it's not my credibility that's at stake, rather, that of the person you are (apparently) voting for. i assume you'd crucify W (or any republican) for a similar lapse in judgement. why the silence now?
Not really. I don't think any discussion here will affect Obama's credibility in the slightest. Assumptions are a bad thing. Especially coming from someone who's usually wrong about everything, even when given facts so he doesn't need to assume. Because, as previously stated, you're not worth trying to have a serious conversation with.
Cover up? The FBI is still investigating as we speak. They're trying to catch the people responsible for this instead of just declaring war on a whole country.
Repubs may be milking this for political points, and dems may be in denial for political points, but at its core this is completely true and completely messed up.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/uFf0dUH3OtU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
So you are admitting that you don't look at the issue, but at the poster, and that you will change your tune accordingly. You are also admitting that you are not really interested in honest discussion. basso is a lot more credible than you. This is an interesting thread, about a sad topic.
Yes, absolutely. Common sense would suggest this is necessary. You don't treat a baby the same way you treat a 5 yr old the same way you treat an adult. You don't talk to someone about economics the same way if you're talking to a 10 yr old or a college student or an economist. basso has shown no capacity to post anything but GOP talking points, so why would I or anyone here attempt to have an actual conversation with him? I'm only interested in honest discussions with rational, reasonable people. If justtxyank started a discussion on this and the idiots stayed out, I think it would be a great thread. When the idiots amongst us join in, I see no point. For example, there was a great European economics thread that was going on, until you joined in to throw insults around at others that were having a real discussion. I have zero interest in that, and at that point will just call out the idiots and bigots for what they are. No, as is the case with all basso threads, it's a terrible thread about a sad and interesting topic.
So, Major, you are still admitting that you are not interested in honest discussion - unless it is with people who agree with you. Once you are (as is often the case) intellectually unable to follow the discussion, you start insulting your intellectual superiors as "idiots" or "bigots". Weak stuff.
I'm pretty sure the person I mentioned - justtxyank - would not agree with me on this topic. You're pretty terrible with your assumptions. So says the person who joined an maybe the most intellectual thread here on European economics, simply proclaiming his own intellectually superiority and throwing insults around - without ever even contributing a single post with any content of value. Similarly here, funny that you think this is an interesting thread, and yet you haven't contributed a single post about the topic. Your only contribution was to call out my post. Something about pots and kettles applies here. If you want a serious discussion, make serious posts. Until then, you're no different than basso in your inability to actually participate in a topic. If you just want to act like a hateful bigoted wannabe internet bully, don't expect to get serious responses.
You are not discussing the topic with him, though - even though he expressly asked for that. You just proved my point. Indeed it does, because you still haven't made one on-topic post in this thread. I had to call that out, because it's funny that you said this would be an interesting thread if someone else had started it - again, you seem to be obsessed with bipartisanship and seem to be changing your tune based on WHO posts rather than WHAT gets posted. As to the topic at hand, basso posted interesting information and videos from various sources (actually ones that do not fit his political leaning, which I have never seen you do, which is not surprising considering that you just admitted that you do not care about the actual content, just about the source of the content, which is truly narrow-minded). I watched the videos and looked at the Huff Po link. I am an Obama fan, but I agree with basso and Mathloom here (interesting constellation, isn't it - that could never happen to you, since you already admitted that you would rather chew your hand off than say that you agree with basso on anything - as I said, narrow-minded to the extreme) that the US government seems to not have done a good job in either protecting their embassy there or in the post-incident media work. As to why that is the case, I am not sure, and I have nothing to gain or lose from making assumptions there. I am still forming an opinion - since, in contrast to you, I am capable of processing actual information without being blinded by my hate for the messenger.
As I said, if he starts a thread on the topic (and ideally the basso's of the stay out of it) - great. This thread has no hope of being a discussion because of the thread starter. I have no interest in or intention of trying to fight that. Absolutely true - I made pretty clear that I have no intention of doing so. Amusing, given that you said THIS was an interesting thread and took being called out on it to actually post any of your thoughts. You seemed more interested in taking a thread you found interesting off-topic than actually posting anything of value. Yes, I do adjust my tune based on who posts. Just as I wouldn't discuss anything about race with a KKK member, or wouldn't discuss anything involving common sense or reading comprehension with you. Also a fairly amusing quote coming from someone who follows posters like NS Storm around just to throw around insults. I don't hate basso. I just think he's an idiot and not worth wasting time on. I think credibility matters - and posting history establishes credibility or lack thereof. I will never consider all sources or posters equal and think doing so is fairly silly. But I applaud you for your effort to view all posts and viewpoints with equal merit, respect, and consideration. I look forward to seeing this new version of you posting here.
In all seriousness, what is the legitimate purpose of the cover up? I can not believe that Obama and co would rather make it appear as though the actions are because of a video rather than a pre-planned terrorist attack. What is there to gain which is more important than the disdain Libyans will have towards US foreign policy at such a critical time for making Libyans look like buffoons? They know. There is no cover up for them. The cover was placed on your eyes, not theirs. But it was clear on day 1 from the signs in the pictures saying that the diplomat is a friend of Libya and there is no place for Al Qaeda in Libya... they didn't have to wait for it to be uncovered. They knew full well what happened. Instead of taking this opportunity to rally the young impressionable fringe moderates against extremism by showing what a stand-up guy Stevens was and what kind of people the extremists are targetting... Obama and co chose to cover it up? The conclusion is damning. Either a huge mistake or a crack in the "I want to build bridges with Muslims" farce. I suppose the more important cover up is the one where the war on Al Qaeda is failing because Al Qaeda have now dispersed like coackroaches into various territories rather than being confined to Afghanistan. Everything OBL wanted is happening. Your economy is suffering because of drawn-out wars, fear is astronomic, fringe mdoerate Muslims are finding that they have no friend in the West, Al Qaeda has expanded geographically and planted seeds in far too many countries for you to invade. Even though by chance, it is looking more and more like the relative success of OBL's plan lies in its profitability for the 1%. Could be the luckiest chess move in the history of mankind. You guys have to get rid of this crap. 4 men died because of this. Surely, you are not so obsessed with your party that you can not acknowledge the seriousness of this error. Surely, you are not so obsessed with your party that you think acknowledging this error in front of the other party is better avoided.
