Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Neopoli
Joined: 3/1/2011
Msg: 107
The debatesPage 4 of 8    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)

I notice Mr. Obama's supporters are trying desperately to change the subject to a scandal from thirty years ago


Yes they are. Whats up with that?? Must be Obamnesia.


If you want to believe that the Iranians were afraid of Ronald Reagan, your big hombre, you should fact check that with the blowing up of the marine's barracks in Beirut, in which Hezbollah used the explosives given to them by the Iranians, and fact check also how fast Ronald Reagan ran away from Lebanon. Reagan, one big, tough guy! What a joke!


No, you fact-check it. I tend to get yelled at by the same 3-4 hand puppets for using fact-check around here instead of agendist blogsites.


The "pants on fire" claim had nothing to do with what I posted. What I posted was the substantiated fact-checked information that pertained to this. The rest of the fact check article dealt with the "pants on fire" verdict. You cant have it both ways.

Nobody is trying to silence you.....unrelated conspiracy theories have really had nothing to do with the debates thread. Please start a new thread if you want to discuss it. If so, then I want to play, too. Im dying to spew pages of stuff about JFK & the mystery shooter on the grassy knoll, blogsite-style.

But if you insist, I'll fire the first shot.

~EVERYTHING EVERYTHING EVERYTHING that you posted above is 20-30+ year old information. The newest " evidence" is referenced at 1987. All of that has already been investigated 20+ years ago.

~ALL ALL ALL of this 30 year old information, was public, was assimilated, was investigated, & judged upon by the Democratic House & Democratic Senate 20+ years ago.

~Both House & Senate investigations dismissed it it 20+ years ago.

Not good enough!!! Let the conspiracy begin!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

~Your blogsite's homepage shows this:

Information Clearing House

~One person's effort to correct the
distorted perceptions provided by
commercial US media~

www.informationclearinghouse.info/


Ok then. One person. Good to know. Knowing that....

~Your blogsite's article is composed of newspaper clippings(? ) and specially-selected excerpts mainly gathered from one(1) book called "OCTOBER SURPRISE - America's Hostages in Iran and the Election of Ronald Reagan." written by Gary Sick in 1991.....20+ years ago, and BEFORE any Senate/house investigations.

~"OCTOBER SURPRISE - America's Hostages in Iran and the Election of Ronald Reagan." was published by New York Times Books/Random House later in 1991.....20+ years ago, and BEFORE any Senate/house investigations.

-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------

Here is the summary after looking at all of this 20-30+ year old information:


According to the allegation, the Reagan Administration rewarded Iran for its participation in the plot by supplying Iran with weapons via Israel and by unblocking Iranian government monetary assets in US banks.

After twelve years of mixed media attention, both houses of the US Congress held separate inquiries and concluded that the allegations lacked supporting documentation.


Here is the judgement From the Democratic controlled 1993 House, after investigating all the above-mentioned charges:


The House of Representatives’ 1993 report concluded “there is no credible evidence supporting any attempt by the Reagan presidential campaign—or persons associated with the campaign—to delay the release of the American hostages in Iran”.

The task force (Democratic)Chairman Lee H. Hamilton also added that the vast majority of the sources and material reviewed by the committee were "wholesale fabricators or were impeached by documentary evidence". The report also expressed the belief that several witnesses had committed perjury during their sworn statements to the committee, among them Richard Brenneke,[19] who claimed to be a CIA agent.


Here is the judgement by the Democratic controlled 1992 Senate, after investigating all the above-mentioned charges:



The US Senate’s 1992 report concluded that "by any standard, the credible evidence now known falls far short of supporting the allegation of an agreement between the Reagan campaign and Iran to delay the release of the hostages".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise_conspiracy_theory

Judged & juried 20+ years ago. Nothing new in 20+ years to raise a new eyebrow. Except for an outbreak of Obamnesia among conspiracy theorists.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 108
view profile
History
The debates
Posted: 10/21/2012 4:52:59 PM
I know that fanatics will never enable themselves to look at facts in any sort of new light, or to consider alternatives to manipulating whatever data bits come their way, exclusively to support their own preconceptions. Nevertheless, I will stop by to point out that the mess in Libya and it's aftermath, has been tremendously confused by the standard incompetence of those reporting about it.

Post 109 has excellent examples of bad reporting. The quotes given, do NOT support the headline labels that are posted under each one. This is common for the modern empty-headed approach to reporting "news" that prevails on all of the networks and significant "news" organizations, regardless of their left or right leanings.

Example:
"America has a history of religious tolerance and respect for religious beliefs that goes back to our nation’s founding. We are stronger because we are the home to people of all religions, including millions of Muslims, and we reject the denigration of religion. We also believe that there is no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence."

9/13/12 - CARNEY BLAMES VIDEO, NOT PRE-PLANNED TERRORISM


The statement quote does NOT state that Carney excuses terrorism, in favor of placing the entire blame on the video. That is an interpolation by the reporter who wrote the headline.

Example:
Hilary Clinton, at the transfer of remains ceremony, Sept. 14

“This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with. It is hard for the American people to make sense of that because it is senseless, and it is totally unacceptable.”

9/14/12 - CLINTON BLAMES VIDEO, NOT PRE-PLANNED TERRORISM


The quote from Clinton does NOT state that the death of the diplomats was due to the same thing that the "rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video" was about. Again, this is an interpolation by a lazy reporter, that has in turn been adapted by those who want to manipulate the facts further to pretend that the Obama administration was oblivious to Terrorism.

If you want to look at facts, look at the facts themselves, and do NOT pretend that what commentators and editorialists said about the facts, are a part of what actually happened.

As for that idea that Reagan had anything to do with delaying the Hostage release, I would have thought that that was without foundation a long time ago, just as the more recent nonsense about Obama not being born American is also patent paranoiac nonsense, also with no foundation. However, fanatics are notorious for demanding hard proof from those who they disagree with, and requiring only supposition and paranoid anxiety, in order to support their own notions. So the folks who want to pretend that Reagan got the Iranians to hold the hostages for an extra time to help him get elected will never change their minds, the folks who want to pretend that Bush arranged for the Twin Towers to be destroyed by terrorists will continue their delusions, the "birthers" will never listen to facts, and so on.

They are ALL full of crap, and I suspect that at least half of them know full well that they are full of it, but wont admit it, because they either fear that giving in to reality on one thing will lead to them agreeing that all of their opinions are garbage, or they are simply trying to pretend that as long as they continue to claim they do believe this crap, that it will mathematically make their side of an argument look more imposing. Rather like a warlord keeping a big empty castle lit up, in hopes that his enemies will continue to respect him long after his actual strength is gone.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 110
The debates
Posted: 10/22/2012 3:35:09 AM
Since World War II . . .

Almost twice as many jobs are created per year under Democratic Presidents than Republican Presidents (1.8 million jobs under Democratic Presidents versus one million jobs under Republican Presidents.)
The deficit under Republican Presidents has been more than twice as large as the under Democratic Presidents. In dollars, Republican Presidents have contributed nearly $4 trillion more to the national debt than Democratic Presidents.
GDP growth has been 52% higher under Democratic Presidents.
Business Investment Growth has been 165% higher under Democratic Presidents.
Unemployment has been 23% higher under Republican Presidents.
Average increase in weekly earnings have been 107.5% higher under Democratic Presidents
Nine of the last ten recessions have occurred under Republican Presidents (www.nber.org/cycles.html)

http://www.presidentialdata.org/
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 111
view profile
History
The debates
Posted: 10/22/2012 4:54:07 AM
Then why don't you explain to me the origin on Oliver North's "neat idea"? You must remember the brilliant idea of using the profits of the arms and explosives transfer to the Iranians to fund the illegal Contra war against the Sandinistas. How did that whole "scandal" start, and when did it start?


I have no idea why you think this is pertinent to what I said. Are you challenging me to do better than the reporters I so dislike? If so, I would be happy to do real research for you, and report back, if you first pay me for the service. [Any chance that you have forgotten that Iran-Contra was during Reagan's term in office, while the release of the hostages took place BEFORE he took office, while Carter was President? Reagan had the honor of announcing that. He didn't arrange it.]


As for the headlines in 109 being the responsibility of the poster here, and not of a reporter elsewhere, then my criticisms all stand, save that poster at 109 IS the reporter who failed to write headlines supported by the quotes. Thus providing the same example of what I was referring to.

And overall, if someone claims that those quotes say what they do not, then they are proving my point exactly. If you are the sort for whom facts are NOT required when claiming to be delivering "proof," then it's pointless to either provide them to you in return, or to pay any attention or give any credence to your "proofs."
 Doremi_Fasolatido
Joined: 2/14/2009
Msg: 115
view profile
History
The debates
Posted: 10/22/2012 8:30:43 PM
After watching the final debate I can see why Romney wants to increase military spending.. He says it's to provide for possible future altercations....

Given his lack of knowledge on foreign affairs. His knack for riling up foreign leaders I think the man may just start ww 3. I also get the feeling he thinks he'd be fulfilling some weird prophecy by doing so. If this man attains the presidency I fear not just for the USA but the world.

I think he's on a power trip and would do or say anything to continue it. Oh, I also think Pres. Obama made him look like an ill informed, flip flopping wannabe. I like the way he called him on the things he said were clearly wrong. I never thought I'd say this but Romney makes GWB look semi palatable.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 117
The debates
Posted: 10/23/2012 5:30:37 AM
A couple of thoughts about last nights debate:

!) Mr Romney moved so far to the left it looked more like a democrat primary debate between two democrats.

2) Mr Romney was agreeing with President Obama so much by the end of the debate, that if the debate lasted another half hour, Mr Romney would had President Obama an endorsement.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 119
The debates
Posted: 10/23/2012 7:45:29 AM
Just a little info on the Rasmussen polls:

These updates are based upon nightly telephone interviews and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. As a result, virtually all of the interviews for today’s update were completed before the end of last night’s final presidential debate. It will take a few days to see if the debate had a significant impact on the race.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 121
The debates
Posted: 10/23/2012 9:28:28 AM
In all fairness, team Obama made a major blunder in the first debate, by allowing the world to see Mitt Romney sitting next to the President, and seeming more "with it", and "Presidential" than the actual President. Obama has not recovered from this failure, nor will he.


Glad to see you're sticking by your claim that the polls don't mean much...by pointing out there was no debate bounce from last night in a poll that doesn't take last nights debate into account.


No challenger can compete with a President on foreign affairs


And seeing how well Mr Romney did so well in his visit's to Great Britian and Isreal there's no wonder he's no expert on foriegn policy.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 123
view profile
History
The debates
Posted: 10/23/2012 12:20:12 PM
Michelle Bachmann, who was a federal tax lawyer, has noted that these days, a person's political affiliation depends a lot on where the check is coming from. It would be interesting to know how many people who are determined to support this sorry excuse for a President, come hell or high water, have some financial stake in seeing him get re-elected. I think Tammany Hall has come to Washington, and if Obama were caught on camera beating someone in a wheelchair with a golf club, his acolytes would cook up some excuse for it. Many of them don't care who he is or what he does as long as they've got theirs, and what most oh-so-caring so-called liberals really care about is what their country can do for them. President Kennedy would be ashamed of what the Democrat Party has become.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 124
The debates
Posted: 10/23/2012 12:29:25 PM
It would be interesting to know how many people who are determined to support this sorry excuse for a President, come hell or high water, have some financial stake in seeing him get re-elected.


The only thing I'm looking for with my $25 contribution to re-elect the President is not to have that conservative flipflopping neocon elected.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 127
The debates
Posted: 10/23/2012 4:51:20 PM
Why no talk of the "Fiscal Cliff" in any of the debates? Maybe there was some mutual agreement prior not to discuss an issue that would just highlight the sort of circus that our government has become:

http://bonds.about.com/od/Issues-in-the-News/a/What-Is-The-Fiscal-Cliff.htm

My prediction: an Obama victory and four more years of "blame Obama," especially for the fallout from the FC-- unless it is legally sidestepped somehow, as seems to be the predictable MO in DC.

But, hey, he wanted the job in '08, and he still wants it now...
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 130
The debates
Posted: 10/23/2012 6:38:25 PM

Do you really want me to point out how the Red States collect more from the federal government again?


That's a factcheck myth that Mr Romney could probably airbrush away!!!
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 131
view profile
History
The debates
Posted: 10/23/2012 8:22:04 PM
Actually, I stand to lose more money if Romney is NOT elected, and the health care provisions as currently law, remain in place. Because I still cannot afford to have insurance, because my pay was cut, and the premiums quadrupled. Hence if I get insurance, it will cost me $5000 per year, and since I almost never get sick, all that will go for nothing (unless I'm lucky, and get cancer). So I will be paying the Tax Penalty next year, whatever that is.

But I am not going to vote for Romney, even though he would save me lots of money. The reasons why I wont, have shown up within the debates, especially the latest one on Foreign Affairs, where Romney showed me a terribly naive, poorly thought out set of views, that include even severe errors in basic geography. I think he will worsen our national security.

I thought at the time ( and wrote here somewhere) that the Health Care laws were a bad idea, badly executed, and I continue to think so. But I also know that the Republicans STILL have no viable alternative of any kind, and so they will do nothing to help my situation.

Of course, it's also true that Romney wants to cut taxes for people way beyond any pay scale I could ever attain, and also suggests coyly that to pay for those cuts, he wants to cut benefits going out to people such as my severely handicapped son. So in that sense, yes, I do qualify as voting on the money. It's just that I wont be voting to enrich myself, I will be voting to protect my children from being short-changed, in order to give more to rich people who might, or might not turn around and invest that extra money domestically.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 132
The debates
Posted: 10/24/2012 5:10:43 AM

teachers who make $60,000


Hmmm...you mean ppl with graduate degrees who work 10-12 hour days....yep, that's teachers...who forsake the $100k+ jobs their education level would generally help them achieve.
 Neopoli
Joined: 3/1/2011
Msg: 133
The debates
Posted: 10/24/2012 6:53:42 AM
Yep, plain old teachers....because nobody starts out at $100,000/yr. with a masters degree. They have to ACHIEVE it, like you said. Plain old teachers who arent in it for the money, because if they were, they would easily go & find those entry-level easy pickin, $100,000 jobs that grow on trees wildly, right?

No, just plain old union teachers, who work at teachers' level & hit the ground running, who get 3 month summer vacations, every holiday off, extended major holiday leaves, & some of the best health care & retirement benefits in the workforce. They also have the excellent chance to ACHIEVE more....to advance in a very timely manner be the administrators, principals, etc who make those plentiful $100,000+ per year salaries in the education field.

They also will most likely ACHIEVE their goal by retiring early with less than 30 years, be instantly eligible for a $40,000 pension then get rehired the next week, double-dipping their pension, plus new salary, thus instantly becoming $100,000+ earners.

......far far different than the white collar dude-dudette w/ a masters degree working for $40,000, BUT with limited or no benefits, vacation time, or tenure. They, unlike teachers, start at the bottom & work their way up, like most folks.

Those white collar dudes-dudettes w/ a masters degree working for $40,000 or so also have the chance where they can POSSIBLY make $100,000+/yr, & POSSIBLY equal the benefits on par with those of a plain old teacher. They ACHIEVE that when both spouses work & combine their incomes.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 134
The debates
Posted: 10/24/2012 7:08:32 AM
They, unlike teachers, start at the bottom


Teachers start at $60000??? I need a career change...either that or you're wrong again.


They also will most likely retire early with less than 30 years, be instantly eligible for a $40,000 pension then get rehired the next week, double-dipping their pension


Well, without the benefit of social secuity (which teachers do not get)...and we won't quibble about the $40,000 number, you are wrong again (you should look into state teacher retirement plans-I have-before you mis-speak yourself)...and we won't quibble about early retirement...because if a teacher retires early it effects their pension...you are misleadingly wrong again...

But, I will grant you that teachers up until recent times have worked for subpar wages...with all those benefits of time off...


They also have the excellent chance to be the administrators, principals


yep...most school systems are top heavy with administration (I actually do beklieve administration is top heavy)....therefore, there must something be like 10 open administration jobs for every teacher.

So, it's ok for CEO's to be money grubbing whores...but, a teacher should not want a living wage...LMAO

And such job security....should one be so lucky as to be a teacher in the larger inner cities...well, they've got plenty of job security...cough cough

edit below:

Well then your school system gave away the farm (the $40,000 would be the very top end here in CT), on the state level...she is not eligible for SSI...and here in CT should she ever earn enough SSI quarters to collect..her teachers retirement pension would be reduced an equal amount.


MORE than any yearly wage I ever made as a blue-collar union factory worker


This shows the value of a good education and smart planning...many, just plug away at a job and never seek better.

another edit:

From the Ohio STRS web site:

*If you retire with less than 30 years of service credit and before age 65, there is an actuarial reduction in the benefit. Full benefits are paid when you have 30 years of service credit or are age 65.
 Neopoli
Joined: 3/1/2011
Msg: 135
The debates
Posted: 10/24/2012 7:13:31 AM
<
you should look into state teacher retirement plans-I have-before you mis-speak yourself)...and we won't quibble about early retirement...because if a teacher retires early it effects their pension...you are misleadingly wrong again...


No, YOU need to look into it. I am in it. I am in the Ohio STRA benefit system. I have Ohio STRA health care & benefits.

My SO is a retired STRA teacher, who made close to $80,000/yr when she retired, who retired with LESS than 30 years, whose pension is MORE than any yearly wage I ever made as a blue-collar union factory worker(or also more than that white-collar dude/dudette with a masters degree who works somewhere else in corporate America) & who now double-dips on a very limited basis part time & still makes very close to $100,000.

~~~edit above~~~


she is not eligible for SSI...and here in CT should she ever earn enough SSI quarters to collect..her teachers retirement pension would be reduced an equal amount.


Im sure most anybody alive would trade their $1200/month SSI retirement benefit at age 65 for a teacher's $40,000+ retirement benefit at age 55...PLUS yearly COLA increases.


~~~another edit~~~


From the Ohio STRS web site:

*If you retire with less than 30 years of service credit and before age 65, there is an actuarial reduction in the benefit. Full benefits are paid when you have 30 years of service credit or are age 65.


She was offered an enhanced early retirement deal. That supercedes the posted info. Thousands of teachers wait for this & all jump on the bandwagon when it is offered.


This is what leads to the double-dipping. They retire a teacher through an enhanced benefit attrition program, then it show on the books that they need this position filled, then rehire the same teacher. Its croneyism at its finest, & is widely abused & defended by everyone in the system, for obvious reasons.
 Neopoli
Joined: 3/1/2011
Msg: 136
The debates
Posted: 10/24/2012 8:02:46 AM
Oh, & on top of all that, when she double-dips within the state school STRA system, she earns MORE STRA retirement benefits, which INCREASES her yearly retirement benefit total. The more she double dips, the more her retirement benefit increases(which BTW ALSO overrides & cancels out the actuarial reduction in the benefit you quoted above, if you conventionally retire before 65 WITHOUT an enhanced early retirement benefit package). So her base retirement increases yearly, plus her COLA adjustments increase yearly. ANYBODY who retires from the system, no matter WHEN they decide to retire, does this.

I know of nowhere else in corporate America where you can take advantage of this on such a scale as is done in the education system. Poor teachers, huh?
 Neopoli
Joined: 3/1/2011
Msg: 138
The debates
Posted: 10/24/2012 8:36:25 AM
Oh and don't think double dipping is limited to teachers...policemen do it, firemen as well. Don't even get me started about government administrators, who retire from one job, and reappear, a few months later in another. Bad policy IMO, and a loophole that should be closed.


And do you notice the pattern of ALL of them being taxpayer-funded GOVERNMENT jobs protected by public service unions, who lobby & fund Democratic candidates, who in turn protect & enhance these practices?

I was a union worker for over 20 years. Our private-sector union didnt come anywhere close to the level this abusive self-protecting racket has achieved. Your support of these public service unions, their support of the Democratic Party, & their abusive union policies will not help to close these "loopholes", as much as you broadcast otherwise. You are showing true conflict-of-interest there.
 Neopoli
Joined: 3/1/2011
Msg: 140
The debates
Posted: 10/24/2012 10:44:11 AM
I already know. How about YOU studying up before clumsily jumping in with last-minute troll crap?

Teachers get paychecks every month of the summer vacation. Its part of the yearly salary. Its an option you can choose...spread your exhorbitant salary & benefits over 12 months, or take even bigger paychecks for 9-10 months, all while recieving full benefits no matter which option is taken.

$60K/yr is $60K/yr, no matter how you slice it.


Again, you are a real piece of nit-picking work.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 141
view profile
History
The debates
Posted: 10/24/2012 10:50:04 AM
#159

that include even severe errors in basic geography


I didn't notice any of those. What errors of geography are you claiming he made, specifically?
 Yule_liquor
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 142
The debates
Posted: 10/24/2012 11:10:58 AM
@Blah


Not buying it. Your posts have reeked Obama re-election since the day I started seeing them.


Not for nothing Blah, but some folks have clarity of mind and are able to discern when they are being bullsh!ted by the GOP; but you can keep buying into MR's BS, and I'm sure he'll dump a pile of money on your doorstep if he gets elected!
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 146
view profile
History
The debates
Posted: 10/24/2012 2:27:43 PM
If you can not see what it wrong with that statement, consider yourself as smart with references to geography as Romney.


You've chosen to insert yourself into a question I posed to another poster. But you don't explain why the claims you cite by Gov. Romney are wrong, because you can't. The only response you can manage, not surprisingly, is a lame attempt to deride Mr. Romney, who you know is much brighter and better informed than you are.

1. Assad's Syria has long been Iran's only significant ally in the Arab world, although that's not strictly a geographic issue. Iran probably helped arrange for North Korea, the main supplier of its missiles, to help Syria build the nuclear reactor on the Euphrates that Israel bombed in the Fall of 2007. Photos of the site show the design of the reactor was almost identical to one at Yongbyon.

2. Iranian operatives have had access to Syria's coast. That helps avoid a problem that's come up before. When Iran tried in 2001 to send HAMAS a ship it had loaded with weapons on an island in the Persian Gulf, the Israeli Navy intercepted it in the Red Sea before it could transit the Suez Canal and enter the Mediterranean. This article details that incident with the Karine A:

http://www.waronline.org/en/analysis/pal_weapons.htm

Iran has disembarked ships loaded with weapons at Port Sudan and transferred the cargo to trucks that drove north on back roads. It was then taken by boat again to the Sinai and then overland again by smugglers to Rafah, Egypt, which borders Gaza, and then carried through tunnels to HAMAS forces.

Egyptian intelligence had been helping Israel stop this traffic, but I doubt the new Muslim Brotherhood-led government will continue that. In fact Egypt has seemed to be losing control of Sinai to jihadists, who recently killed a number of Egyptian troops there and forced Israel to move tanks down to the border.

3. Iran has supplied Hizballah, the jihadist organization it created in Lebanon, with vast amounts of weapons. Most of these deliveries have gone through Syria, with the connivance (and probably to the profit) of several members of Assad's corrupt regime, and then into the Bekaa Valley of Eastern Lebanon. Iranian agents in Syria and Lebanon have also been heavily involved in training Hizballah fighters to use these weapons.

4. The weapons Iran has supplied Hizballah are not just small arms. They include antitank mines and, most importantly, about 50,000 artillery rockets. Some of these have a range of 100 miles and could reach Israel's largest cities. They could also be adapted to carry warheads filled with mustard gas, phosgene, or nerve gases instead of TNT.

If you should ever work up the nerve to debate anything about geography with me, come right ahead, and we will see who knows what.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 148
view profile
History
The debates
Posted: 11/5/2012 3:29:13 AM
^^^ You are connecting things together that are not related in a cause and effect way (which is what the folks who are taking advantage of you want you to do).

People were driven to food stamps by the huge economic downturn, which was caused by greedy, irresponsible people who played games with the unregulated portions of the banking, loans and loan resale markets.

The trillions spent, were given mostly to those same people, by both Republicans and by Democrats, because they altogether had already set up the system in such a way (through the Reagan-era deregulation of conglomerate forming ownership establishing 'too big to fail') that the only other option was to permit complete collapse.

The relatively small amount of job growth is due to the fact that these same people have been working hard to reduce the purchasing power of the American customer base, thus restraining demand, thus restraining job growth.

If in fact, the government HAD actually just handed that money out as spendable cash to the peasantry, we might have actually had more job growth, as a direct result in rising spending by the customer base.

But instead, the rich and the powerful have hypnotized people like you, into thinking that when THEY have more cash and less responsibility for their actions, that through magic alone (which the Reagan era proved was B.S.) everything will get EVEN BETTER.

Stop lying to yourself.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 150
view profile
History
The debates
Posted: 11/25/2012 12:31:33 AM
Well I enjoyed the debates.

Now that the American people have spoken, I think it's time for the Republicants to stop obstructing and do what they were sent to Washington to do. I think if they are not going to work, they should not get paid and definitely should not get any medical benefits while obstructing.
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  >