Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    Again you`re not reading or watching.  PROVEN today, 2 complete days missing from the "100 pgs of emails".

    Gawd, you`re clueless.

     




     

    When all else fails, use the "it's missing" canard.

     

     




     

    "Fails"?  AYKM?   Let`s see..........we have talking points from Sep14, 15,.....hmmmm, where are Sep 11, 12, and 13?

     




     

    You mean where are the talking points emails from before they were first written?

    Your own post shows the date of the first talking points memo.

     

     




     

    Read the data.  I know it`s hard for you as you spiiiiiin out of control.  Slow down, take a breath, and read.   100 pages of emails were released and miraculously TWO-DAYS are missing.  The 12th and 13th aren`t there. 

    Try again

     




     

    I read the data - the very first email says "here are the talking points, let me know what you think."  How far before the talking points were first drafted would you like to go to find out who edited them?

    Oh, I get it - the emails show almost no white-house involvement, so you're going to change your conspiracy theory to somehow still implicate Obama.  The white house must have influenced the talking points before they were written!  It's the only way you can still be right - and if you're wrong one more time, you might actually have to resort to self-reflection.

     

     

     




     

    You really talk some s h !t don`t you?  So you`re off the "talking points are fine what are you Republicans talking about" bit, huh?  Again, I would remind you for about the 50th time........NOBODY on earth has said "conspiracy" except YOU!   This is a very simple truth or lie situation.  If you cannot see that Obama, Clinton, Rice, Carney, the State Dept, the White House are ALL lying to America and to the mothers and fathers of dead Americans, then you are freaking blind. 

     Try being honest.

     




     

    The talking points are fine - they reflected what the intelligence community believed on 9/14, and the current assessment is not far off.  Yes, there is more of a pre-planned element than first believed, but to what extent we don't know yet.  Did the attack start as a protest?  No.  Were the protests used as cover for the attack?  Probably.  Were they used in recruitment?  Probably.  Did an attack by dozens of terrorists turn into an attack by hundreds of extremists thanks in part to the video?  Probably.

    I know you can't wrap your head around this, but there was a video mocking Islam and it led to a lot of violence in the middle east and throughout the world.  There were 20 protests that day - many violent.  Google headquarters in London was attacked.  The video caused a lot of problems.

    Somewhere along the line you convinced yourself that never happened, so any time anybody mentioned a video, you equated it with a lie.  If there had been no Benghazi, there would still have been a lot of apologies - that's called diplomacy, and that's why what conservatives call "leading from behind" liberals call "being smart and not sending thousands of American soldiers to their deaths".

    You guys aren't really worth debating, because you're willfully ignorant.  It's willfully ignorant to believe nobody saw the youtube video - the evidence is overwhelming.  It's willfully ignorant to believe that the Obama administration prevented help from arriving - help arrived from the annex instantly, and from Tripoli within hours.  Military assistant was assembled if the attack had continued.  It's willfully ignorant to be continuing the coverup angle after the release of the emails - every communication from the moment the talking points were drafted is now available to you, and there is nothing to implicate the Obama administration spinning anything in any way.

    I enjoy debate, but when I have a point to make I back it up with facts, links, quotes, etc.  You just keep screaming insults and nebulous "everybody knows this or that" rants.  Maybe everybody in the echo chamber knows these things, but there's another world out there where climate change is a problem, gay marriage isn't, and twenty dead children in your backyard deserves more congressional attention than three paragraphs of talking points.  I think at this point, we have to file benghazi between "Obama's a secret Muslim born in Kenya" and "those polls have a liberal skew".

     

     

     



    I get it.  You`re OK with talking points missing 2 days of data, the 2 most important days.  Since this began you have tried to divert attention to every "other" thing you hate Republicans for.  Now, it`s gay marriage, Newtown, and climate change.

     

    Keep spinning.



    The two days before they were written were the two most important days.  I'm spinning.

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    New Survey: Republicans Smarter than Democrats  

     

    Here's a survey that tells us what we already know: Republicans are smarter than Democrats. Yes, that's old news, but it sure is nice to see it in print. In particular, I'm talking about a new survey by the Pew Research Center which quizzed respondents on their political knowledge. And those elitist, ivory tower liberals think they are so smart!

    As noted in the survey, "Republicans fare substantially better than Democrats on several questions in the survey, as is typically the case in surveys about political knowledge."

    The largest gaps are in awareness of which party is more supportive of reducing the size and scope of the federal government (30 points) and which party is more conservative (28 points).

    Republicans also are 21 percentage points more likely than Democrats to know that the GOP is more supportive of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

    There is only one policy question - which party is more supportive of cutting defense spending - on which Democrats are more knowledgeable than Republicans. Two-thirds of Democrats (67%) identify the Democratic Party as being more supportive of reducing the size of the defense budget, compared with 59% of Republicans.

    Only 54% of Democrats surveyed knew that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. Only 59% of Democrats know that Nancy Pelosi is one of them.

    What's really stunning is that when asked which party is generally more supportive of "reducing the size of the federal government," only 46% of Democrats knew the answer. That means 54% either didn't know or thought that the Democrats are generally more supportive of smaller government. Are you kidding me?

    Has the spin and media bias become so thick that Democrats don't even know that they are the kings of big government? Obama has added more to the debt than all presidents combined. Come on!

    Dive into the survey and let me know what you think. Questions are also broken down by age and education as well. Are Republicans really smarter than Democrats?

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]     please wait...   New Survey: Republicans Smarter than Democrats, 8.8 out of 10 based on 184 ratings  




     

     

     

    That's cool. I'm not "Democrats"... 

    No just Democrat.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    New Survey: Republicans Smarter than Democrats  

     

    Here's a survey that tells us what we already know: Republicans are smarter than Democrats. Yes, that's old news, but it sure is nice to see it in print. In particular, I'm talking about a new survey by the Pew Research Center which quizzed respondents on their political knowledge. And those elitist, ivory tower liberals think they are so smart!

    As noted in the survey, "Republicans fare substantially better than Democrats on several questions in the survey, as is typically the case in surveys about political knowledge."

    The largest gaps are in awareness of which party is more supportive of reducing the size and scope of the federal government (30 points) and which party is more conservative (28 points).

    Republicans also are 21 percentage points more likely than Democrats to know that the GOP is more supportive of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

    There is only one policy question - which party is more supportive of cutting defense spending - on which Democrats are more knowledgeable than Republicans. Two-thirds of Democrats (67%) identify the Democratic Party as being more supportive of reducing the size of the defense budget, compared with 59% of Republicans.

    Only 54% of Democrats surveyed knew that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. Only 59% of Democrats know that Nancy Pelosi is one of them.

    What's really stunning is that when asked which party is generally more supportive of "reducing the size of the federal government," only 46% of Democrats knew the answer. That means 54% either didn't know or thought that the Democrats are generally more supportive of smaller government. Are you kidding me?

    Has the spin and media bias become so thick that Democrats don't even know that they are the kings of big government? Obama has added more to the debt than all presidents combined. Come on!

    Dive into the survey and let me know what you think. Questions are also broken down by age and education as well. Are Republicans really smarter than Democrats?

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]     please wait...   New Survey: Republicans Smarter than Democrats, 8.8 out of 10 based on 184 ratings  




    That's a quiz on partisanship, not knowledge.

     

    Asking questions about which party is more inclined to do this or say that only proves who is more politically partisan.

     

     



    More humor. The graphs shown by slomag are of a far greater pool.

     

     




     

    Greater than PEW Research?  You ARE kidding right?   Never mind, you`ve just proven you fit into the 64% of Obama voters with no High School diploma.

     



    Don't you read your own links? Or, as slomag has said, are you too busy chortling via the usual childish insults ? It was a survey of 1,000 adults. The most recent Gallup polls were based on 44,392 respondents. I'm not surprised.

    BTW; here's a couple of other PEW surveys; curious conclusions, to say the least.  

     

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/pew-black-turnout-may-have-been-lower-because-blacks-lie-or-higher-because-so-many-are-felons/

     http://www.businessinsider.com/msnbc-fox-news-bias-opinion-reporting-pew-research-2013-3

     




     

    Oh,..............was that the same Gallup that had the 2012 election so correct?

    BWAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

    Again, proving your from the 64% with no diploma. 

    This is too easy.

     



    That  64%  was 3% of the sample; did you think I would overlook that ? Or did you? This likely explains your schoolyard antics; from what I've seen, there isn't very much else going on upstairs. Also, the Gallup poll claimed via a different poll, and as a result a different, albeit smaller, sample size - Am I going slow enough for you? Hence there was a dead heat conclusion based on a 6 percent uncertainty;  that Obama had a 2/3 chance of winning. BTW, I have an MS in Statistics; so I would know something about polls, and a BS in Applied Math, from Stanford and Stonybrook, respectively. What's you're background?

    And now, after constantly hearing your feeble infantalia, comes my own schoolyard insult, and for your sake, hopefully false -

    Or are you typing from your mother's basement?

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    New Survey: Republicans Smarter than Democrats  

     

    Here's a survey that tells us what we already know: Republicans are smarter than Democrats. Yes, that's old news, but it sure is nice to see it in print. In particular, I'm talking about a new survey by the Pew Research Center which quizzed respondents on their political knowledge. And those elitist, ivory tower liberals think they are so smart!

    As noted in the survey, "Republicans fare substantially better than Democrats on several questions in the survey, as is typically the case in surveys about political knowledge."

    The largest gaps are in awareness of which party is more supportive of reducing the size and scope of the federal government (30 points) and which party is more conservative (28 points).

    Republicans also are 21 percentage points more likely than Democrats to know that the GOP is more supportive of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

    There is only one policy question - which party is more supportive of cutting defense spending - on which Democrats are more knowledgeable than Republicans. Two-thirds of Democrats (67%) identify the Democratic Party as being more supportive of reducing the size of the defense budget, compared with 59% of Republicans.

    Only 54% of Democrats surveyed knew that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. Only 59% of Democrats know that Nancy Pelosi is one of them.

    What's really stunning is that when asked which party is generally more supportive of "reducing the size of the federal government," only 46% of Democrats knew the answer. That means 54% either didn't know or thought that the Democrats are generally more supportive of smaller government. Are you kidding me?

    Has the spin and media bias become so thick that Democrats don't even know that they are the kings of big government? Obama has added more to the debt than all presidents combined. Come on!

    Dive into the survey and let me know what you think. Questions are also broken down by age and education as well. Are Republicans really smarter than Democrats?

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]     please wait...   New Survey: Republicans Smarter than Democrats, 8.8 out of 10 based on 184 ratings  




    That's a quiz on partisanship, not knowledge.

     

    Asking questions about which party is more inclined to do this or say that only proves who is more politically partisan.

     

     



    More humor. The graphs shown by slomag are of a far greater pool.

     

     




     

    Greater than PEW Research?  You ARE kidding right?   Never mind, you`ve just proven you fit into the 64% of Obama voters with no High School diploma.

     



    Don't you read your own links? Or, as slomag has said, are you too busy chortling via the usual childish insults ? It was a survey of 1,000 adults. The most recent Gallup polls were based on 44,392 respondents. I'm not surprised.

    BTW; here's a couple of other PEW surveys; curious conclusions, to say the least.  

     

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/pew-black-turnout-may-have-been-lower-because-blacks-lie-or-higher-because-so-many-are-felons/

     http://www.businessinsider.com/msnbc-fox-news-bias-opinion-reporting-pew-research-2013-3

     




     

    Oh,..............was that the same Gallup that had the 2012 election so correct?

    BWAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

    Again, proving your from the 64% with no diploma. 

    This is too easy.

     



    That  64%  was 3% of the sample; did you think I would overlook that ? Or did you? This likely explains your schoolyard antics; from what I've seen, there isn't very much else going on upstairs. Also, the Gallup poll claimed via a different poll, and as a result a different, albeit smaller, sample size - Am I going slow enough for you? Hence there was a dead heat conclusion based on a 6 percent uncertainty;  that Obama had a 2/3 chance of winning. BTW, I have an MS in Statistics; so I would know something about polls, and a BS in Applied Math, from Stanford and Stonybrook, respectively. What's you're background?

    And now, after constantly hearing your feeble infantalia, comes my own schoolyard insult, and for your sake, hopefully false -

    Or are you typing from your mother's basement?

     



    bigdog's background ...

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    New Survey: Republicans Smarter than Democrats  

     

    Here's a survey that tells us what we already know: Republicans are smarter than Democrats. Yes, that's old news, but it sure is nice to see it in print. In particular, I'm talking about a new survey by the Pew Research Center which quizzed respondents on their political knowledge. And those elitist, ivory tower liberals think they are so smart!

    As noted in the survey, "Republicans fare substantially better than Democrats on several questions in the survey, as is typically the case in surveys about political knowledge."

    The largest gaps are in awareness of which party is more supportive of reducing the size and scope of the federal government (30 points) and which party is more conservative (28 points).

    Republicans also are 21 percentage points more likely than Democrats to know that the GOP is more supportive of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

    There is only one policy question - which party is more supportive of cutting defense spending - on which Democrats are more knowledgeable than Republicans. Two-thirds of Democrats (67%) identify the Democratic Party as being more supportive of reducing the size of the defense budget, compared with 59% of Republicans.

    Only 54% of Democrats surveyed knew that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. Only 59% of Democrats know that Nancy Pelosi is one of them.

    What's really stunning is that when asked which party is generally more supportive of "reducing the size of the federal government," only 46% of Democrats knew the answer. That means 54% either didn't know or thought that the Democrats are generally more supportive of smaller government. Are you kidding me?

    Has the spin and media bias become so thick that Democrats don't even know that they are the kings of big government? Obama has added more to the debt than all presidents combined. Come on!

    Dive into the survey and let me know what you think. Questions are also broken down by age and education as well. Are Republicans really smarter than Democrats?

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]     please wait...   New Survey: Republicans Smarter than Democrats, 8.8 out of 10 based on 184 ratings  




    That's a quiz on partisanship, not knowledge.

     

    Asking questions about which party is more inclined to do this or say that only proves who is more politically partisan.

     

     



    More humor. The graphs shown by slomag are of a far greater pool.

     

     




     

    Greater than PEW Research?  You ARE kidding right?   Never mind, you`ve just proven you fit into the 64% of Obama voters with no High School diploma.

     



    Don't you read your own links? Or, as slomag has said, are you too busy chortling via the usual childish insults ? It was a survey of 1,000 adults. The most recent Gallup polls were based on 44,392 respondents. I'm not surprised.

    BTW; here's a couple of other PEW surveys; curious conclusions, to say the least.  

     

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/pew-black-turnout-may-have-been-lower-because-blacks-lie-or-higher-because-so-many-are-felons/

     http://www.businessinsider.com/msnbc-fox-news-bias-opinion-reporting-pew-research-2013-3

     




     

    Oh,..............was that the same Gallup that had the 2012 election so correct?

    BWAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

    Again, proving your from the 64% with no diploma. 

    This is too easy.

     



    That  64%  was 3% of the sample; did you think I would overlook that ? Or did you? This likely explains your schoolyard antics; from what I've seen, there isn't very much else going on upstairs. Also, the Gallup poll claimed via a different poll, and as a result a different, albeit smaller, sample size - Am I going slow enough for you? Hence there was a dead heat conclusion based on a 6 percent uncertainty;  that Obama had a 2/3 chance of winning. BTW, I have an MS in Statistics; so I would know something about polls, and a BS in Applied Math, from Stanford and Stonybrook, respectively. What's you're background?

    And now, after constantly hearing your feeble infantalia, comes my own schoolyard insult, and for your sake, hopefully false -

    Or are you typing from your mother's basement?

     

     



    bigdog's background ...

     



    Here's guessing that's pretty accurate, LOL!

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    As he would say,  BBBWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    New Survey: Republicans Smarter than Democrats  

     

    Here's a survey that tells us what we already know: Republicans are smarter than Democrats. Yes, that's old news, but it sure is nice to see it in print. In particular, I'm talking about a new survey by the Pew Research Center which quizzed respondents on their political knowledge. And those elitist, ivory tower liberals think they are so smart!

    As noted in the survey, "Republicans fare substantially better than Democrats on several questions in the survey, as is typically the case in surveys about political knowledge."

    The largest gaps are in awareness of which party is more supportive of reducing the size and scope of the federal government (30 points) and which party is more conservative (28 points).

    Republicans also are 21 percentage points more likely than Democrats to know that the GOP is more supportive of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

    There is only one policy question - which party is more supportive of cutting defense spending - on which Democrats are more knowledgeable than Republicans. Two-thirds of Democrats (67%) identify the Democratic Party as being more supportive of reducing the size of the defense budget, compared with 59% of Republicans.

    Only 54% of Democrats surveyed knew that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. Only 59% of Democrats know that Nancy Pelosi is one of them.

    What's really stunning is that when asked which party is generally more supportive of "reducing the size of the federal government," only 46% of Democrats knew the answer. That means 54% either didn't know or thought that the Democrats are generally more supportive of smaller government. Are you kidding me?

    Has the spin and media bias become so thick that Democrats don't even know that they are the kings of big government? Obama has added more to the debt than all presidents combined. Come on!

    Dive into the survey and let me know what you think. Questions are also broken down by age and education as well. Are Republicans really smarter than Democrats?

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]     please wait...   New Survey: Republicans Smarter than Democrats, 8.8 out of 10 based on 184 ratings  




    That's a quiz on partisanship, not knowledge.

     

    Asking questions about which party is more inclined to do this or say that only proves who is more politically partisan.

     

     



    More humor. The graphs shown by slomag are of a far greater pool.

     

     




     

    Greater than PEW Research?  You ARE kidding right?   Never mind, you`ve just proven you fit into the 64% of Obama voters with no High School diploma.

     



    Don't you read your own links? Or, as slomag has said, are you too busy chortling via the usual childish insults ? It was a survey of 1,000 adults. The most recent Gallup polls were based on 44,392 respondents. I'm not surprised.

    BTW; here's a couple of other PEW surveys; curious conclusions, to say the least.  

     

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/pew-black-turnout-may-have-been-lower-because-blacks-lie-or-higher-because-so-many-are-felons/

     http://www.businessinsider.com/msnbc-fox-news-bias-opinion-reporting-pew-research-2013-3

     




     

    Oh,..............was that the same Gallup that had the 2012 election so correct?

    BWAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

    Again, proving your from the 64% with no diploma. 

    This is too easy.

     



    That  64%  was 3% of the sample; did you think I would overlook that ? Or did you? This likely explains your schoolyard antics; from what I've seen, there isn't very much else going on upstairs. Also, the Gallup poll claimed via a different poll, and as a result a different, albeit smaller, sample size - Am I going slow enough for you? Hence there was a dead heat conclusion based on a 6 percent uncertainty;  that Obama had a 2/3 chance of winning. BTW, I have an MS in Statistics; so I would know something about polls, and a BS in Applied Math, from Stanford and Stonybrook, respectively. What's you're background?

    And now, after constantly hearing your feeble infantalia, comes my own schoolyard insult, and for your sake, hopefully false -

    Or are you typing from your mother's basement?

     

     



    Anyone that would come to an anonymous message board and brag about their supposed degrees tells us one thing........they DON`t have any.  Your very limited skill-set and complete lack of knowledge regarding anything/everything political is proof of your lies.  Between you and your now cyber friend slomag, you are spinning all over the place and cannot focus on any one topic.  The two of you have gone from Newtown, SSM, climate change, Alberto Gonzales, ......all with one common theme, the same whining mantra of all feeble minded libs........"Bush`s fault".

     

    I`m guessing we can dispense with slomag`s ridiculous data from "dog with a blog" and your data from the folks that have NEVER had any polling correct, (Gallup) and possibly agree that a very neutral CNN (left leaning if anything) would be acceptable for you?

    Good......

    A surprising amount of anti-conservative bigotry on the web asserts that conservatives are inherently less intelligent than liberals. Admittedly, some prominent conservatives make statements that go against the mainstream scientific consensus on topics such as global warming and Darwin’s theory of evolution. That said, these examples do not mean that being a conservative automatically implies a lower IQ or education level than being a liberal does.

    I decided to run the numbers to test this assertion, and it turns out it is not true. However, a far more interesting pattern emerges that confirms a theory I have always held, but had never taken the time to test.

    In my opinion, certain liberal policies appear to have an underlying paternalistic tone. They hold that the poor and uneducated need the help of wiser government bureaucrats to protect them from themselves. Many liberals believe it is unfair for society to hold people accountable for their own condition. Therefore, the ignorant and benighted conservative voter should just fall in line and let the ivory tower intelligentsia dictate how society ought to run people’s lives. The intellectual is, after all, so much smarter than the average working stiff.

    Of course, average working stiffs and/or business owners who have some college or are college graduates have made their own way in the world, have taken risk, and have a strong desire to control their own fates. They resent fiats from a central authority led by a group of over-educated individuals with little or no prior business experience.

    To implement this idealistic worldview, mainstream liberalism needs muscle, and that muscle comes from the undereducated masses who stand to benefit from a dogma seeking to redistribute the income earned by others directly to them.

    As such, the distribution of liberal and conservative education levels should differ sharply. Liberal education levels should have fatter tails at the low and high ends of the educational spectrum, while conservative education levels should be more concentrated in the middle.

    To test my theory, I looked at education levels by voter in the 2000, 2004, and 2008 presidential elections, as well as the 2006 and 2010 midterm elections. In every case, the share of people with no high school education was higher among people voting for Democratic candidates than it was among people voting for Republican candidates. On the opposite end of the spectrum, in every case, the share of people with a postgraduate education was higher among people voting for Democratic candidates than it was among people voting for Republican candidates.

    The voting trends by party and education for each of these elections are listed below:

    The 2000 Presidential Election

    Source: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/2000vote/general/exitpoll_hub.html

    The 2004 Presidential Election

    Source:http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

    The 2006 Midterm Election

    Source:http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html

    The 2008 Presidential Election

    Source: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

    The 2010 Midterm Election

    Source: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls/#val=USH00p1

    Based on the above data, it seems clear that people at both the high and low ends of the educational spectrum tend to favor Democratic candidates. Therefore, the assertion that liberals are smarter than conservatives is an overly simplistic notion with little basis in the actual data.

     

     

     




     

    BTW, as I have said many times, the Rep vs Dem education level thing has been done here for years (back as far as 2004 cited in the above poll).  If you are what you say you are, and you know statistics as you claim, you will see that all this data crunches down to a difference between the 2 parties of (approximately) less than 1%.

     



    Great!  Then that should be the last time we hear you b1tching about low-information voters.

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

     Wrong again, bigdog. Despite your repetitive imbecilic diatribe, (especially this AM, where you appear rattled), I actually resisted for awhile giving you my background, because I actually agree with you a forum is no place to put this. But if it makes you feel better, you can believe what you want. If that doesn't help, no worries; Rush should be on the airwaves next week for you high-info voters; you know, those who believe that the Earth is 9000 yrs old and the 40 percent of you that think Benghazi is the worst scandal ever. Enjoy.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    New Survey: Republicans Smarter than Democrats  

     

    Here's a survey that tells us what we already know: Republicans are smarter than Democrats. Yes, that's old news, but it sure is nice to see it in print. In particular, I'm talking about a new survey by the Pew Research Center which quizzed respondents on their political knowledge. And those elitist, ivory tower liberals think they are so smart!

    As noted in the survey, "Republicans fare substantially better than Democrats on several questions in the survey, as is typically the case in surveys about political knowledge."

    The largest gaps are in awareness of which party is more supportive of reducing the size and scope of the federal government (30 points) and which party is more conservative (28 points).

    Republicans also are 21 percentage points more likely than Democrats to know that the GOP is more supportive of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

    There is only one policy question - which party is more supportive of cutting defense spending - on which Democrats are more knowledgeable than Republicans. Two-thirds of Democrats (67%) identify the Democratic Party as being more supportive of reducing the size of the defense budget, compared with 59% of Republicans.

    Only 54% of Democrats surveyed knew that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. Only 59% of Democrats know that Nancy Pelosi is one of them.

    What's really stunning is that when asked which party is generally more supportive of "reducing the size of the federal government," only 46% of Democrats knew the answer. That means 54% either didn't know or thought that the Democrats are generally more supportive of smaller government. Are you kidding me?

    Has the spin and media bias become so thick that Democrats don't even know that they are the kings of big government? Obama has added more to the debt than all presidents combined. Come on!

    Dive into the survey and let me know what you think. Questions are also broken down by age and education as well. Are Republicans really smarter than Democrats?

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]     please wait...   New Survey: Republicans Smarter than Democrats, 8.8 out of 10 based on 184 ratings  




    That's a quiz on partisanship, not knowledge.

     

    Asking questions about which party is more inclined to do this or say that only proves who is more politically partisan.

     

     



    More humor. The graphs shown by slomag are of a far greater pool.

     

     




     

    Greater than PEW Research?  You ARE kidding right?   Never mind, you`ve just proven you fit into the 64% of Obama voters with no High School diploma.

     



    Don't you read your own links? Or, as slomag has said, are you too busy chortling via the usual childish insults ? It was a survey of 1,000 adults. The most recent Gallup polls were based on 44,392 respondents. I'm not surprised.

    BTW; here's a couple of other PEW surveys; curious conclusions, to say the least.  

     

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/pew-black-turnout-may-have-been-lower-because-blacks-lie-or-higher-because-so-many-are-felons/

     http://www.businessinsider.com/msnbc-fox-news-bias-opinion-reporting-pew-research-2013-3

     




     

    Oh,..............was that the same Gallup that had the 2012 election so correct?

    BWAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

    Again, proving your from the 64% with no diploma. 

    This is too easy.

     



    That  64%  was 3% of the sample; did you think I would overlook that ? Or did you? This likely explains your schoolyard antics; from what I've seen, there isn't very much else going on upstairs. Also, the Gallup poll claimed via a different poll, and as a result a different, albeit smaller, sample size - Am I going slow enough for you? Hence there was a dead heat conclusion based on a 6 percent uncertainty;  that Obama had a 2/3 chance of winning. BTW, I have an MS in Statistics; so I would know something about polls, and a BS in Applied Math, from Stanford and Stonybrook, respectively. What's you're background?

    And now, after constantly hearing your feeble infantalia, comes my own schoolyard insult, and for your sake, hopefully false -

    Or are you typing from your mother's basement?

     

     



    bigdog's background ...

     

     



    Your very weak attempt at trying to frame this Benghazi (yes, the thread topic) thing into a "conspiracy" must be a way of you denying reality or something.  I think by you saying "conspiracy" it make you feel better.  This is not a cooked up conspiracy.  This is a real event where the Sec of State, the president, his press secretary, Ms. Rice ALL LIED.  Every day there is new evidence of this fact.  It might benefit you to watch some news today.  Maybe you should read a paper?  

     

    Admitting you have a problem ( insane ideology is a problem) is the first step.



    Well, if you had stopped there, you could split hairs and argue that it's a coverup - not a conspiracy.  But you didn't stop there, remember?

    Remember the soldiers who were told to "stand down" rather than help the Ambassador?

    Remeber how Stevens was sodomized and dragged through the streets by terrorrists?

    Remember how Petraeus was blackmailed into testifying that the CIAs original assessment was that this was a spontaneous incident? 

    Remember the fabricated news reports about protests in 20 cities over a youtube video that nobody ever watched?  Remember the staged attack on Google HQ in London?

    Remember the "real time video" of the attack that could have answered all your questions, but Obama would not allow released?

    And now we have every email relating to the talking points, but suspiciously absent are the emails from before the talking points were written.  What are they hiding?

    You add it all together, and you and mittens better head back down to the bunker for another layer of foil.

     

     

     

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    New Survey: Republicans Smarter than Democrats  

     

    Here's a survey that tells us what we already know: Republicans are smarter than Democrats. Yes, that's old news, but it sure is nice to see it in print. In particular, I'm talking about a new survey by the Pew Research Center which quizzed respondents on their political knowledge. And those elitist, ivory tower liberals think they are so smart!

    As noted in the survey, "Republicans fare substantially better than Democrats on several questions in the survey, as is typically the case in surveys about political knowledge."

    The largest gaps are in awareness of which party is more supportive of reducing the size and scope of the federal government (30 points) and which party is more conservative (28 points).

    Republicans also are 21 percentage points more likely than Democrats to know that the GOP is more supportive of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

    There is only one policy question - which party is more supportive of cutting defense spending - on which Democrats are more knowledgeable than Republicans. Two-thirds of Democrats (67%) identify the Democratic Party as being more supportive of reducing the size of the defense budget, compared with 59% of Republicans.

    Only 54% of Democrats surveyed knew that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. Only 59% of Democrats know that Nancy Pelosi is one of them.

    What's really stunning is that when asked which party is generally more supportive of "reducing the size of the federal government," only 46% of Democrats knew the answer. That means 54% either didn't know or thought that the Democrats are generally more supportive of smaller government. Are you kidding me?

    Has the spin and media bias become so thick that Democrats don't even know that they are the kings of big government? Obama has added more to the debt than all presidents combined. Come on!

    Dive into the survey and let me know what you think. Questions are also broken down by age and education as well. Are Republicans really smarter than Democrats?

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]     please wait...   New Survey: Republicans Smarter than Democrats, 8.8 out of 10 based on 184 ratings  




    That's a quiz on partisanship, not knowledge.

     

    Asking questions about which party is more inclined to do this or say that only proves who is more politically partisan.

     

     



    More humor. The graphs shown by slomag are of a far greater pool.

     

     




     

    Greater than PEW Research?  You ARE kidding right?   Never mind, you`ve just proven you fit into the 64% of Obama voters with no High School diploma.

     



    Don't you read your own links? Or, as slomag has said, are you too busy chortling via the usual childish insults ? It was a survey of 1,000 adults. The most recent Gallup polls were based on 44,392 respondents. I'm not surprised.

    BTW; here's a couple of other PEW surveys; curious conclusions, to say the least.  

     

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/pew-black-turnout-may-have-been-lower-because-blacks-lie-or-higher-because-so-many-are-felons/

     http://www.businessinsider.com/msnbc-fox-news-bias-opinion-reporting-pew-research-2013-3

     




     

    Oh,..............was that the same Gallup that had the 2012 election so correct?

    BWAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

    Again, proving your from the 64% with no diploma. 

    This is too easy.

     



    That  64%  was 3% of the sample; did you think I would overlook that ? Or did you? This likely explains your schoolyard antics; from what I've seen, there isn't very much else going on upstairs. Also, the Gallup poll claimed via a different poll, and as a result a different, albeit smaller, sample size - Am I going slow enough for you? Hence there was a dead heat conclusion based on a 6 percent uncertainty;  that Obama had a 2/3 chance of winning. BTW, I have an MS in Statistics; so I would know something about polls, and a BS in Applied Math, from Stanford and Stonybrook, respectively. What's you're background?

    And now, after constantly hearing your feeble infantalia, comes my own schoolyard insult, and for your sake, hopefully false -

    Or are you typing from your mother's basement?

     

     



    Anyone that would come to an anonymous message board and brag about their supposed degrees tells us one thing........they DON`t have any.  Your very limited skill-set and complete lack of knowledge regarding anything/everything political is proof of your lies.  Between you and your now cyber friend slomag, you are spinning all over the place and cannot focus on any one topic.  The two of you have gone from Newtown, SSM, climate change, Alberto Gonzales, ......all with one common theme, the same whining mantra of all feeble minded libs........"Bush`s fault".

     

    I`m guessing we can dispense with slomag`s ridiculous data from "dog with a blog" and your data from the folks that have NEVER had any polling correct, (Gallup) and possibly agree that a very neutral CNN (left leaning if anything) would be acceptable for you?

    Good......

    A surprising amount of anti-conservative bigotry on the web asserts that conservatives are inherently less intelligent than liberals. Admittedly, some prominent conservatives make statements that go against the mainstream scientific consensus on topics such as global warming and Darwin’s theory of evolution. That said, these examples do not mean that being a conservative automatically implies a lower IQ or education level than being a liberal does.

    I decided to run the numbers to test this assertion, and it turns out it is not true. However, a far more interesting pattern emerges that confirms a theory I have always held, but had never taken the time to test.

    In my opinion, certain liberal policies appear to have an underlying paternalistic tone. They hold that the poor and uneducated need the help of wiser government bureaucrats to protect them from themselves. Many liberals believe it is unfair for society to hold people accountable for their own condition. Therefore, the ignorant and benighted conservative voter should just fall in line and let the ivory tower intelligentsia dictate how society ought to run people’s lives. The intellectual is, after all, so much smarter than the average working stiff.

    Of course, average working stiffs and/or business owners who have some college or are college graduates have made their own way in the world, have taken risk, and have a strong desire to control their own fates. They resent fiats from a central authority led by a group of over-educated individuals with little or no prior business experience.

    To implement this idealistic worldview, mainstream liberalism needs muscle, and that muscle comes from the undereducated masses who stand to benefit from a dogma seeking to redistribute the income earned by others directly to them.

    As such, the distribution of liberal and conservative education levels should differ sharply. Liberal education levels should have fatter tails at the low and high ends of the educational spectrum, while conservative education levels should be more concentrated in the middle.

    To test my theory, I looked at education levels by voter in the 2000, 2004, and 2008 presidential elections, as well as the 2006 and 2010 midterm elections. In every case, the share of people with no high school education was higher among people voting for Democratic candidates than it was among people voting for Republican candidates. On the opposite end of the spectrum, in every case, the share of people with a postgraduate education was higher among people voting for Democratic candidates than it was among people voting for Republican candidates.

    The voting trends by party and education for each of these elections are listed below:

    The 2000 Presidential Election

    Source: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/2000vote/general/exitpoll_hub.html

    The 2004 Presidential Election

    Source:http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

    The 2006 Midterm Election

    Source:http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html

    The 2008 Presidential Election

    Source: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

    The 2010 Midterm Election

    Source: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls/#val=USH00p1

    Based on the above data, it seems clear that people at both the high and low ends of the educational spectrum tend to favor Democratic candidates. Therefore, the assertion that liberals are smarter than conservatives is an overly simplistic notion with little basis in the actual data.

     

     

     




     

    BTW, as I have said many times, the Rep vs Dem education level thing has been done here for years (back as far as 2004 cited in the above poll).  If you are what you say you are, and you know statistics as you claim, you will see that all this data crunches down to a difference between the 2 parties of (approximately) less than 1%.

     

     



    Great!  Then that should be the last time we hear you b1tching about low-information voters.

     

     

     




     

    Nice try.  Low information has nothing to do with how many degrees someone may have.  Nor does it have anyhting to do with isane ideologies (case in point......you).  If people chooses not to be informed that`s their problem not mine.  There are plenty of facts surrounding this case.

     



    Excuse me, you're the one who mentioned not having a high school diploma; consistency does not appear to be one of your strong suits.

    Speaking of insane ideologies, perhaps you can explain why, since Obama took office

    - Health care costs have gone down

    - The budget deficit has gone down, via percentage of GDP

    - After the 2008 meltdown, the stock market is through the roof

    And speaking of the environment, CO2 concentration has hit a critical high point

     

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    New Survey: Republicans Smarter than Democrats  

     

    Here's a survey that tells us what we already know: Republicans are smarter than Democrats. Yes, that's old news, but it sure is nice to see it in print. In particular, I'm talking about a new survey by the Pew Research Center which quizzed respondents on their political knowledge. And those elitist, ivory tower liberals think they are so smart!

    As noted in the survey, "Republicans fare substantially better than Democrats on several questions in the survey, as is typically the case in surveys about political knowledge."

    The largest gaps are in awareness of which party is more supportive of reducing the size and scope of the federal government (30 points) and which party is more conservative (28 points).

    Republicans also are 21 percentage points more likely than Democrats to know that the GOP is more supportive of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

    There is only one policy question - which party is more supportive of cutting defense spending - on which Democrats are more knowledgeable than Republicans. Two-thirds of Democrats (67%) identify the Democratic Party as being more supportive of reducing the size of the defense budget, compared with 59% of Republicans.

    Only 54% of Democrats surveyed knew that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. Only 59% of Democrats know that Nancy Pelosi is one of them.

    What's really stunning is that when asked which party is generally more supportive of "reducing the size of the federal government," only 46% of Democrats knew the answer. That means 54% either didn't know or thought that the Democrats are generally more supportive of smaller government. Are you kidding me?

    Has the spin and media bias become so thick that Democrats don't even know that they are the kings of big government? Obama has added more to the debt than all presidents combined. Come on!

    Dive into the survey and let me know what you think. Questions are also broken down by age and education as well. Are Republicans really smarter than Democrats?

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]     please wait...   New Survey: Republicans Smarter than Democrats, 8.8 out of 10 based on 184 ratings  




    That's a quiz on partisanship, not knowledge.

     

    Asking questions about which party is more inclined to do this or say that only proves who is more politically partisan.

     

     



    More humor. The graphs shown by slomag are of a far greater pool.

     

     




     

    Greater than PEW Research?  You ARE kidding right?   Never mind, you`ve just proven you fit into the 64% of Obama voters with no High School diploma.

     



    Don't you read your own links? Or, as slomag has said, are you too busy chortling via the usual childish insults ? It was a survey of 1,000 adults. The most recent Gallup polls were based on 44,392 respondents. I'm not surprised.

    BTW; here's a couple of other PEW surveys; curious conclusions, to say the least.  

     

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/pew-black-turnout-may-have-been-lower-because-blacks-lie-or-higher-because-so-many-are-felons/

     http://www.businessinsider.com/msnbc-fox-news-bias-opinion-reporting-pew-research-2013-3

     




     

    Oh,..............was that the same Gallup that had the 2012 election so correct?

    BWAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

    Again, proving your from the 64% with no diploma. 

    This is too easy.

     



    That  64%  was 3% of the sample; did you think I would overlook that ? Or did you? This likely explains your schoolyard antics; from what I've seen, there isn't very much else going on upstairs. Also, the Gallup poll claimed via a different poll, and as a result a different, albeit smaller, sample size - Am I going slow enough for you? Hence there was a dead heat conclusion based on a 6 percent uncertainty;  that Obama had a 2/3 chance of winning. BTW, I have an MS in Statistics; so I would know something about polls, and a BS in Applied Math, from Stanford and Stonybrook, respectively. What's you're background?

    And now, after constantly hearing your feeble infantalia, comes my own schoolyard insult, and for your sake, hopefully false -

    Or are you typing from your mother's basement?

     

     



    Anyone that would come to an anonymous message board and brag about their supposed degrees tells us one thing........they DON`t have any.  Your very limited skill-set and complete lack of knowledge regarding anything/everything political is proof of your lies.  Between you and your now cyber friend slomag, you are spinning all over the place and cannot focus on any one topic.  The two of you have gone from Newtown, SSM, climate change, Alberto Gonzales, ......all with one common theme, the same whining mantra of all feeble minded libs........"Bush`s fault".

     

    I`m guessing we can dispense with slomag`s ridiculous data from "dog with a blog" and your data from the folks that have NEVER had any polling correct, (Gallup) and possibly agree that a very neutral CNN (left leaning if anything) would be acceptable for you?

    Good......

    A surprising amount of anti-conservative bigotry on the web asserts that conservatives are inherently less intelligent than liberals. Admittedly, some prominent conservatives make statements that go against the mainstream scientific consensus on topics such as global warming and Darwin’s theory of evolution. That said, these examples do not mean that being a conservative automatically implies a lower IQ or education level than being a liberal does.

    I decided to run the numbers to test this assertion, and it turns out it is not true. However, a far more interesting pattern emerges that confirms a theory I have always held, but had never taken the time to test.

    In my opinion, certain liberal policies appear to have an underlying paternalistic tone. They hold that the poor and uneducated need the help of wiser government bureaucrats to protect them from themselves. Many liberals believe it is unfair for society to hold people accountable for their own condition. Therefore, the ignorant and benighted conservative voter should just fall in line and let the ivory tower intelligentsia dictate how society ought to run people’s lives. The intellectual is, after all, so much smarter than the average working stiff.

    Of course, average working stiffs and/or business owners who have some college or are college graduates have made their own way in the world, have taken risk, and have a strong desire to control their own fates. They resent fiats from a central authority led by a group of over-educated individuals with little or no prior business experience.

    To implement this idealistic worldview, mainstream liberalism needs muscle, and that muscle comes from the undereducated masses who stand to benefit from a dogma seeking to redistribute the income earned by others directly to them.

    As such, the distribution of liberal and conservative education levels should differ sharply. Liberal education levels should have fatter tails at the low and high ends of the educational spectrum, while conservative education levels should be more concentrated in the middle.

    To test my theory, I looked at education levels by voter in the 2000, 2004, and 2008 presidential elections, as well as the 2006 and 2010 midterm elections. In every case, the share of people with no high school education was higher among people voting for Democratic candidates than it was among people voting for Republican candidates. On the opposite end of the spectrum, in every case, the share of people with a postgraduate education was higher among people voting for Democratic candidates than it was among people voting for Republican candidates.

    The voting trends by party and education for each of these elections are listed below:

    The 2000 Presidential Election

    Source: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/2000vote/general/exitpoll_hub.html

    The 2004 Presidential Election

    Source:http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

    The 2006 Midterm Election

    Source:http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html

    The 2008 Presidential Election

    Source: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

    The 2010 Midterm Election

    Source: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls/#val=USH00p1

    Based on the above data, it seems clear that people at both the high and low ends of the educational spectrum tend to favor Democratic candidates. Therefore, the assertion that liberals are smarter than conservatives is an overly simplistic notion with little basis in the actual data.

     

     

     




     

    BTW, as I have said many times, the Rep vs Dem education level thing has been done here for years (back as far as 2004 cited in the above poll).  If you are what you say you are, and you know statistics as you claim, you will see that all this data crunches down to a difference between the 2 parties of (approximately) less than 1%.

     

     



    Great!  Then that should be the last time we hear you b1tching about low-information voters.

     

     




    The conclusion I draw is that post-graduate education is serverely overrated.  And here we have proof.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

     

    The debt has gone from $9 Trillion when he took office to almost $17 trillion now, the fastest increase in history, and is predicted to be over $20Trillion when he slithers away in Jan 2017. 

    The DOW at 15,000 is due to 3 things.  Your ilk`s dreaded "millionaires and billionaires" cashing out, The Fed printing and pouring fake money in, and the buyback of bonds.

    BTW, real unemployment (CBO and NLRB) is at 14.4% with 9.6million LESS people working then when this fool took office.  Also, the labor force is at it`s lowest participation since 1979.

    Are we done with Benghazi?  Should we jump to one of the "Obama`s many failures" threads?

     

     



    What a joke.

     

    Hey maroon, just to show how stupid you are in all things economic:

    The DOW at 15,000 is due to 3 things.  Your ilk`s dreaded "millionaires and billionaires" cashing out, The Fed printing and pouring fake money in, and the buyback of bonds.


    If people are "cashing out" that would cause the market to drop, not rise, moron.

    Bonds yields reflect inflation. Inflation is non-existent and yet the markets continue to rise.

     

    Get some current numbers dingleberry.

    Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

    In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

    In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

    In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

    In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

    Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

     

    S&P singled out the neo-con-poops as the reason for the downgrade:

    Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now
    assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012,
    remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority
    of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise
    revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.


    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/spratingreport_080611.pdf

     

     

     



     

    Agree; it doesn't help his case to show cause and effect; cumulative numbers piggy back the disastrous W admin; and there's no surprise we don't see his link, as usual. 

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    Rididculous.  This is very simple stuff.  There was a coordinated, calculated attack in Benghazi by an al Qeada affiliate.  4 Americans died.  The White House, the Sec of State, Jay Carney, Ambassador Rice CHOSE to lie about the attack as it DID NOT fit their narrative of "al Qeada on the run-osama dead" during the heated campaign.  Hillary and Obama, 4 days later, at the funeral/ceremony LIED directly to the face of the mother of one of the dead (see many interviews she has done).  The talking points, now learned as FACT, were changed 12 times to make sure they fit the narrative.

    These are all facts.  There is no tin foil, or conspiracy.  I know you find comfort in talking yourself into some type of "conspiracy".  It does not exist.  Very simple.......these were blatant lies at the highest level directly to the American people. 



    OK.  Let's pretend for a moment you never bought into the "stand down" and "real-time video" fantasies, and just pick apart what you think are facts ...

    There was a coordinated, calculated attack in Benghazi by an al Qeada affiliate - not fact; we do not yet know the details of who was involved in the attack.  Signs still point to Ansar al sharia, who had tenuous links to Al Qaeda, was comprised of religious radicals looking to turn Libya into a Theocracy, and had expressed outrage over the youtube video.

    The talking points, now learned as FACT, were changed 12 times - yes I'll give you that  to make sure they fit the narrative - wrong, and a flat-out lie.  You've posted the talking points yourself.  The narrative was consistent - only the conjecture of responsibility was removed.  If Susan Rice had gone on Meet the Press and said "our best intelligence indicates there was a co-ordinated Al Qaeda attack on the Benghazi consulate" she would have been lying.  That's not what the intelligence said.

    The White House, the Sec of State, Jay Carney, Ambassador Rice CHOSE to lie about the attack as it DID NOT fit their narrative of "al Qeada on the run-osama dead" during the heated campaign.  Far from fact, and why you can't get away from the conspiracy label.  You know the talking points don't support this, so you've concocted the idea that there are missing emails from before the talking points were written - conspiracy.  You know Petraeus's testimony contradicts this, so you have concoct some sort of black-mail scenario - conspiracy.  

    You have hundreds of pages of emails, and thousands of quotes from the parties in question at your disposal.  If you can't find anything Obama, Carney, Clinton or Rice said about the attack that contradicts the intelligence reports at the time, then either 1) they didn't lie or 2) everybody (the white house, the CIA, the state department, the press) is conspiring to make it look like they didn't lie.  So which is it?

     

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

     

    The debt has gone from $9 Trillion when he took office to almost $17 trillion now, the fastest increase in history, and is predicted to be over $20Trillion when he slithers away in Jan 2017. 

    The DOW at 15,000 is due to 3 things.  Your ilk`s dreaded "millionaires and billionaires" cashing out, The Fed printing and pouring fake money in, and the buyback of bonds.

    BTW, real unemployment (CBO and NLRB) is at 14.4% with 9.6million LESS people working then when this fool took office.  Also, the labor force is at it`s lowest participation since 1979.

    Are we done with Benghazi?  Should we jump to one of the "Obama`s many failures" threads?

     

     



    What a joke.

     

    Hey maroon, just to show how stupid you are in all things economic:

    The DOW at 15,000 is due to 3 things.  Your ilk`s dreaded "millionaires and billionaires" cashing out, The Fed printing and pouring fake money in, and the buyback of bonds.


    If people are "cashing out" that would cause the market to drop, not rise, moron.

    Bonds yields reflect inflation. Inflation is non-existent and yet the markets continue to rise.

     

    Get some current numbers dingleberry.

    Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

    In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

    In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

    In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

    In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

    Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

     

    S&P singled out the neo-con-poops as the reason for the downgrade:

    Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now
    assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012,
    remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority
    of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise
    revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.


    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/spratingreport_080611.pdf

     

     

     



     

    Agree; it doesn't help his case to show cause and effect; cumulative numbers piggy back the disastrous W admin; and there's no surprise we don't see his link, as usual. 



    Well, the reasons why the dow is at 15,000 are many, but governmental success is not one of them.

    Throw this nugget on the pile:  Companies are not investing or hiring unless absolutely necessary.  This causes capital to build up, i.e. raise the value of the company.  Dividend paying companies are tending to flush this cash out in big divends.

    There will be a lag effect due to bad investment conditions down the road, as compnaies are being forced into unhealthy, non growth behavior.

    None of this is because things are rosy economically.  Quite the opposite.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:




    And, this has what, specifically, to do with Obama's failures?

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

     

    The debt has gone from $9 Trillion when he took office to almost $17 trillion now, the fastest increase in history, and is predicted to be over $20Trillion when he slithers away in Jan 2017. 

    The DOW at 15,000 is due to 3 things.  Your ilk`s dreaded "millionaires and billionaires" cashing out, The Fed printing and pouring fake money in, and the buyback of bonds.

    BTW, real unemployment (CBO and NLRB) is at 14.4% with 9.6million LESS people working then when this fool took office.  Also, the labor force is at it`s lowest participation since 1979.

    Are we done with Benghazi?  Should we jump to one of the "Obama`s many failures" threads?

     

     



    What a joke.

     

    Hey maroon, just to show how stupid you are in all things economic:

    The DOW at 15,000 is due to 3 things.  Your ilk`s dreaded "millionaires and billionaires" cashing out, The Fed printing and pouring fake money in, and the buyback of bonds.


    If people are "cashing out" that would cause the market to drop, not rise, moron.

    Bonds yields reflect inflation. Inflation is non-existent and yet the markets continue to rise.

     

    Get some current numbers dingleberry.

    Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

    In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

    In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

    In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

    In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

    Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

     

    S&P singled out the neo-con-poops as the reason for the downgrade:

    Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now
    assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012,
    remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority
    of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise
    revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.


    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/spratingreport_080611.pdf

     

     

     



     

    Agree; it doesn't help his case to show cause and effect; cumulative numbers piggy back the disastrous W admin; and there's no surprise we don't see his link, as usual. 

     




     

    I love it.  So, too be clear, you post this:

    "- Health care costs have gone down

    - The budget deficit has gone down, via percentage of GDP

    - After the 2008 meltdown, the stock market is through the roof

    And speaking of the environment, CO2 concentration has hit a critical high point"

    ...............with ZERO link.

    I post this:

     

    ...........spare you a link to look up yet FACTUAL DATA from the Office of Management and Budget, US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Morgan Stanley, Joint Committee on Taxation, the US Census, and Standard and Poors...............ALL NOTED at the BOTTOM of the data (you must not have read).....................

    and you`re WHINING about a link???????????????

    You should stick to your ignorant, low-information, whine, about the "disastrous W admin". You are clearly in the 50+% of uniformed types that still, after 5 years of this current failure, blame Bush.

    "Bush lied people died", "War for oil",  "Iraq for Sale man", "Cheney", "Haliburton" man, "Sarah Palin"

    BWAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!

     

     



    Yes, U definitely must think I'm low info (Didn't Limbaugh coin this phrase? Hence my past Limbaugh comments about you);  my implication was this appears to be a cherry picked collation of facts from reputable sources via another one of your wingnut sites that you refused to divulge; and yet you didn't get it, or thought I wouldn't, not that I'm surprised; breitbart, maybe ?

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    BTW, do I REALLY need to post links for:

    *Debt going from $9 Trillion to $17 Trillion

    *HC costs up 38% and predicted to go up 40%

    *Labor force at it`s lowest participation rate since 1979

    *true unemployment at 14.4%

     

    when these things are all over the (real) news every day?

     



     

    If you insist, I shall provide the links as discussed earlier, but you've proven to be a big enough boy to find these easy to obtain news items, perhaps even on Fox, on your own.

     

     

     

     

     

     

Share