U.S. Ambassador and three others killed in Libya.

[rvg]

the US system enshrines the two current parties pretty much in the Constitution.

Could you elaborate on this?

[Xiahou]

Were they?

Didn't hear it over here. Are you sure they weren't saying "we don't know it wasn't a part of the protest"?


It can sound the same, once Fox gets ahold of it.

Please do me the courtesy of reading my posts and following the accompanying links before trying to refute what you think I posted.

So why send Rice around to the Sunday shows 5 days later saying '"“Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo,”' when there was evidence that it was not spontaneous within the first 24 hours?

A direct quote from the US Ambassador to the UN and an accompanying link to ABC- not Fox.

[Lemur]

Pretty much what Xiahou posted.

No, not really.

I too can't see what they would hope to gain by deliberate misdirection- so why did they do it?

Which is the exact question I asked @Vladimir. If it's a conspiracy, cui bono?

I think it's that Obama has a strong belief [...] He thinks that [...] It's a fairly typical mentality for liberals. [...] It's possible that he sees this as [...] it is because of his shallow intellectual and moral view of the world. [...] my explanation is that him saying that is just his way of lecturing both sides with sentiments chosen because they sound good to him.

That's an awful lot of information from inside the President's brain. And as an explanation, it relies on him being remarkably stupid.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Could you elaborate on this?

I could at great length - but in brief:

Everything about US politics is geared towards the two parties - the primaries, the way the seats are arranged in the House, the little R's and D's they put before the people's names in front of their seats, the change to the Constitution so that the candidates run on double tickets, and the fact that both Houses are chaired by partisan actors...

Even the design of the Houses encourages a two-part mentality, by the way the desks are arranged.

It's not virtually impossible for a "third Party" to breakout at the Federal level because in order to be taken seriously you have to already be at the Federal level.

I'm English, our system is flat out designed for two parties, almost explicitly, certainly for two sides (in power and not) but we still have a more plural system than you.

[rvg]

...the change to the Constitution so that the candidates run on double tickets...

What are you referring to? The rest is pure fluff, but this is intriguing.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What are you referring to? The rest is pure fluff, but this is intriguing.

Look it up - you'll be shocked.

[Vladimir]

@Lemur

Conspiracy? Really? Are you that unfamiliar with politics and politicians that you can't understand why they'd use deception for their benefit? I really can't explain it to you better than others here already have.

[rvg]

Look it up - you'll be shocked.

Just as I suspected. Your argument begs the question.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Except - he's basically right. This isn't about the video,

Eeeeh....you see your problem here?

That's an awful lot of information from inside the President's brain. And as an explanation, it relies on him being remarkably stupid.

Yes and yes. I'm curious why you think he's smart, personally I can't relate to people who watch him give speeches and come away with that impression.

Just as I suspected. Your argument begs the question.

Is he talking about the change in the rules about the vice presidency? I don't see what's shocking about that.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Just as I suspected. Your argument begs the question.

Oh come off it, fine if you're too lazy.

They changed the Constitution so that the Presidential nominees could pick a VP, rather than the VP being the runner up in the election - which actually makes infinitely more sense, given that he's the Speaker of the Senate.

Now ask yourself why every child is taught about that amendment in school.

As to the rest, it's not "fluff" because it's about perception and perception is the only thing that matters in an election.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Oh come off it, fine if you're too lazy.

They changed the Constitution so that the Presidential nominees could pick a VP, rather than the VP being the runner up in the election - which actually makes infinitely more sense, given that he's the Speaker of the Senate.

Now ask yourself why every child is taught about that amendment in school.

As to the rest, it's not "fluff" because it's about perception and perception is the only thing that matters in an election.

That makes no sense whatsoever. If the vice president was radically different then they won't work well together in the white house and assassination becomes many times more viable.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Eeeeh....you see your problem here?

Why don't you summarise, in under three sentences - because the riots aren't about the video, so Obama is right about that.

Is he talking about the change in the rules about the vice presidency? I don't see what's shocking about that.

I do - and if you think about it you will too.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That makes no sense whatsoever. If the vice president was radically different then they won't work well together in the white house and assassination becomes many times more viable.

Think harder.

This is the point I am making about your system - look back at the elections prior to the change, see how the system was meant​ to work.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Think harder.

This is the point I am making about your system - look back at the elections prior to the change, see how the system was meant​ to work.

The elections of washington were basically uncontested if I remember correctly. I think originally we hoped there would be no "faction" but it turned out there was. You can't have a system that assumes no faction when there are very bitterly opposed factions.

I'm not sure why you are appealing to any "original" meaning as if that's better.

Why don't you summarise, in under three sentences - because the riots aren't about the video, so Obama is right about that.

He's been associating the riots and even the killings with the video practically non stop. And for him, if it's not about the video specifically its about a history of things like the video, which is also faulty. So you are saying that he's wrong.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The elections of washington were basically uncontested if I remember correctly. I think originally we hoped there would be no "faction" but it turned out there was. You can't have a system that assumes no faction when there are very bitterly opposed factions.

I'm not sure why you are appealing to any "original" meaning as if that's better.

You are correct - Washington's election was effectively uncontested (the other were jostling for VP) but John Adams' election was not, and he and Jefferson managed not to kill each other despite being bitter political rivals.

The point is - there was always conflict but the reforms that have been enacted have entrenched it.

after all - lots of countries have managed with Premiers and Vices from different parties - we have that situation in the UK now, and we won World War II with the same arrangement.

I'm not saying it shouldn't have been changed - I'm saying look​ at the change made - look at the double ticket.

He's been associating the riots and even the killings with the video practically non stop. And for him, if it's not about the video specifically its about a history of things like the video, which is also faulty. So you are saying that he's wrong.

The video triggered it, but it's not about the video - I realise that's a nuanced point, but it's not that complicated.

[Strike For The South]

The video is the smokescreen that the bourgeoise use in order to exploit the proletariat.

YOU FOOLS

[Lemur]

[Y]ou can't understand why they'd use deception for their benefit?

For the third and final time, what is the benefit? I don't know how to be any clearer about this.

I'm curious why you think [Obama]'s smart, personally I can't relate to people who watch him give speeches and come away with that impression.

Just because you posit that our President is an idiot hamstrung by ego and ideology—and explain everything related to Washington and Libya on this premise—it does not follow that I am saying the man is a genius. False equivalence is false.

Look at your post: four paragraphs of telling us what's in Obama's mind, all of it bad. I'm suspicious of any explanation of any phenomena that requires in-depth, detailed knowledge of another person's brain. You're neither thick nor slow, so you can see why I find such a premise problematic.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You are correct - Washington's election was effectively uncontested (the other were jostling for VP) but John Adams' election was not, and he and Jefferson managed not to kill each other despite being bitter political rivals.

The point is - there was always conflict but the reforms that have been enacted have entrenched it.

after all - lots of countries have managed with Premiers and Vices from different parties - we have that situation in the UK now, and we won World War II with the same arrangement.

I'm not saying it shouldn't have been changed - I'm saying look​ at the change made - look at the double ticket.

Their rivalry was one of the main reasons it was changed. And heck, just look at all the presidents who have died in office (8 I think).

A two party system is ideal, so you're going to have be more explicit about what you think is corrupt.

Ideally you have one party who errs on the side of caution and tradition and common sense, and another that mostly agrees but has ideas about how the world is changing and how the older ideas don't fit anymore. This works as long as you have an ok starting tradition. Essentially you would have all moderates. The important thing in politics is to keep radicals at a minimum. I for one am happy that the "BUILD A WALL ACROSS THE WHOLE BORDER" people and the "HAVING "IN GOD WE TRUST" ON OUR PENNIES IS OPPRESSION" people are kept in positions of minimal leverage.

Our problems are when our "common sense" traditions are faulty, and when radicals (left-liberals and libertarians usually) puke their ideology all over the place.

The video triggered it, but it's not about the video - I realise that's a nuanced point, but it's not that complicated.

He has consistently made it about the video. Goodness.

And the video didn't trigger the protests, and certainly not the killings, as he suggests in that clip and has been suggesting.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Just because you posit that our President is an idiot hamstrung by ego and ideology—and explain everything related to Washington and Libya on this premise—it does not follow that I am saying the man is a genius. False equivalence is false.

I said smart, not genius. Anyway, do you think he's smart? Why or why not?

[Strike For The South]

Define smart?

The man certainly does not challenge any paradigms, although no one who has power inklings ever does/

[rvg]

They changed the Constitution so that the Presidential nominees could pick a VP

That is false. The 12th Amendment made electors cast a separate vote for a president and for a vice-president. It was not designed to prop up a two party system.

[Papewaio]

A two party system is only one step better than a one party system.

Two party systems have a tendency to smother anything that upsets a gravy train. It isn't a system like in law where you have two opposing forces of prosecuter and defender with a judge and jury (arguably a 4 party system).

Two party systems create binary answers to issues, polarizing even simple issues where teamwork makes sense and a very black or white solution set. Have only a hammer and all your problems are nails. Have a two party system and you see through a lens of us vs them.

Some issues in life are that simple, but I'd they are that simple you don't need a specialized leadership to deal with them. You have a specialized leadership to deal with complex problems. Having more then two parties allows voters to more closely vote for a party that represents them the best instead of selecting one out of fear of the other guy.

Most of us wouldn't care how you vote. Except your relationships with foreign nations generally comes across as little more nuanced then "You're with us or against us", have a difference of opinion and it's not a pretty sight.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The video is the smokescreen that the bourgeoise use in order to exploit the proletariat.

YOU FOOLS

No - it's the Church trying to control the masses.

Their rivalry was one of the main reasons it was changed. And heck, just look at all the presidents who have died in office (8 I think).

What does Presidents dieing in Office have to do with anything? That's only a problem if the VP is a loon from the fringe of the party picked to keep the party cohesive - oh wait.

That's a problem with the current system, not the one it replaced.

A two party system is ideal, so you're going to have be more explicit about what you think is corrupt.

A two-party system is not ideal because...

Our problems are when our "common sense" traditions are faulty, and when radicals (left-liberals and libertarians usually) puke their ideology all over the place.

...you get this. The natural result of two parties is divergence from the mean while the natural result of multiple parties is convergence on topics of common interest.

He has consistently made it about the video. Goodness.

And the video didn't trigger the protests, and certainly not the killings, as he suggests in that clip and has been suggesting.

The video filtered out - it's on the front of youtube, it triggered the protests the way a spark triggers a blowout in a coal mine.

That is false. The 12th Amendment made electors cast a separate vote for a president and for a vice-president. It was not designed to prop up a two party system.

It was changed because parties wanted "teams" - if they had sucked it up like proper statesmen you wouldn't have a problem, but they decided to be fractious and have become ever more so since.

[rvg]

It was changed because parties wanted "teams" - if they had sucked it up like proper statesmen you wouldn't have a problem, but they decided to be fractious and have become ever more so since.

False. Candidates started running in "teams" decades after the amendment was ratified.

[Xiahou]

The Washington Post has put up a timeline of administration statements about the Benghazi attacks and they put forth a motive for why they'd try to hide the fact that it was indeed a terror attack....

For political reasons, it certainly was in the White House’s interests to not portray the attack as a terrorist incident, especially one that took place on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. Instead the administration kept the focus on what was ultimately a red herring — anger in the Arab world over anti-Muslim video posted on You Tube.

I still don't get it. It'd be mind-blowingly stupid to really think they could hide the real progression of events. So did they think they could lessen the fallout by keeping the public on the wrong track for as long as possible? Or are they just mind-blowingly stupid? Or is it something else entirely?

EDIT:
It just keeps getting better and better. Two weeks later, and the FBI still hasn't gotten onsite to investigate anything. Why? Bureaucratic infighting. From CNN:

"They had difficulty, and we understand there was some bureaucratic infighting between the FBI and Justice Department on the one hand, and the State Department on the other, and so it took them longer than they would have liked to get into country. They've now gotten there. But they still are unable to get permission to go to Benghazi."

FBI agents have made a request through the U.S. State Department for the crime scene to be secured, Townsend said, but that has not happened.

Meanwhile, anyone including CNN reporters, can stroll thru the site and sift thru whats left apparently without issue.

[Fragony]

Odd, what do Hindu temples have to do with the movie, but in Bangladesh people with culture are attacking them.

Leftist people know, for a fact, that it has nothing to do with islam. Needs different words, moderate muslims should be classified as 'non-radical' instead of 'moderate' as islam is extreme by nature.

[Hax]

Yes, all the Muslims that don't feel like killing people all the time are obviously not real believers!

[rvg]

...people with culture...

I love this term.

[Major Robert Dump]

I think the administration was in a no-win situation, and would have been criticized either way.

On one hand, you have Obama sort of thinking he repaired muslim-US relations in a few years with some catchy speeches, and to suggest otherwise might bring into question our participation in Libya or passivity in allowing the MB to rise. But I would think that blaming only the film would hurt muslim-US reolations and cause them to digress, as it undermines any and all other causes and makes muslims look like 8 year old throwing a tantrum

You also have a situation that for a terrorist attack, the admin will look folly and incompetent for not being prepared, it was after all, sept 11 which is a fairly obvious day.

Basically, in our no-win political climate, Obama was going to be criticized no matter what position he took. While I find that sad and pathetic, I am not defending the lies. It's not like the lies got more people killed, or was some form of cronyism for profit that we could tangibly point to and assess damages. Rather, it was typical figure head telling typical untruth to guard against typical fallout, all too common IMO. The admin was misguided and buffoonish on this, very amatuer.

[Fragony]

I love this term.

Best thing about leftist lingo is that you get to get really sarcastic