2012 Elections in the USA

Now you know.

[url]http://www.sfweekly.com/2012-10-10/news/taxes-tax-breaks-1-percent-corporations-loopholes-government-congress-corruption-mitt-romney/[/url]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 427507]Now you know.

[url]http://www.sfweekly.com/2012-10-10/news/taxes-tax-breaks-1-percent-corporations-loopholes-government-congress-corruption-mitt-romney/[/url][/QUOTE]Both Obama and Romney want to bring down marginal corporate tax rates and eliminate loopholes like these. Just as it took someone like Nixon to normalize relations with China, so I believe that Romney is more likely to actually accomplish this.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;427514]Both Obama and Romney want to bring down marginal corporate tax rates and eliminate loopholes like these. Just as it took someone like Nixon to normalize relations with China, so I believe that Romney is more likely to actually accomplish this.[/QUOTE]And yet Romney lacks the gonads / character to actually state what loopholes he'll do away with. Unlike you, I am quite sure he'll get rid of every loophole he specifically says that he'll get rid of prior to the election, and not one single additional one.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;427514]Both Obama and Romney want to bring down marginal corporate tax rates and eliminate loopholes like these. Just as it took someone like Nixon to normalize relations with China, so I believe that Romney is more likely to actually accomplish this.[/QUOTE]The corporate tax is an economic fiction that should be eliminated and the rate makes no difference. [B]Shareholders[/B] and consumers are sharing the corporate income tax burden, since corporations are only legal persons and not actual persons.

By "someone like Nixon," you mean a crook, right?

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 427507]Now you know.

[url]http://www.sfweekly.com/2012-10-10/news/taxes-tax-breaks-1-percent-corporations-loopholes-government-congress-corruption-mitt-romney/[/url][/QUOTE]WT, my brother, I don't disagree with you that there are tax loopholes in the individual tax code that favor one segment of society or another. However, it is an apples to oranges comparison to look at corporate taxes through the same lens.

Everyone should learn the following: corporations do not pay taxes, they convey additional monies from their customers to the government. End of story.

If you raise taxes on corporations, they raise prices to their customers and pass through the money. By exploiting corporations ostensibly to take more private wealth from the citizens, the govt is forcing companies to increase their prices. This does two, very negative, things: 1) it further erodes the aggregate, national disposable income that would otherwise be spent in the private sector providing true stimulus in a way that the government can't, and 2) the artificial inflation of the corporations products and services makes them less competitive. Therefore, corporate taxes are particularly egregious because they are a transfer of wealth that inflates prices while simultaneously reducing disposable income. Think about that. We'd be better off with zero corporate taxes and higher individual taxes because we would eliminate the inflationary component.

Everyone of the people quoted in that article knows this to be true, they also know that the majority of people don't understand it.

Here is a good review of the corporate tax and who pays it. To quote the article, the corporate tax is "neither necessary nor desirable." The classic view that the burden was split between corporate shareholders' lower profits and consumers' higher prices according to the elasticity of their respective supply and demand curves is now being challenged by the view that it is split between current and future shareholders but I haven't really examined that. But, either way it is all noise and bullshit and paperwork and a needless drain on corporate resources. If anyone wants a good reason to explain to Joe Six Pack why the corporate tax should go, just tell 'them about all the lawyers and accountants we could get rid of.

[url]http://elsa.berkeley.edu/Auerbach/bearstax.pdf[/url]

Dickhead, I haven't thought it through, but your and Walleye's explanation makes a lot of sense to me. Just as inflation helps elites and hurts others, so an income tax on, say, Walmart, hurts people who don't have a lot of purchasing power. And double taxation of corporate income and dividend income at high rates is definitely a bad thing. About your comment, "Nixon was a crook" -- As you know, but maybe some others don't, Nixon and Republicans were considered hawks, considered more likely to go to war with China than normalize relations. Romney spent a good bit of his career in the corporate world, knows the loopholes and the subsidies, and if he wins his party would probably have majorities in both houses. He's more likely to have success pushing through a restructuring of the corporate income tax system than Obama. While you and Walleye may be right, you'll never see an end to corporate income tax. Like the value added tax in Europe, a tax on corporations is too juicy for politicians to let go, since the people who ultimately pay it, being consumers, don't realize they're actually paying it.

Your point about the massive amount of time required and the fees to accountants and lawyers is a good one too.

Inflation doesn't just help the elites. It helps anyone who has a fixed rate loan. I remember when I worked for the feds and guys would b!tch about inflation, when we had COLA and fixed mortgages. I would tell them,"We want RAGING inflation" and they just looked at me kinda sideways dog-head. And no, I don't hold out any hope of the corporate income tax going away given that it has been 50 years since it was conclusively proven to be bogus.

The team of University of Colorado professors has created a model that has correctly chosen the President every year since 1980. The way they made this prediction and their track record is very interesting, I wonder if they have it right again this time?

[url]http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/10/04/updated-election-forecasting-model-still-points-romney-win-university[/url]

Yes I know I never post here but I couldn't resist it, how often do you see Jackson in a tie?

[url]http://www.mnftiu.cc/[/url]

Romney got that bounce, the big bootie bounce.

Don't bother after the first two minutes or so but the song is funny

[QUOTE=Punter 127; 427542]The team of University of Colorado professors has created a model that has correctly chosen the President every year since 1980. The way they made this prediction and their track record is very interesting, I wonder if they have it right again this time?

I sure hope whoever gets the most electoral votes also wins the popular vote because the opposite keeps happening and it isn't good for the country.

Goes to Biden.

The Young B O Y could not keep Up With the

Truth.

Obviously this is going to be another close election. I think close elections are good and a lot of countries don't have them. We have had a few very controversial elections such as 1876 and 2000 but if you look at other countries' histories we have done okay. Look at our neighbor, México. They went through something like 55 presidents in 31 years (although some guys were president more than once and Santa Anna was president 11 separate times) and aside from the rulers who got assassinated, executed, or killed in battle (Obregóand, Madero, Villa, Zapata, Carranza, Maximilian, Cuauhtémoc, Moctezuma II, etc, you had a guy who lost a leg (Santa Anna) , a guy who lost an arm (Obregóand) , and a guy who died in a US prison (Huerta). Huerta makes Nixon look like a saint. Santa Anna was an asshole and we have had asshole presidents but not 11 fucking times.

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 427546]Goes to Biden.

The Young B O Y could not keep Up With the

Truth.[/QUOTE]Maybe out there in Rump-A-Roni land and possibly on MSNBC (I don't get MSNBC) but I think the rest of America saw it differently. CNN says it's a draw with a slight edge to Paul Ryan. 48 to 44.

[url]http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/11/cnn-poll-on-debate-winner-ryan-48-biden-44/[/url]

What did you Hear and See?

You can't be Serious?

[QUOTE=Punter 127; 427548]Maybe out there in Rump-A-Roni land and possibly on MSNBC (I don't get MSNBC) but I think the rest of America saw it differently. CNN says it's a draw with a slight edge to Paul Ryan. 48 to 44.

[url]http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/11/cnn-poll-on-debate-winner-ryan-48-biden-44/[/url][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 427549]What did you Hear and See?

You can't be Serious?[/QUOTE]I saw an arrogant, overbearing, and condescending old washed-up has-been who was an embarrassment to himself and his party. Unfortunately his patronizing arrogance mirrors that of many (not all) in the Democrat party today.

Is that serious enough or do I need to break it down a little more for you?

[QUOTE=Punter 127; 427552]I saw an arrogant, overbearing, and condescending old washed-up has-been who was an embarrassment to himself and his party. Unfortunately his patronizing arrogance mirrors that of many (not all) in the Democrat party today.

Is that serious enough or do I need to break it down a little more for you?[/QUOTE]Time to visit the opthalmologist. Your eyes are failing.

What I saw was a guy who was not afraid to call Ryan on any of his hypocrisy and BS.

In actual truth, this particular debate was such that neither side will change any minds at all. Ryan reiterated the righty talking points, but did not make any headway, as anything he said that would have been significant was challenged. There was no huge gaffe, and there was no dominance either way. People already knew that Ryan was a numbers geek who masters details but is often factually challenged, and that Biden is a blustery guy who speaks his heart first and powerfully, and that's what they saw. In the grand scheme of things, this debate was a no-op, even though I thought Biden made Ryan look like a junior accountant who knew his numbers, but couldn't explain why he was inconsistent in his principles when there was a Republican President earlier.

[QUOTE=Member #2041; 427553]Time to visit the opthalmologist. Your eyes are failing.

What I saw was a guy who was not afraid to call Ryan on any of his hypocrisy and BS.

In actual truth, this particular debate was such that neither side will change any minds at all. Ryan reiterated the righty talking points, but did not make any headway, as anything he said that would have been significant was challenged. There was no huge gaffe, and there was no dominance either way. People already knew that Ryan was a numbers geek who masters details but is often factually challenged, and that Biden is a blustery guy who speaks his heart first and powerfully, and that's what they saw. In the grand scheme of things, this debate was a no-op, even though I thought Biden made Ryan look like a junior accountant who knew his numbers, but couldn't explain why he was inconsistent in his principles when there was a Republican President earlier.[/QUOTE]I think you have tunnel vision. Biden is a disgrace to the office, there was absolutely no reason to be rude, he lacks class and he is a total ass!

[QUOTE=Punter 127;427556]I think you have tunnel vision. Biden is a disgrace to the office, there was absolutely no reason to be rude, he lacks class and he is a total ass![/QUOTE]Actually, It is entirely appropriate to be rude when calling someone out for lying to the American People.

If you want to know what a disgrace to the office of the Vice Presidency is, Dick Cheney suborning torture and war crimes in the name of the American public, and fabricating a bogus case to go to a war over oil, under the false pretense that it was to protect America from terrorists - now THAT is a disgrace to the office of the Vice Presidency.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;427527]Inflation doesn't just help the elites. It helps anyone who has a fixed rate loan. I remember when I worked for the feds and guys would b!tch about inflation, when we had COLA and fixed mortgages. I would tell them,"We want RAGING inflation" and they just looked at me kinda sideways dog-head. And no, I don't hold out any hope of the corporate income tax going away given that it has been 50 years since it was conclusively proven to be bogus.[/QUOTE]You are correct, in large part due to the difficulty in executing this:

[quote=]But, either way it is all noise and bullshit and paperwork and a needless drain on corporate resources. If anyone wants a good reason to explain to Joe Six Pack why the corporate tax should go, just tell 'them about all the lawyers and accountants we could get rid of.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Member #2041;427559]If you want to know what a disgrace to the office of the Vice Presidency is, Dick Cheney suborning torture and war crimes in the name of the American public, and fabricating a bogus case to go to a war over oil, under the false pretense that it was to protect America from terrorists - now THAT is a disgrace to the office of the Vice Presidency.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Punter 127;427486]That guy is NOT running for office.[/QUOTE]


xxxxxxxxxx

[QUOTE=Member #2041;427559]Actually, It is entirely appropriate to be rude when calling someone out for lying to the American People.[/quote]You mean like telling the American people that our ambassador accidentally died from smoke inhalation after a spontaneous civil disturbance that was not terrorism, as opposed to the truth that the ambassador was sodomized and murdered in a preplanned, terrorist attack, during which three other Americans were murdered?

Or do you mean like telling the American people that you will cut the federal debt by 50% but, in reality you increase it by 50%

How about telling the American people that we have to have "stimulus" or the world will end and that every dime is going to shovel ready jobs, when in reality the entire package consisted of political payoffs to cronies capitalists and unions? Wait, wait, I know, you mean like telling the American people that you will work across the aisle to forge consensuses when in reality you tell the opposition that they can go to the back of the bus?

[quote=]If you want to know what a disgrace to the office of the Vice Presidency is, Dick Cheney suborning torture and war crimes in the name of the American public, and fabricating a bogus case to go to a war over oil, under the false pretense that it was to protect America from terrorists - now THAT is a disgrace to the office of the Vice Presidency.[/QUOTE]You are certainly entitled to your agenda-driven, fact-less opinions. Do you find Cheney's tenure to be more disgraceful than fast and furious? You know, that program where the President and Attorney General participated directly in conspiracy to take away our second amendment rights by supplying some of the most vicious criminals on earth with automatic weapons, resulting in hundreds of deaths?

CBS News instant poll shows 50 percent of "uncommitted" voters dubbing Biden the winner; 31 percent Ryan. Probably the CNN Poll had more GOP voters than Democrats in respondents. I was not impressed by Biden's facial expression either.

[QUOTE=Punter 127; 427548]Maybe out there in Rump-A-Roni land and possibly on MSNBC (I don't get MSNBC) but I think the rest of America saw it differently. CNN says it's a draw with a slight edge to Paul Ryan. 48 to 44.

[url]http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/11/cnn-poll-on-debate-winner-ryan-48-biden-44/[/url][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Tiny12;427562]xxxxxxxxxx[/QUOTE]Nonetheless, the Cheney point is appropriate, because it demonstrates the sort of nauseating person that the voters of the Repugnant Party find to be acceptable. And it is a good reminder of the flawed judgment of anyone who has ever supported this War Criminal.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;427563]You mean like telling the American people that our ambassador accidentally died from smoke inhalation after a spontaneous civil disturbance that was not terrorism, as opposed to the truth that the ambassador was sodomized and murdered in a preplanned, terrorist attack, during which three other Americans were murdered?[/QUOTE]Could you provide your source for this please. If possible could you provide two from opposed agenda driven outlets, ie. Fox and Huffpo? I hadn't heard this, prolly because I don't watch the news, but from what I can find it started as a report from a Lybian outlet quoting an AFP report but AFP immediatly denied reporting it. After that all I can find about it is from fringe sites, nothing from real (BBC, Fox, CBS, AP, hell even Al Jazera would work for me) news.

Not calling you a liar, not getting into the fight just want to know the source so I can read more about it.

Thanks, DR

[QUOTE=Member #2041;427565]Nonetheless, the Cheney point is appropriate, because it demonstrates the sort of nauseating person that the voters of the Repugnant Party find to be acceptable. And it is a good reminder of the flawed judgment of anyone who has ever supported this War Criminal.[/QUOTE]I didn't vote for Bush / Cheney in either election and, unlike the majority of Democrats and Republicans, didn't think going into Iraq was a good idea.

Cheney however was not a war criminal any more than Obama is a war criminal. And Iraq wasn't primarily about oil, but rather the neoconservatives desire to change the Arab world. They actually had a good humanitarian argument. If the Iraq war had played out the way they expected, many Iraqi lives would have been spared, as sanctions would have ended and Saddam would have been removed from power with little bloodshed. Tens of thousands died because of Hussein and sanctions. The neoconservatives were naive, not war criminals. Naive like you, since you apparently believe your party and its candidates are always right.

[QUOTE=Member #2041;427431]My experience is as a director of marketing and business development for a couple of high tech companies, one of which I cashed out my stock options from, and retired circa 2005. I am also a graduate of the Economics Department and the MBA program at the highly conservative University of Chicago. I am a rare moderate to emerge from there, and while there, I studied under Gary Becker, George Stigler, Merton Miller, Eugene Fama, and several other notable folks. I am also somewhat of a student of Economic history over the past century.[/QUOTE][url]http://www.chicagobooth.edu/programs/full-time/student-experience/alumni-network[/url]

"Regardless of what you do or where you are, you're bound to find an alumnus eager to share their experiences and information."

...

Even on ArgentinaPrivate. Com

[QUOTE=Tiny12;427569]The neoconservatives were naive, not war criminals. Naive like you, since you apparently believe your party and its candidates are always right.[/QUOTE]Not hardly. However, there is a big distinction between criticizing Obama and other Democrats internally, and offering ammunition to the opposition. Frankly, this is something that the more strategic thinkers amongst us Democrats have learned from Republicans. I have plenty of objections to how Obama has conducted his dealings as President. Most noteably in how he has managed his interactions with the Congress. There is little to be gained by airing those critiques in venues frequented by Republicans, however.

BTW, I really had no desire to discuss my Chicago school background, but I was challenged point blank as to what my background was, by Tiny12 here, who made the ridiculous assertion that nobody who had any desires for economic growth in the U.S. could possibly support Obama. I simply offered that background as evidence that his perspective was myopic. Frankly, the more time I have spent in the real world, the less impressed I become with the Chicago education I acquired, compared to that of my undergraduate institution - where the point seemed to be to develop critical thinking and analytical skills, rather than how to use a very particular approach and perspective on the world as advocated by the University of Chicago's Economics and Business faculties. It's instructive that while I donate significantly to my undergraduate alma mater, I give nothing to the U. of C., as I cannot imagine them using ANY dollars of mine in a manner that would be more constructive toward the general welfare than my undergraduate alma mater would.

[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz; 427567]Could you provide your source for this please. If possible could you provide two from opposed agenda driven outlets, ie. Fox and Huffpo? I hadn't heard this, prolly because I don't watch the news, but from what I can find it started as a report from a Lybian outlet quoting an AFP report but AFP immediatly denied reporting it. After that all I can find about it is from fringe sites, nothing from real (BBC, Fox, CBS, AP, hell even Al Jazera would work for me) news.

Not calling you a liar, not getting into the fight just want to know the source so I can read more about it.

Thanks, DR[/QUOTE]DR, you are absolutely entitled to call me out on anything I say. I never take offense at being called out and I don't equate it with being called a liar. Unlike some other folks, who shall remain nameless, I will back up what I say with facts and substance. AFP, the Libyan Free Press, Mike Masters (Wash Post, WSJ) and and Tayyar. Org (Lebanese news organization) all reported that the ambassador was sodomized before he was murdered by Al-Qaeda-related individuals as did. I do acknowledge that AFP attempted to distance itself from the report (AFP didn't deny reporting it, they described it as unconfirmed) , after it had gone with the story. I have heard that account on various radio and TV broadcasts (news, not talk) , although I don't recall the outlet (I don't watch Fox News or any other news, for that matter). I would guess that I most often get audio and video news via ABC and CNN (going on in the background) although, I don't seek either out when I need news.

I wouldn't expect that I need to cite the sources for the part about the administration denying it was terrorism-related and that it was due to the "video." If you need that info, you can pull down the public statements by Obama, Clinton, Gibbs, Carney, et al. Similarly, all the major news outlets reported that three other American perished in the terrorist attack. The Congressional testimony on Wednesday also has plenty of data (provided under oath) to back that up as well (excluding details about how the ambassador died).

[QUOTE=Member #2041;427571] BTW, I really had no desire to discuss my Chicago school background, but I was challenged point blank as to what my background was, by Tiny12 here, who made the ridiculous assertion that nobody who had any desires for economic growth in the U.S. could possibly support Obama. I simply offered that background as evidence that his perspective was myopic. Frankly, the more time I have spent in the real world, the less impressed I become with the Chicago education I acquired, compared to that of my undergraduate institution - where the point seemed to be to develop critical thinking and analytical skills, rather than how to use a very particular approach and perspective on the world as advocated by the University of Chicago's Economics and Business faculties. It's instructive that while I donate significantly to my undergraduate alma mater, I give nothing to the U. of C., as I cannot imagine them using ANY dollars of mine in a manner that would be more constructive toward the general welfare than my undergraduate alma mater would.[/QUOTE]I attempted to make fun of the politically correct lingo on B-school websites. Anyway, I think you should be proud to be a Booth alum. As you point out yourself, you've studied under amazing professors who have conducted groundbreaking research in macro and finance.

[QUOTE=Member #2041;427571]BTW, I really had no desire to discuss my Chicago school background, but I was challenged point blank as to what my background was, by Tiny12 here, who made the ridiculous assertion that nobody who had any desires for economic growth in the U.S. could possibly support Obama. I simply offered that background as evidence that his perspective was myopic.[/quote]Tiny probably should have qualified that with nobody "with a clue, who hasn't already made his"

[quote=]Frankly, the more time I have spent in the real world, the less impressed I become with the Chicago education I acquired, compared to that of my undergraduate institution - where the point seemed to be to develop critical thinking and analytical skills, rather than how to use a very particular approach and perspective on the world as advocated by the University of Chicago's Economics and Business faculties. It's instructive that while I donate significantly to my undergraduate alma mater, I give nothing to the U. of C., as I cannot imagine them using ANY dollars of mine in a manner that would be more constructive toward the general welfare than my undergraduate alma mater would.[/QUOTE]I can only guess as to why you feel differently about the two institutions.

I greatly enjoyed all of my undergrad and grad programs, picking up degrees in English, Economics, Commercial Real Estate, International Business and Corporate Finance and fluency in two foreign languages (albeit, not Spanish. Mistake) along the way. I studied at five institutions (3 well-known US universities, one well-known US college and 1 foreign institution). I maintain a fondness for all of them. I feel like the education I received was excellent (I am a sh*tty student and slow learner) , however, my education in the real world dwarfs what I picked up in school. For me, ass time progresses, that doesn't diminish the value of my formal education it just means that the value of my real world education continues to grow. That is the nature of the beast. I needed certain basic skills, across many functions, to accomplish that which I have and that which I will. While, I also understand that none of them provided me with my innate abilities nor a guarantee of success, they have definitely helped me to advance myself. Further, those experiences have benefited many other people, including the hundreds (if not thousands) of people that have been able to put food on the table, thanks in part to my efforts.

I have always resent liberals, especially rich liberals (the Kennedys, for example) who constantly try to put obstacles in my way, and those like me, to deny me my shot at the American dream. I can assure you that no matter how much or little I make, I will never knowingly contribute to obstructing the pursuit of the American dream.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;427576]I have always resent liberals, especially rich liberals (the Kennedys, for example) who constantly try to put obstacles in my way, and those like me, to deny me my shot at the American dream. I can assure you that no matter how much or little I make, I will never knowingly contribute to obstructing the pursuit of the American dream.[/QUOTE]Not to mention the former governor of the state of New York.

[QUOTE=Member #2041;427571]However, there is a big distinction between criticizing Obama and other Democrats internally, and offering ammunition to the opposition. Frankly, this is something that the more strategic thinkers amongst us Democrats have learned from Republicans. I have plenty of objections to how Obama has conducted his dealings as President. Most noteably in how he has managed his interactions with the Congress. There is little to be gained by airing those critiques in venues frequented by Republicans, however.[/QUOTE]So, if you're a political operative, the ends justify the means? There's no room for self criticism? When you call the other side war criminals you're starting down a slippery slope.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;427574]AFP, the Libyan Free Press, Mike Masters (Wash Post, WSJ) and and Tayyar. Org (Lebanese news organization) all reported that the ambassador was sodomized before he was murdered by Al-Qaeda-related individuals as did. I do acknowledge that AFP attempted to distance itself from the report (AFP didn't deny reporting it, they described it as unconfirmed) , after it had gone with the story. I have heard that account on various radio and TV broadcasts (news, not talk) , although I don't recall the outlet (I don't watch Fox News or any other news, for that matter.[/QUOTE]Yeah I still can't find anything. Why is it so much easier to find porn than a specific story? I can find the Washington Times quoting a release from AFP where they catagorically deny the report.

"The AFP has sent out the following statement:

Greetings, Concerning your query on the report published by a Lebanese website according to which ambassador Stevens was sodomized. That report falsely quoted our news agency and has no truth whatsover to it. AFP promptly sent a strongly worded complaint to that website and they removed the report and published a denial, saying that AFP did not report such a thing."

But I can't find anything on the AFP website. Not saying it's not there just that I haven't found it.

I know one of the Washington papers (Times / Post) is supposed to be more liberal but I don't know which. I also can't find much of anything searching Mike Masters and any keywords I can think of to tie to this story.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;427574]I wouldn't expect that I need to cite the sources for the part about the administration denying it was terrorism-related and that it was due to the "video." If you need that info, you can pull down the public statements by Obama, Clinton, Gibbs, Carney, et al. Similarly, all the major news outlets reported that three other American perished in the terrorist attack. The Congressional testimony on Wednesday also has plenty of data (provided under oath) to back that up as well (excluding details about how the ambassador died).[/QUOTE]Thanks but no need, this is all after the fact finger pointing and neither side could be expected to tell anything that resembles truth. I do appreciate you taking the time though. I just wanted to read more from a credible source about the attack and there just doesn't seem to be much that doesn't reference that original Tayyar. Org story which seems to have been somewhat discredited.

If you come across anything credible please PM (or post here) the link I would like to read more, thanks a lot.

DR

[QUOTE=Tiny12;427578]So, if you're a political operative, the ends justify the means? There's no room for self criticism? When you call the other side war criminals you're starting down a slippery slope.[/QUOTE]Absolutely there is room for self-criticism. It is actually a necessity. But that doesn't mean you share the critique with your political opponents. Remember, it was Richard Nixon who developed the concept that the the other side of the aisle was "enemies" and he used J. Edgar Hoover and the resources of the FBI to spy on his political adversaries as though they were foreign enemies. As far as I can tell, the Republicans of the ilk of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove have continued that modus operandi (albeit without the corrupt FBI involvement) to this day. It's about time that Democrats used the same tactics, and now they are. Thou doth protest too much. Clean up the Republican side's use of this sort of perspective, and then maybe you can be more self-righteous about it.

BTW, the reason I call Dick Cheney a war criminal is that he suborned torture, and in fact, in conjunction with the CIA developed and ran a substantial program, known as extraordinary rendition, to ship prisoners captured on the battlefield off to some of our less reputable allies (such as Egypt, and even Syria at the time) who had no compunction about torturing them. That is a war crime.

[QUOTE=Chicago Guy;427575]I attempted to make fun of the politically correct lingo on B-school websites. Anyway, I think you should be proud to be a Booth alum. As you point out yourself, you've studied under amazing professors who have conducted groundbreaking research in macro and finance.[/QUOTE]I have no problem with the individual professors, who have, as you note, conducted important, ground-breaking research and analysis and are amongst the most influential people in the field of Economics and Finance. Gary Becker might be the most brilliant, out-of-the-box-thinking Economist who has ever lived, and I was particularly fond of George Stigler, whom I sparred with as one of his students, and who gave me good grades despite my frequent disagreements with him. I DO, however have a problem with the institution itself, which has a distinct bias in terms of who it considers to have a valid perspective on things economic, and what fields of inquiry it considers worthy of pursuit. A highly distinguished Keynesian of similar heft, such as a James O. Tobin or Paul Samuelson or Paul Krugman would not have been allowed on the faculty the U. Of C. as a result of that institutional bias, and the glaring lack of diversity of viewpoints amongst the U.of C. faculty is by far it's most substantial and persistent shortcoming.

[QUOTE=Member #2041;427586] Thou doth protest too much. Clean up the Republican side's use of this sort of perspective, and then maybe you can be more self-righteous about it.[/QUOTE]Since I'm not a Republican or politician or political operative that's hard to do.

[QUOTE=Punter 127;427552]I saw an arrogant, overbearing, and condescending old washed-up has-been who was an embarrassment to himself and his party. Unfortunately his patronizing arrogance mirrors that of many (not all) in the Democrat party today.[/QUOTE]Translation:

[i]Wahhhhhhhh.......... Biden won and I'm a sore loser. I can't refute that Biden repeatedly exposed Ryan's weak and dishonest talking points. So I'll just complain about his style.[/i]

I don't really look at Biden as a has-been. I look at him more as a never-was. However, he is not an unmitigated cocksucker like the prior VP. The VP is a big yawn anyway. Yeah, we had 4 presidents assassinated and they took a shot at a couple more such as Jackson, FDR, and Reagan but even when a gerbil like Gerald Ford ended up as president it wasn't that big of a deal. I think I read something like 7% of all voters consider the running mate when making their decisions, or 17%; it was low.

[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz;427580]Yeah I still can't find anything. Why is it so much easier to find porn than a specific story?[/quote]'cause porn is so much better.

[quote=]I can find the Washington Times quoting a release from AFP where they catagorically deny the report.[/quote]I deliberately left out the WT, 'cause they aren't part of the liberal main stream media. Masters is on staff at the Washington Post. He made his comments in a number of interviews.

[quote=]"The AFP has sent out the following statement:

Greetings, Concerning your query on the report published by a Lebanese website according to which ambassador Stevens was sodomized. That report falsely quoted our news agency and has no truth whatsover to it. AFP promptly sent a strongly worded complaint to that website and they removed the report and published a denial, saying that AFP did not report such a thing."[/quote]I'm not sure what happened but, I have seen loads of statements attributed to the AFP.

[quote=]But I can't find anything on the AFP website. Not saying it's not there just that I haven't found it.[/quote]I suspect that they scrubbed their sight as soon as they felt that the info might be questionable.

[quote=]I know one of the Washington papers (Times / Post) is supposed to be more liberal but I don't know which. I also can't find much of anything searching Mike Masters and any keywords I can think of to tie to this story.[/quote]Wash Times is a reasonably objective news outlet. The Washington Post is a flaming liberal rag (someone very close to me had a column there for years). Masters is related to the liberal rag.

[quote=]Thanks but no need, this is all after the fact finger pointing and neither side could be expected to tell anything that resembles truth. I do appreciate you taking the time though. I just wanted to read more from a credible source about the attack and there just doesn't seem to be much that doesn't reference that original Tayyar. Org story which seems to have been somewhat discredited.[/quote]There is video of the assault on the compound. The first info that I read is completely consistent with what is purportedly on the video (militants out of nowhere, sans public protest). The only item that I wonder about (regarding accuracy) is whether or not the ambassador was sodomized. I am fairly comfortable with postulating that he was killed.

[quote=]If you come across anything credible please PM (or post here) the link I would like to read more, thanks a lot.

DR[/QUOTE]I will do that. While I may come off as a fire-breathing right-winger, I am not. I believe in the US and I believe in the founding documents and the intentions of the founders. I do not believe that those values are irrelevant, today. I don't accept disinformation or dissembling from our govt, regardless of who is in power.