget
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget a public policy think tank
President: Maya MacGuineas
http://crfb.org
Wikipedia article on David Walker (Former Comptroller General of the United States; Author of 'Comeback America')
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_M._Walker_%28U.S._Comptroller_General%29
Comeback America Initiative (David M. Walker, Founder & CEO)
http://keepingamericagreat.org/
Hope this has been informative. Since time is getting short for voting, things may get more abbreviated and to the point. My own opinions are getting more focused as I collect and digest more and more information. I expect I'll be adding a lot more links and less narrative.
"Thatch"
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
October 16th Presidential Debate - Part 1
A Win for Obama? Or just a draw?
On the surface, one might say that Obama "won" because he:
-used numbered points (as Romney had done in the 1st debate),
-was more "engaged" than in the 1st, and
-made many positive statements of what he's done and what he plans to do,
and Romney was rather vague.
On the other hand, Obama was rather cool and mechanistic, and his points (though positive) were not detailed, and gave no substance to what would be different or better than his 1st term. Romney, though also not being very detailed, was nevertheless very passionate about his plans and about his different approach.
Both men interrupted the other, kept talking over the other, talked beyond the clearly agreed upon and clearly posted time limits, and ignored and talked over the moderator. Both seemed to be so focused on getting their own point across that they ignored the rules they had both agreed to, as well as just being rude.
Once again, the thing that stood out the most to me, about both candidates, was their failure to answer the question they were asked ! And their failure to give enough details to their "glittering generalities!" Much of the answer time (50%-75%) was spent re-describing the problem and telling anecdotes to illustrate it. We know the problems pretty well - we want to hear their solutions !
So maybe nobody won, certainly not us.
Now for some specifics that might resonate with some of you, one way or another.
Romney made a statement I had not noticed before. He'll not decrease the taxes on the wealthy, and he'll not increase them on the middle class. It sounded like an opening for him to increase taxes on the wealthy, something Republicans have generally disavowed in the past, and something that may be necessary to fix the deficit problem.
Obama said that Romney's plan doesn't add up, and gave some numbers to help show the math. It sounded good, though he didn't provide the numbers for the other half of the equation - they don't exist yet. So who do we trust to make things happen?
Do we trust the math of Obama (who has actually been President for almost 4 years, but, instead of balancing the budget, has increased the national debt by $5 trillion, and projects continued budget deficits of over $1 trillion each year)?
Or do we trust Romney who has not been President and whose math is still fuzzy, but who has been governor of Massachusetts and balanced that budget every year there, and has taken the 2002 Winter Olympics from red ink to surplus, and (though there is dispute about how the individual companies fared) he has made great profits for Bain Capital. He has a good track record for making money work out.
Romney's answers on women's pay did not satisfy me at all. Yes, he hires women, but at what pay rate?
Obama criticized Romney for having Washington people decide health care issues for women. I assume he's referring to elected representatives voting to not have government pay for contraceptives or not force insurance companies to pay for them. Yet ObamaCare has unelected panels deciding what major medical care that government insurance will not pay for. Seems like stones thrown by the resident of a glass house.
On immigration, Romney criticized Obama for not doing anything on immigration as he had promised. Obama said he had conferred on this issue, yet I don't recall hearing about it in the news. It seems that sometime in his 1st 2 years, with both House and Senate controlled by the Democrats, he could have gotten something done on it, or at least something that made the news. But then, he did have a financial crisis, and was busy working on a health care plan that most of the country did not want.
Regarding the Benghazi attack, Obama said, "I am ultimately responsible..." and he supported that by saying he's working to bring the perpetrators to justice. It seems to me that his main job is to protect Americans, including our consulates and embassies, and he should have been aware of the danger there and made sure there was adequate protection, at least as much as at our French consulate. And I simply do not understand why the administration kept saying for 14 days that the event was a demonstration about the video on YouTube, when news video made it obvious from day one that it was a coordinated attack by trained and well-armed terrorists. Obama's words of respect and care for his personal friends that were lost there sound hollow considering the blatant withdrawal of security around these people.
I applaud Obama for supporting community colleges and training in the skilled trades. That seems to be a real help for people and the economy. I have personally seen such programs move many persons into a new income level and help mature them from kids into productive and confident professionals.
Well, this is getting lengthy. I think I'll finish this topic in the next post.
There were a lot of "factual" statements that ought to be verified. I'll try to check on those or at least give some links to others who have.
Regarding how the candidates' statements match their own published plans, I have an outline for some posts on that.
I'm also currently working on several posts comparing both Parties' platforms, and I'll include some comments on how the candidates' statements in this debate match their own Party's platform.
Please let me know what other issues you would like addressed. If you see things differently, let us hear about it. Different viewpoints usually provide a fuller picture (like the blind men and the elephant).
On the surface, one might say that Obama "won" because he:
-used numbered points (as Romney had done in the 1st debate),
-was more "engaged" than in the 1st, and
-made many positive statements of what he's done and what he plans to do,
and Romney was rather vague.
On the other hand, Obama was rather cool and mechanistic, and his points (though positive) were not detailed, and gave no substance to what would be different or better than his 1st term. Romney, though also not being very detailed, was nevertheless very passionate about his plans and about his different approach.
Both men interrupted the other, kept talking over the other, talked beyond the clearly agreed upon and clearly posted time limits, and ignored and talked over the moderator. Both seemed to be so focused on getting their own point across that they ignored the rules they had both agreed to, as well as just being rude.
Once again, the thing that stood out the most to me, about both candidates, was their failure to answer the question they were asked ! And their failure to give enough details to their "glittering generalities!" Much of the answer time (50%-75%) was spent re-describing the problem and telling anecdotes to illustrate it. We know the problems pretty well - we want to hear their solutions !
So maybe nobody won, certainly not us.
Now for some specifics that might resonate with some of you, one way or another.
Romney made a statement I had not noticed before. He'll not decrease the taxes on the wealthy, and he'll not increase them on the middle class. It sounded like an opening for him to increase taxes on the wealthy, something Republicans have generally disavowed in the past, and something that may be necessary to fix the deficit problem.
Obama said that Romney's plan doesn't add up, and gave some numbers to help show the math. It sounded good, though he didn't provide the numbers for the other half of the equation - they don't exist yet. So who do we trust to make things happen?
Do we trust the math of Obama (who has actually been President for almost 4 years, but, instead of balancing the budget, has increased the national debt by $5 trillion, and projects continued budget deficits of over $1 trillion each year)?
Or do we trust Romney who has not been President and whose math is still fuzzy, but who has been governor of Massachusetts and balanced that budget every year there, and has taken the 2002 Winter Olympics from red ink to surplus, and (though there is dispute about how the individual companies fared) he has made great profits for Bain Capital. He has a good track record for making money work out.
Romney's answers on women's pay did not satisfy me at all. Yes, he hires women, but at what pay rate?
Obama criticized Romney for having Washington people decide health care issues for women. I assume he's referring to elected representatives voting to not have government pay for contraceptives or not force insurance companies to pay for them. Yet ObamaCare has unelected panels deciding what major medical care that government insurance will not pay for. Seems like stones thrown by the resident of a glass house.
On immigration, Romney criticized Obama for not doing anything on immigration as he had promised. Obama said he had conferred on this issue, yet I don't recall hearing about it in the news. It seems that sometime in his 1st 2 years, with both House and Senate controlled by the Democrats, he could have gotten something done on it, or at least something that made the news. But then, he did have a financial crisis, and was busy working on a health care plan that most of the country did not want.
Regarding the Benghazi attack, Obama said, "I am ultimately responsible..." and he supported that by saying he's working to bring the perpetrators to justice. It seems to me that his main job is to protect Americans, including our consulates and embassies, and he should have been aware of the danger there and made sure there was adequate protection, at least as much as at our French consulate. And I simply do not understand why the administration kept saying for 14 days that the event was a demonstration about the video on YouTube, when news video made it obvious from day one that it was a coordinated attack by trained and well-armed terrorists. Obama's words of respect and care for his personal friends that were lost there sound hollow considering the blatant withdrawal of security around these people.
I applaud Obama for supporting community colleges and training in the skilled trades. That seems to be a real help for people and the economy. I have personally seen such programs move many persons into a new income level and help mature them from kids into productive and confident professionals.
Well, this is getting lengthy. I think I'll finish this topic in the next post.
There were a lot of "factual" statements that ought to be verified. I'll try to check on those or at least give some links to others who have.
Regarding how the candidates' statements match their own published plans, I have an outline for some posts on that.
I'm also currently working on several posts comparing both Parties' platforms, and I'll include some comments on how the candidates' statements in this debate match their own Party's platform.
Please let me know what other issues you would like addressed. If you see things differently, let us hear about it. Different viewpoints usually provide a fuller picture (like the blind men and the elephant).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)