Open Chat... All Day, Every Day! Express Your Views, Debate, and Challenge the Views of Others!

In order to keep up with the nature of free, spirited debate, I wanted to place the chat feature at the top of the homepage. This ensures people can come here and share their views on anything they wish and not have it be related to any specific discussion. Here, people can share ideas, links, and views "unmoderated" and an their own pace. To me, this makes The Elephant in the Room blog truly a place for debate.

Friday, September 14, 2012

September 14, 2012 - Morning Headlines

- The US braces for more violence aimed at its diplomatic missions across the Middle East. Demonstrations are expected to take place after the traditional weekly prayer (CNN):

- The Chicago Teacher's Union strike is set to resume Friday after some progress had been reported (CBS News):

- The Federal Reserve announced another round of quantitative easing (QE3) where it will spend $40 billion per month buying mortgage-backed securities in an effort to drive interest rates lower in an attempt to spur lending (Bloomberg):


  1. I believe this was an article themed for what Whatsamattausa was discussing earlier in the week:

    1. The true disgrace: CNN is supposed to put out news. CNN is not a blog. CNN is supposed to put out fact. CNN is not supposed to put out opinion. To put something on its front page claiming "Mitt Romney... Disgraceful" is deplorable. I think I can speak for, and have learned from this blog, just how bad the media is and how it does this absolutely terrible shit (pardon my French). When I saw that, I was almost compelled to write to CNN. How dare they try to sway the minds of bird-headed Americans by putting opinion attack launches on its front page. The liberal media is truly vying for the president in this election. I hope Americans can see through this.

  2. "Partisanship ought to end at the water's edge" is a longstanding adage of American politics.

    Actually, what CNN means is , Partisanship ought to end at the water's edge unless of course you are a Democrat named 0bama. Then it is perfectly reasonable to politicize the death of Americans. You know, like 0bama did back in 2008.

    The old liberal double standard. LOL

    That was back in the good ole days when dissent was the highest form of patriotism and not the highest form of racism.

  3. Slim -

    There is a difference between answering questions relating to an ongoing campaign where many answers are known and making an uninformed statement while the bodies are still warm. What the video clips you provided leave out is context which is HUGELY important.

    1. You did what RKen tends to do. You spun this away. 32slim made a point. Obama did this, and now chastises it. Did he answer questions relating to an ongoing campaign? Yes. Did he politicize the death of Americans overseas? YES. Context is irrelevant. He used an example of Obama doing this, and no matter what you say, you can't spin around the fact that YES Obama did this.

    2. Yeah, Yeah, whatsamattausa, I know, it was different BECAUSE IT WAS 0BAMA.

    3. MN4Rick: I think you may not realize that you effectively did the same thing you're calling Whatsamattausa out on. :)

      Whatsamattausa's point here and even in his original Reader's post isn't about whether or not Obama is contradicting himself, it's about the egregious behavior surrounding the loss of American lives. Whether or not 'Obama did it too!' doesn't make it any less egregious, and isn't the point he was making.

      You're doing exactly what you faulted me for a couple days ago. :)

      LME was discussing Obama's hypocrisy in use of shady election tactics he previously condemned, and my rebuttal was pointing out the same election tactics were happening on the left.

      Whatsamattausa was discussing how poor of an action inserting partisanship over losing American lives on the very same day was, and your rebuttal is pointing out how 'Obama turned losing American lives into a partisan attack too.'

      (though I still contest that doing it the same exact day, and years later, are completely different).

      See what I mean now, by when I do this?

    4. MN4Rick -

      Did you just start a spin class or something? Because you seem to be on some sort of a spin kick. I spun nothing. To say context is irrelevant is an incredibly naive statement. As an example, if the Westboro Baptist Church is spewing their religious hate in a field with nobody around, nobody cares... when they do it at the funeral of a service memeber, people care alot (at least I do - yet I still support their free speech)... the reason is context. Beyond that, I don't think either Romney or Obama politicized the death of Americans. What Romney did was shoot first and ask questions later during a time when America was being attacked on sovereign soil (something Obama DID NOT do). It would be akin to a Democrat critizing Bush, at the time of the event (not afterward but during the time) for sitting in a classroom reading childrens books while his country was under attack on its own soil.

      Did Obama clearly say what he said in the video provided by Slim, Yes. But, again, context is everything and if you don't see the difference between the two than that's your prerogative but it is, in my opinion, naive.

  4. Ahh, in my rush I probably should’ve added more to my post. I didn’t mean to restart the debate again here lol, just more was something I wanted to inform What about.

    Suppose it’s too late now though!

    @MN4Rick: Opinion articles are part of the front page on all news websites. A quick visit to Fox even shows several on the main page, a few of which listed in the front section of headlines just as they are on CNN. It’s rather commonplace now.

    I’m not really sure what you can say is not factual about that report either? Aside from it being an opinion piece (can’t really call someone’s opinion false), the basis for the opinion is backed with a multitude of quotes supporting the point of the author; both from similar historical instances and the current reactions of even others including Republicans to Mitt’s criticisms. It’s one thing if you thought he was basing his opinion off of a bad conclusion, or false statements, but I don’t think you’d have a fair case for that in this instance. Feel free to correct me if wrong though.

    @slim32, I don’t defend those actions, and even find them deplorable.

    But of course I’m sure you understand the difference between a Democrat criticizing Bush on the day of 9/11, in 2001… And a Democrat criticizing him on it years later. There is a significant difference from inserting partisan politics on the same exact day that people lost their lives, and then referring to it at a much later point in time (which of course everyone eventually does).

    In the article, this was even exampled with Reagan’s behavior on the failed hostage rescue when campaigning against Carter. The day that it happened, he made no attack on Carter and even called for unity. Much later though, his failed foreign policy in instances such as that were of course then part of the subject of the campaign (as expected). Big difference still.

  5. According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and "lockdown", under which movement is severely restricted.

    I wonder if that was covered in one of the security briefings he misses 56% of the time.

    1. Slim -

      In regard to it's different because it's Obama... I would hope that you would know me better than that by now... It's different because Stevens was still warm and the statement was uninformed. Many politicians play the second guessing game after things happen. What many don't do is do it real time like Romney did.

      As to the above non-warnings, there is no excuse for that and it should be investigated. If they knew something COULD happen, measures should have been implemented. If true (and I tend to believe UK papers more than the ones here), that is disgraceful.

  6. On a different topic, but related:

    This is actually one of the issues I feel very strongly against Mitt Romney's stance.

    From the Article:

    "President Obama and Mitt Romney have a big disagreement over defense spending -- up to two trillion dollars' worth.

    Obama includes defense cuts in the mix for deficit reduction.

    Romney, by contrast, would be the bigger spender. He rules out any cuts to military spending as an option to curb the country's growing debt. "I don't think you cut [the] military for purposes of balancing a budget," Romney said Wednesday.
    "His goal, he said this week, is "making sure that we have a military so strong that no one in the world would ever [want] to test it. And that suggests to me a commitment in the range of 4 percent of GDP is the right level."

    The base budget hasn't topped 4% of GDP since fiscal year 1992, Harrison said. Under President George W. Bush it averaged around 3.3%."

    This is a major area of importance to me, and frankly, being as fair as I can I cannot accept this as an outlook on defense spending. This is the way an empire thinks; and is not the America I know. Might sound overdramatic, but I feel rather passionately about this topic.

    1. RKen -

      I totally agree with you. In fairness to Romney though, it would be irresponsible to cut the military when you're planning to go to war with Iran. Over-spending on the military seems to have become a tenet of the GOP as is the threat of war.

      If "making sure that we have a military so strong that no one in the world would ever [want] to test it." isn't the line of a bully, I don't know what is. It's basically saying that we will force whoever we want to do whatever we want. The part "no one in the world would ever [want] to test it" is vague... What does "test" mean? Does that mean physically (in other words we only use military to retaliate) or does it mean in any way the President deems a challenge (so Romney can determine who can and cannot have nuclear power and/or weapons)? The last person I want pulling our military strings is Romney. I'm not sure that he understands, and I don't think he cares to understand, the difference between playing Risk with plastic pieces and starting a war with flesh and blood!

    2. "Obama: In his latest budget, the president proposed spending roughly $5.8 trillion on the Pentagon's base budget over the next decade." From the CNN Money article

      Would that be the same budget that was voted down 99-0 in the Senate and 414-0 in the House? It must have been one gem of a plan. So if his budget was resoundingly rejected and CNN wants to use that very same budget to tout the President, wouldn't that be a straw man argument?

      Seriously, who cares what his proposal WAS. It was REJECTED soundly. How can you compare anything to a budget that didn't get a single vote in two chambers? Even the Democrats thought his budget was a loser.

    3. Slim with the friday zinger!

    4. C'mon now Slim... Even Fox recognizes that as a political stunt. The votes seem to have been taken on GOP versions of the Presidents budget. It is political theater that is completely irrelevant.

    5. MN4Rick -

      Where is your spin warning to Slim? Do only those you see as liberals get them?

      Zinger??? It's a ridiculous statement based in fantasy.

    6. Same thing as I said in the other debate :) I didn't mentioned Obama at all.

      No where in my post did I even imply Obama had a good solution or even mention his plan.

      My point was that Mitt's outlook was unacceptable in my eyes. Am I to assume that Mn4Rick/slim both support continuing to expand our military budget? And not by a small amount, but significantly.

    7. RKen, actually you did highlight, from the article, "Obama includes defense cuts in the mix for deficit reduction."

      Why would CNN write that whole article based on a budget that was trounced months ago? You would think it was some fresh new idea the way CNN writes, not one that couldn't garner support from even one Democrat.

      My comment was more about mocking the propaganda outlet CNN.

      If you will notice, I quoted the article you linked to. I attacked the statement I quoted. Sorry if I rubbed you the wrong way but my comment was not toward you but about CNN Money, for the record.

      I believe my disdain for today's hack journalists is documented fairly well here on the LME.

    8. I didn't take any offense from it slim, I was actually genuinely curious what you and MN4Rick feel about our military spending. I don't recall this being a common topic for discussion here, but to me it's certainly one of the bigger issues (particularly when it comes to spending/deficit reduction, which seems to be important to everyone here).

      So are you on the same page as Mitt (set a minimum spending level above our current level, and expand the military further)?

      Or do you think it's fine where it is now? Or a bit too much? Or far past excessive?

  7. Hi Guys...

    As I'm watching this back and forth 'he said, he said,' about whether or not Romney 'jumped the shark', misspoke - whatever, I realize this is what 'they' (the MSM and the Dems) WANT to happen... they created a distraction to keep you from 'watching the other hand.'

    While the Fed prints yet MORE money out of thin air - oil jumps to $100 a barrel and people worry more about what Romney said and when he said it. The Fed's plan is to 'bail out' MORE people who are under water in homes they were NEVER financially qualified to purchase in the first place... a move that GUARANTEES to keep us deep in recession, with unemployment OVER 8% for at least another year - by Bernanke's OWN calculations...

    Oh, and btw - the Middle East is ON FIRE (again) and just this morning they've been forced to evacuate TWO AMERICAN college campuses due to 'bomb threats' called in by people reported to have 'middle eastern accents'.


  8. More kool-aid Dara or is "over 8% for at least another year" and "fall to a range of 7.6% to 7.9% in 2013" the same thing in your book??? -

    Wow! Someone called in a bomb threat(s) and they had a middle eastern accent. It wouldn't make sense for someone with an anti-Islam agenda to do would it? When was the last time al-Qaeda or any other terror organization or individual(s) called in a legit bomb threat?

    Whose priorities are you talking about? Obama, Romney, Fed, bomb threat people, big oil???

    1. @Whatsamatta - Wow! Still working that koolaide thing? (which I, personally, have never stooped to - on this blog, anyway)

      I will say that you appear to be blinded by the brilliant light that 0 and his MSM lapdogs emit...

      The point of my post was this: The whole thread focused ENTIRELY on a supposed 'gaffe' when we, AS AMERICANS, have MUCH BIGGER fish to fry.

      You KNOW as well as I do that even the 8% reported in the 'news' is FALSE... and 7.6% (also falsified) with gas (energy) prices 'necessarily skyrocketing' will be sooo much better?

      No matter WHO called in the bomb threats, the FACT remains that they caused a disruption in our 'normal daily lives'...

      You've got this bee in your bonnet over 'big oil'. I assume you think they've 'made enough money' despite the FACT they EMPLOY hundreds of thousands of people... and hundreds of thousands MORE INVEST in those companies.

      You DO realize that the price of oil GOES UP when the FED prints money from nothing and the value of the DOLLAR goes DOWN. It's the FED and NOT those 'greedy big oil people' out to 'fleece the little guys'... you KNOW this...right?

  9. Dara -

    I think that was the first time I ever went kool-aid as it is not a term I generally use but I had to use something as an excuse for your ramblings. And I guess with the question of whether you can admit when you're wrong or not, the answer is clearly 'NO'.

    Nobody knows, definitively, what the unemployment rates will be, that's why we call them estimates. You mention that the fed said "unemployment OVER 8% for at least another year - by Bernanke's OWN calculations" which is a false statement. What Bernanke said was clear but you chose, inexplicably, to lie about it and use numbers that Bernanke didn't use.

    What is this bee in my bonnet? Have I come out against the oil companies? Probably to a degree but I don't disparage business from earning a buck. I may have an issue with how they do it but I am for businesses being able to profit.

    As for your other connect the dot style ramblings, I find them incoherent so I can't respond.