kraychik

I know you have no idea what I'm talking about, because you refuse that Obama contradicted himself in his initial September 12 address. Either it was a terrorist attacks or it was a spontaneous eruption of rage in response to the YouTube video, you cannot have it both ways. Obama asserted both in his September 12 statement, and actually put much more time into talking about the video than anything else. Moreover, he and his team subsequently contradicted the assertion that it was terrorism over the next two weeks, refusing the answer straightforward questions such as "...I heard Hillary Clinton say that it was an act of terrorism, was it? What do you say?" asked by none other than the esteemed Joy Behar of The View. I'm not going to repeat myself over and over, but the contradictions are endless and the political objectives behind them are transparent.

Take my offer, then. If Obama wins, I will leave MLW permanently. If Romney wins, you take a vacation for six months.

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-happened-with-jobless-claims-2012-10 http://www.businessinsider.com/jobless-claims-impacted-by-one-state-2012-10 There are many other articles out there, but there were irreconcilable numbers in the updated BLS report. For example. how can the total percentage of those unemployed be decreasing if the number of jobs being created per month aren't sufficient to keep up with the growth of the those in the working age (both as a proportion of the total population and in terms of absolute numbers)? America needs just over 200K new jobs per month just to handle new entrants into this group, yet the number of jobs created. This hasn't been the case. Jack Welch wrote a good op-ed about it recently, although clearly you won't read it. Better to just stick your fingers in your ears and shout "liar!" over and over. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444897304578046260406091012.html Here's another article that adds context: http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/10/11/obamas-real-unemployment-rate-is-14-7-and-a-recessions-on-the-way/ Moreover, the BLS also reported on Friday that the number of full time jobs declined by 216,000 last month, as Lott also noted. The unemployment rate declined to 7.8% only because of a reported surprise September spurt of 873,000 jobs in the separate Household Survey of families across the nation. That reported increase is anomalous for the reasons discussed below.

Benny Morris himself describes himself as one the "new historians", which is a euphemism for a historical revisionist. It's not necessarily a problem, sometimes historical revision is justified if the original dominant narratives are incomplete or incorrect. More importantly, Morris is a staunch Zionist and is certainly not on board with bud's Islamic anti-Semitic narratives.

Obama also described it as a spontaneous eruption of rage in the very same September 12 address, so Obama contradicted himself in his initial response. Subsequently, there were many subsequent instances over the next two weeks, from not only Obama himself, but from Carney, Clinton, and Rice, where there refused to describe the attack as terrorism. The issue here is over the schizophrenic response of the administration towards this terrorist attack, as well as the political decisions made that left the American consulate in Benghazi vulnerable to the attack.

Charles Krauthammer agrees with you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVW_5e5hyAg

They're not comparable incidents.

It certainly seemed like he was politically targeted. Still, he left himself open. As the saying goes, "don't do the crime if you can't do the time". EDIT - It was if he was being offered up as a form of tribute to the Islamists. It was Obama's way of saying to the Muslim Brotherhood (who dre is still unsure about with respect to its Islamism), "See? I am carrying out your wishes! Do not be mad at us."

You still pretending that Libertarianism is a leftist ideology, or originated with the left? Nevermind the fact that the values of the two are mutually irreconcilable, you practise Orwellian doublethink quite well. You can entertain two incompatible beliefs in your mind at the same time, just like Smith believed that O'Brien was holding up both four and five fingers at the exact same time with the exact same hand. If there's any personal animosity, it's one-directional and not coming for my end.

Norman Spector has stated that he believes that Michaelle Jean made a mistake in granting Harper request to prorogue government (a process which I still don't completely understand), as it set a precedent which allowed McGuinty to do the same. In other words, part of responsibility for this provincial prorogation lies at the feet of Harper and/or Jean.

Right, because arms of the federal government are never politicised to act against their mandate.

I guess that's why Barack Obama, Susan Rice, Jay Carney, and Hillary Clinton (to name a few) administration officials, in subsequent weeks, refused to describe it as an act of terror in direct contradiction to Obama's statement on September 12. More importantly, and absurdly, Obama's September 12 statement in the Rose Garden contradicted itself; in many breaths blaming the attack on the "Innocence of Muslims" video (clearly implying it was a spontaneous eruption of rage), and then in one final breath, the very last sentence of his statement, describing it as an "act of terror". So which was it, a spontaneous eruption of rage in response to the video or a premeditated terrorist attack?

'If you knew how labour statistics were compiled at the BLS, you'd know that inclusion of California's labour statistics would, without question, raise the percentage of national unemployment. Even if California enjoyed half the national average of unemployment (and it doesn't, for your information), the number would still rise. Learn how the BLS compiles its statistics, and then get back to me.

He could have and should have called an election. Of course, that wouldn't work out well for Liberal Party control of Ontario.

I'm characterising you accurately, which is that you are a pro-bono internet propagandist. The only saving grace you might enjoy is that you sincerely believe your own deceptive narrative. In that case, it's sort of a George Costanza moment... "It's not a lie, if you believe it".

Translation - you don't know how labour statistics at the BLS are compiled. Gotcha.

When have I ever stated that Obama didn't describe the attacks as an "act of terror" on September 12? Nowhere. It's just more strawman argumentation, because you're committed to a narrative rather than simply being honest about discussing these events. Clearly I'm wasting my time with you, BigL.

Here's Obama on September 25 seemingly unable to describe the attack in Benghazi as terrorism:

A terrorist attacks is by definition premeditated. Obama himself, to say nothing of his surrogates, has been very inconsistent in describing the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Muslim-majority countries as terrorism. This has not been accidental, it's been done with the specific intent to protect the false image he's trying to sell the electorate about him being serious about security. He doesn't want Americans to realise that his political decision to maintain a "low profile" in Libya in order to not upset terrorists with a more visible American presence is what caused the vulnerability at the Benghazi consulate and allowed Christopher Stevens and the three other Americans to be murdered.

The BLS has already acknowledged that they didn't include California in the adjusted statistics. That's clearly not an accidental oversight. I'm not here to spoonfeed barely casual observers like yourself with all the details.

The Obama administration DID call it a spontaneous attack in response to the film "Innocence of Muslims". Obama implied that quite clearly not only in his September 12 address, but also in subsequent statements he delivered personally and via his surrogates. For example, on September 25, Joy Behar asked Obama on The View whether it was a terrorist attack. His response was, "it's still under investigation". This is to say nothing of the intentional deception from Carney, Clinton, Rice, and other administration officials in the following weeks directly contradicting Obama's Rose Garden statement from September 12. Of course, this line of discussion was shut down successfully by Crowley who ran interference for Obama, possibly inadvertently.

Actually, the number of people working in the USA was less than the amount of people working when Obama took office until the numbers were falsely adjusted at the BLS over the past month. The BLS didn't include the labour statistics from California in order to dishonestly inflate employment statistics to assist Obama's reelection efforts with some talking points. We can check the data with Google: http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=employed&fdim_y=seasonality:S&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:US&ifdim=country&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false There were less people in the USA working in August of 2012 than in January of 2009, but as I just said, the numbers were falsified in the past month at the BLS. Somehow we're supposed to believe that the number of new entrants into to labour force were at record highs on a monthly basis since something like twenty years ago. Context also matters. What are the average and median salaries of these new jobs since January 2009 (hint, they're almost 10% lower). How many of them are part-time instead of full-time, especially for those seeking full-time employment? Somewhat tangentially, about about average and median net worth of Americans (hint, it's down 40% over the past three years according to Forbes). The economy is in a downward tailspin, and here you are, a voluntary socialist commissar, parroting the lies from a communist rag like The Nation. It's like Stalin in the 40s proclaiming economic successes ("tractor production is up, comrades!") while millions of Soviet subjects were starving.

She didn't say she was wrong, what she did say was that Romney was largely correct. I know that Crowley is on the left, but she does have a lot more credibility than most other "journalists" at her network. I have some respect for what she does and I've seen her many times ask honest and straightforward questions that were placed Democrats and other leftists in uncomfortable positions. In this instance, though, she inappropriately interjected and shortly afterwards acknowledged that. It is not the role of the moderator to play the role of "fact checker" on the the fly, for reasons that I hope I don't need to explain. Here's a clip that compares Crowley's initial "correction" of Romney's statement during the debate to her post-debate statement. Notice how after the debate, she was more lucid in explaining Obama's liability on his (mis)handling of the terrorist attack on th consulate in Bencghazi. Start watching at :50 and watch until about 2:40 if you don't want to see the full thing: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/megyn-kelly-focus-group-explodes-over-candy-crowleys-debate-moderation/

A terrorist attack is planned out by definition. Anyways, you've completely missed what I said, again... Crowley should not have interjected, and she conceded that immediately afterwards. Crowley's own words on Romney after the debate, "He was right in the main, but I think he used the wrong word".

This isn't the first time you've demonstrated sub-standard reading comprehension, BigL.