U.S. Politics Thread

[Cruachan]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Not sure if trolling or having a literacy problem.

Send a memo to Reuters and AFP for us please. And the PLAN.

Did reporters from those organizations go into Syria and find chemical weapons or did they simply gather their news from the same sources the rest of Europe and the United States got theirs?

Originally Posted by Solace

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is true no matter the form of government. It's possible to have a benevolent dictatorship, but historically speaking, they don't last very long, the transitions are brutal, and the new guy will probably be worse than the one he replaced. If not immediately, soon after.

I've heard that saying a million times, so I will quote one I prefer. “The conscience of a moral personality is far greater protection against the misuse of office than supervision of parliament or separation of powers.”

It's true that throughout history great empires have fallen into decadence and corruption after the deaths of their benevolent leaders (Akhenaton, King Rishabha, King Asoka, Nezahuacoyotl), which is why it's of the utmost importance that the state control reproduction, to limit those who are naturally selfish and increase the numbers of naturally empathetic people in the same way Socrates suggests we breed a soldier class in the republic. My only contention with his idea is that I think all citizens should be soldiers. Genes are only responsible for around 50% of an individual's disposition but you can supplement that with social work programs for adults, proper schooling and extra curricular activities that build social and team skills for children, and promoting a culture that does not reward selfish behavior or glorify amorality. In that way, if the masses themselves are better, the likelihood of a great leader being born as a compassionate individual increases, making the selection of the new leader much more stable.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Cruachan

I've heard that saying a million times, so I will quote one I prefer. “The conscience of a moral personality is far greater protection against the misuse of office than supervision of parliament or separation of powers.”

It's true that throughout history great empires have fallen into decadence and corruption after the deaths of their benevolent leaders (Akhenaton, King Rishabha, King Asoka, Nezahuacoyotl), which is why it's of the utmost importance that the state control reproduction, to limit those who are naturally selfish and increase the numbers of naturally empathetic people in the same way Socrates suggests we breed a soldier class in the republic. My only contention with his idea is that I think all citizens should be soldiers. Genes are only responsible for around 50% of an individual's disposition but you can supplement that with social work programs for adults, proper schooling and extra curricular activities that build social and team skills for children, and promoting a culture that does not reward selfish behavior or glorify amorality. In that way, if the masses themselves are better, the likelihood of a great leader being born as a compassionate individual increases, making the selection of the new leader much more stable.

Wow.

Just....wow.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Cruachan

Did reporters from those organizations go into Syria and find chemical weapons or did they simply gather their news from the same sources the rest of Europe and the United States got theirs?

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.as...6#.U-jqzGOjKBo
http://thediplomat.com/2013/12/chine...pons-disposal/
http://rt.com/news/syria-crisis-live-updates-047/

I've heard that saying a million times, so I will quote one I prefer. “The conscience of a moral personality is far greater protection against the misuse of office than supervision of parliament or separation of powers.”

It's true that throughout history great empires have fallen into decadence and corruption after the deaths of their benevolent leaders (Akhenaton, King Rishabha, King Asoka, Nezahuacoyotl), which is why it's of the utmost importance that the state control reproduction, to limit those who are naturally selfish and increase the numbers of naturally empathetic people in the same way Socrates suggests we breed a soldier class in the republic. My only contention with his idea is that I think all citizens should be soldiers. Genes are only responsible for around 50% of an individual's disposition but you can supplement that with social work programs for adults, proper schooling and extra curricular activities that build social and team skills for children, and promoting a culture that does not reward selfish behavior or glorify amorality. In that way, if the masses themselves are better, the likelihood of a great leader being born as a compassionate individual increases, making the selection of the new leader much more stable.

So how do you identify them?

[LoveYouSaber]

Originally Posted by Cruachan

I've heard that saying a million times, so I will quote one I prefer. “The conscience of a moral personality is far greater protection against the misuse of office than supervision of parliament or separation of powers.”

It's true that throughout history great empires have fallen into decadence and corruption after the deaths of their benevolent leaders (Akhenaton, King Rishabha, King Asoka, Nezahuacoyotl), which is why it's of the utmost importance that the state control reproduction, to limit those who are naturally selfish and increase the numbers of naturally empathetic people in the same way Socrates suggests we breed a soldier class in the republic. My only contention with his idea is that I think all citizens should be soldiers. Genes are only responsible for around 50% of an individual's disposition but you can supplement that with social work programs for adults, proper schooling and extra curricular activities that build social and team skills for children, and promoting a culture that does not reward selfish behavior or glorify amorality. In that way, if the masses themselves are better, the likelihood of a great leader being born as a compassionate individual increases, making the selection of the new leader much more stable.

In my opinion, that actually, while a very noble way of thinking and I honestly believe you mean good, has been the dreams and utopia of very smart and educated people, but has existed in various forms in real life/history, including communism and Nazism. There's too much of horribly failed examples in the past for these kind of grand schemes and projects.

I believe the idea that people can be and should be reformed to one value is actually one of the greatest dangers to liberty and is responsible for disastrous and atrocious acts like mass deportation or genocides. Besides, try to define what is selfish? Someone who fights for the best for their family? a further extension, for their neighbourhood? or even going further, for their community, city, state, nation? Someone who fights for the best for their nation can be said to be selfish in regard to the whole world!

With democracy and a constitution that protects liberal rights, the worst you get is a failing economy and inefficient government; for an authoritarian government, the best you can get are mighty empires, but however the worst you get is far worse than that which befalls democracies...

[Cruachan]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.as...6#.U-jqzGOjKBo



So how do you identify them?

“It is for others to decide whether to pursue this matter further to determine responsibility. We may all have our own thoughts on this, but I would simply say that this was a grave crime and those responsible must be brought to justice as soon as possible,”

I agree with him, but you have Assad pointing at rebels and the rebels pointing at Assad's regime, so who do you believe?

This guy:



Or these guys:




And as far as telling who has natural inclinations towards selfish and amoral behavior, there are basically two approaches and both must be integrated for maximum success.

The first, the traditional is anthropologically through things like life histories and skull structure. As a general rule, descendents of hunters and shepherds are opportunistic, as it benefited them historically to be tribalists, the precursor to racists (the more people who come into your territory, the less of your intrinsically limited resources you have). Compare that with farmers who viewed new recruits as assets and were cooperative, because the more hands you have, the more crops you can grow, the more mouths you can feed. That's a rough way that gives you the right directions to look.

The second is looking at the genetic structure itself, which needs more research to be completely viable. Most genetic researchers are preoccupied with finding cures for genetic diseases and links to negative behavior. One base pairing in particular that's responsible for oxytocin regulation can have three possible options: AA, AG, GG and people with a GG pairing have higher levels of oxytocin and as a result are more empathetic and trusting. That's one example, and both methods feed into eachother, like blood type for example can give hints to whether one is a farmer, shepherd or a hunter anthropologically speaking.

I'm not saying genetics are entirely responsible for an individual's behavior but it's foolish to deny the influence it has on one's inclinations and desires. It's up to the individual to use will to defy their nature, and in that way attain freedom. However, it would be better if people didn't have to actively fight their natures and it could instead work with them. "Blessed is the lion whom the man consumes and the lion will become man. Cursed is the man whom the lion consumes and the lion will become man."

Originally Posted by LoveYouSaber

In my opinion, that actually, while a very noble way of thinking and I honestly believe you mean good, has been the dreams and utopia of very smart and educated people, but has existed in various forms in real life/history, including communism and Nazism. There's too much of horribly failed examples in the past for these kind of grand schemes and projects.

I believe the idea that people can be and should be reformed to one value is actually one of the greatest dangers to liberty and is responsible for disastrous and atrocious acts like mass deportation or genocides. Besides, try to define what is selfish? Someone who fights for the best for their family? a further extension, for their neighbourhood? or even going further, for their community, city, state, nation? Someone who fights for the best for their nation can be said to be selfish in regard to the whole world!

With democracy and a constitution that protects liberal rights, the worst you get is a failing economy and inefficient government; for an authoritarian government, the best you can get are mighty empires, but however the worst you get is far worse than that which befalls democracies...

The Spartans did something similar, but I am not promoting eugenics. Eugenics aims to improve humanity's natural propensities by making them smarter, stronger, taller, etc. What I promote is actually disadvantageous to natural selection, by promoting universal compassion as the only trait being selected for.

The comparison you make is akin to Fascism, with society being an extended family of sorts and I find this just as selfish as caring only for one's self or one's family. You could even consider Secular Humanism to be in the same tribe as that, and I find that particularly insidious because it's hard for most people to detect the selfishness in such a philosophy, even if it's very clear to people like vegans and animal welfare activists. Universal compassion accompanied by righteous fury are the only unselfish attitudes. One must have the same love and acceptance that Jesus and Buddha had and also be willing to take up the sword against injustice like Sikhs, which is why I believe all citizens should be required to own a gun and know how to use it. It's every one's duty to end violence, and unfortunately this often requires the use of violence itself, but if you look at the word violence it does not just mean bloodshed, it's from the word to violate, like violating someone's consent. In a situation like this, one's loyalty is not to any individual, organization, nation, race, or species, but to Justice alone.

side note: The Chinese and Japanese word for "Martial" can be divided into two separate symbols meaning "ending" and "violence" and is known as retaliatory violence, and this is the same purpose the government has ideally.

I honestly believe a working democracy is worse than a dysfunctional democracy, because I do not trust the majority of people to make the right decisions. While it is useful in the short term during emergencies, on a large scale it's just really bad. The system itself inherently divides a nation into separate camps.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Cruachan

“It is for others to decide whether to pursue this matter further to determine responsibility. We may all have our own thoughts on this, but I would simply say that this was a grave crime and those responsible must be brought to justice as soon as possible,”

I agree with him, but you have Assad pointing at rebels and the rebels pointing at Assad's regime, so who do you believe?

Why should I take a side? Even if I would, I would side with Wall Street; there is no clear right or wrong side in this conflict, only money to be made.

Besides, my entrance into this argument is to point out that chemical weapons do exist there, nothing more.

And as far as telling who has natural inclinations towards selfish and amoral behavior, there are basically two approaches and both must be integrated for maximum success.

The first, the traditional is anthropologically through things like life histories and skull structure. As a general rule, descendents of hunters and shepherds are opportunistic, as it benefited them historically to be tribalists, the precursor to racists (the more people who come into your territory, the less of your intrinsically limited resources you have). Compare that with farmers who viewed new recruits as assets and were cooperative, because the more hands you have, the more crops you can grow, the more mouths you can feed. That's a rough way that gives you the right directions to look.

The second is looking at the genetic structure itself, which needs more research to be completely viable. Most genetic researchers are preoccupied with finding cures for genetic diseases and links to negative behavior. One base pairing in particular that's responsible for oxytocin regulation can have three possible options: AA, AG, GG and people with a GG pairing have higher levels of oxytocin and as a result are more empathetic and trusting. That's one example, and both methods feed into eachother, like blood type for example can give hints to whether one is a farmer, shepherd or a hunter anthropologically speaking.

I'm not saying genetics are entirely responsible for an individual's behavior but it's foolish to deny the influence it has on one's inclinations and desires. It's up to the individual to use will to defy their nature, and in that way attain freedom. However, it would be better if people didn't have to actively fight their natures and it could instead work with them. "Blessed is the lion whom the man consumes and the lion will become man. Cursed is the man whom the lion consumes and the lion will become man."

Two lines and I am going to conclude one thing : you are randomly chaining facts together. Ever heard of McNamara's fallacy?

Secondly, hunter, farmer, shephard classes have got negligible effect on selfish behaviour. In psychology, there is something known as Social Learning Behaviour, which effects on how people learn to adapt and deal with situations based on prior experience. Even if you are to bring in hormone production influencing behaviour into account (in which oxytocin isn't always what it is), it still ends with a chicken-egg conclusion; correlation does not imply causation. Also, phrenology is considered pseudoscientific - so that is one strike-off under anthrophology if you want to use it as a theory, and stick to how skulls differ from one animal to another instead of how it differs from one human being to another.

Thirdly, defying personal nature to suit the dictated needs of society isn't freedom, it is swapping individuality for a cage - even if it is a gilded one, a cage is a cage. Equality does not mean justice, and justice is understood differently in every culture. So which is which?

Finally, as a note, I would like to tell you that, the world is not flat. People are different, they live in different places with different ideas, the only way can there be peace is when everyone accepts other people for who they are instead of trying to disprove their positive presence in society, whether through science, religion, or some lame cultist belief of a certain superiority. Moderation and tolerance go hand-in-hand, so do justice and equality. There is no bigger dystopia than an utopia - nothing being perfect allows for more opportunities in the various paths each person might take in life. As for your attempts to justify your ideas, it would be better if you use more reason instead of science as the latter contains disputed facts. Until the researchers have ironed it out, you might want to quote it as a "possibility" rather than an "absolute". Reliance on intuition without experience leads to more wrong facts because the underlying reason leads nowhere with just one factor.

And you might want to stop quoting sayings. In the scientific writing, it is often viewed as a sign of embellishment and ego-tripping.

[Cruachan]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Why should I take a side? Even if I would, I would side with Wall Street; there is no clear right or wrong side in this conflict, only money to be made.

Besides, my entrance into this argument is to point out that chemical weapons do exist there, nothing more.

Because there are moral implications to attacking innocent people with chemical weapons. Either Assad was responsible, in which case he does not deserve to lead those people, or the rebels did it, in which case they deserve to be dismantled and have their toxic influence separated from the general public.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Two lines and I am going to conclude one thing : you are randomly chaining facts together. Ever heard of McNamara's fallacy?

Secondly, hunter, farmer, shephard classes have got negligible effect on selfish behaviour. In psychology, there is something known as Social Learning Behaviour, which effects on how people learn to adapt and deal with situations based on prior experience. Even if you are to bring in hormone production influencing behaviour into account (in which oxytocin isn't always what it is), it still ends with a chicken-egg conclusion; correlation does not imply causation. Also, phrenology is considered pseudoscientific - so that is one strike-off under anthrophology if you want to use it as a theory, and stick to how skulls differ from one animal to another instead of how it differs from one human being to another.

Thirdly, defying personal nature to suit the dictated needs of society isn't freedom, it is swapping individuality for a cage - even if it is a gilded one, a cage is a cage. Equality does not mean justice, and justice is understood differently in every culture. So which is which?

Finally, as a note, I would like to tell you that, the world is not flat. People are different, they live in different places with different ideas, the only way can there be peace is when everyone accepts other people for who they are instead of trying to disprove their positive presence in society, whether through science, religion, or some lame cultist belief of a certain superiority. Moderation and tolerance go hand-in-hand, so do justice and equality. There is no bigger dystopia than an utopia - nothing being perfect allows for more opportunities in the various paths each person might take in life.

And you might want to stop quoting sayings. In the scientific writing, it is often viewed as a sign of embellishment and ego-tripping.

I merely gave one genetic example, and the way that codons interact with others on the same chromosome is complex. You couldn't simply change a few base pairs and have the perfect person, which is why I said more research must be done, which epigenetics looks pretty promising so far. Population genetics is not "randomly chaining facts together.", it's a paradigm of biology. Early man had more or less isolated populations even when you look at it from a meta-population viewpoint, this led to different cultures, ideas and religions which reflected the different lifestyles they'd adopted and survived with for tens of thousands of years. I believe that all lifeforms should be treated with compassion and understanding, but not all humans are equal, they have different propensities. Some are better at the thinking disciplines, others with disciplines of the heart, or those of the physical body, and while none of those are inherently better or worse than the other, they are different and therefore not equal in all regards. Quality > Equality. I agree that anthropology is crude when you extrapolate moral implications from it, which is why I said it should be used as a starting point and not an end all be all.

Obeying your own nature is in fact slavery, the only way you can achieve freedom is from using your own will to decide what paths to take. It's natural for all humans to want to survive, so if you defy that will and become a martyr or choose to starve instead of consume living beings (like some monks have in the past) then you attain true freedom. Note that freedom and liberty are not synonymous. The only reason to heed to your nature is so that you might continue surviving until you complete your mission, this is the essence of militarism.

I'm not going to take something someone said which was concise and meaningful and then paraphrase it, that's just creating a pointless separation between the person and the idea.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Cruachan

The Spartans did something similar, but I am not promoting eugenics. Eugenics aims to improve humanity's natural propensities by making them smarter, stronger, taller, etc. What I promote is actually disadvantageous to natural selection, by promoting universal compassion as the only trait being selected for.

The comparison you make is akin to Fascism, with society being an extended family of sorts and I find this just as selfish as caring only for one's self or one's family. You could even consider Secular Humanism to be in the same tribe as that, and I find that particularly insidious because it's hard for most people to detect the selfishness in such a philosophy, even if it's very clear to people like vegans and animal welfare activists. Universal compassion accompanied by righteous fury are the only unselfish attitudes. One must have the same love and acceptance that Jesus and Buddha had and also be willing to take up the sword against injustice like Sikhs, which is why I believe all citizens should be required to own a gun and know how to use it. It's every one's duty to end violence, and unfortunately this often requires the use of violence itself, but if you look at the word violence it does not just mean bloodshed, it's from the word to violate, like violating someone's consent. In a situation like this, one's loyalty is not to any individual, organization, nation, race, or species, but to Justice alone.

side note: The Chinese and Japanese word for "Martial" can be divided into two separate symbols meaning "ending" and "violence" and is known as retaliatory violence, and this is the same purpose the government has ideally.

I honestly believe a working democracy is worse than a dysfunctional democracy, because I do not trust the majority of people to make the right decisions. While it is useful in the short term during emergencies, on a large scale it's just really bad. The system itself inherently divides a nation into separate camps.

Sounds an awful lot like Lionel Curtis' "Civitas Dei" or Commonwealth of God that he proposed during the first half of the 20th Century.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Cruachan

Because there are moral implications to attacking innocent people with chemical weapons. Either Assad was responsible, in which case he does not deserve to lead those people, or the rebels did it, in which case they deserve to be dismantled and have their toxic influence separated from the general public.

What kind of moral implications?

I merely gave one genetic example, and the way that codons interact with others on the same chromosome is complex. You couldn't simply change a few base pairs and have the perfect person, which is why I said more research must be done. Population genetics is not "randomly chaining facts together.", it's a paradigm of biology. Early man had more or less isolated populations even when you look at it from a meta-population viewpoint, this led to different cultures, ideas and religions which reflected the different lifestyles they'd adopted and survived with for tens of thousands of years. I believe that all lifeforms should be treated with compassion and understanding, but not all humans are equal, they have different propensities. Some are better at the thinking disciplines, others with disciplines of the heart, or those of the physical body, and while none of those are inherently better or worse than the other, they are different and therefore not equal in all regards. Quality > Equality. I agree that anthropology is crude when you extrapolate moral implications from it, which is why I said it should be used as a starting point and not an end all be all.

This block of text had so many contradictions that I have no idea where to start dissecting - if this was a body, as a surgeon I would have stopped at AED and sent the body to the mortuary, ER or no ER. Still, I tried and highlighted those problematic statements.

So you might want to list HOW you are going to determine quality in a SCIENTIFIC writing with ALL point, proof and pertinence present instead of just going about your beliefs on how everyone should subscribe to it because it has got "scientific" backing.

Also, anthropology has got little and nothing to do with moral implications - the brain is still a black box regardless of size and shape. You might want to stick with the argument of how the amygdala size affects the ability to see trust, or that the endocrine system maintains balance in all the hormones and neurotransmitters even if they are disputed facts.

Obeying your own nature is in fact slavery, the only way you can achieve freedom is from using your own will to decide what paths to take. It's natural for all humans to want to survive, so if you defy that will and become a martyr or choose to starve instead of consume living beings (like some monks have in the past) then you attain true freedom. Note that freedom and liberty are not synonymous. The only reason to heed to your nature is so that you might continue surviving until you complete your mission, this is the essence of militarism.

So how is "will" propagated?

I'm not going to take something someone said which was concise and meaningful and then paraphrase it, that's just creating a pointless separation between the person and the idea.

How is it concise when your brief contains little or no proof, which indicates information? In what way is it meaningful to this discussion? And why would paraphrasing separate the person and the idea when the person is referenced only for his circumstance and history that would cause him to say that?

Besides, you are not giving the person credit by naming the person who quoted that phrase.

Look, I would appreciate if you stop beating around the bush and start defining your bloody vocabulary. You are clogging up the thread spinning around cliches with no grounding, then quoting bits of science to attempt to back your findings.

I come here to read opinions - if I wanted a sermon I would have gone to my local religious community. If you have a beef with this post, go to PM - let's stop clogging up the thread.

[Cruachan]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Sounds an awful lot like Lionel Curtis' "Civitas Dei" or Commonwealth of God that he proposed during the first half of the 20th Century.

Please do not group my ideology with those of traditionalists, racists and conservatives. The US should not return to the decadence of the Old World, our ancestors came here to escape just that. Instead we should embrace the culture and heritage of the New World, look for heroes on the American continents and seek wisdom from the legends that were born here, create a uniquely American identity that not just the United States, but all of the Americas can embrace. First we have to let go of the baggage of the old world.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I come here to read opinions - if I wanted a sermon I would have gone to my local religious community. If you have a beef with this post, go to PM - let's stop clogging up the thread.

Very well

[AnimeFan188]

New York Times Reporter Calls Obama 'The Greatest Enemy Of Press
Freedom In A Generation':

"The New York Times reporter James Risen, who faces jail over his refusal to reveal a
source and testify against a former CIA agent accused of leaking secrets, has called
President Barack Obama “the greatest enemy of press freedom in a generation.”

Speaking to his colleague Maureen Dowd, Risen accused the president of aggressively
pursuing journalists, including himself, who report sensitive stories that reflect poorly
on the US government."

See:

http://www.businessinsider.com/new-y...eration-2014-8

[SaintessHeart]

New Book Says C.I.A. Official in Benghazi Held Up Rescue

CAIRO — Five commandos guarding the C.I.A. base in Benghazi, Libya, in September 2012 say that the base chief stopped them from interceding in time to save the lives of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and an American technician during the attack on the diplomatic mission there.

In a new book scheduled for release next week and obtained by The New York Times, the commandos say they protested repeatedly as the base chief ordered them to wait in their vehicles, fully armed, for 20 minutes while the attack on the diplomatic mission was unfolding less than a mile away.

“If you guys do not get here, we are going to die!” a diplomatic security agent then shouted to them over the radio, the commandos say in the book, and they left the base in defiance of the chief’s continuing order to “stand down.”

The book, titled “13 Hours,” is the first public account of the night’s events by any of the American security personnel involved in the attack. The accusation that the base chief, referred to in the book only as “Bob,” held back the rescue opens a new front in a fierce political battle over who is at fault for the American deaths.

Republicans have blamed President Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, then the secretary of state, for the security failure.

American officials have previously acknowledged that the Central Intelligence Agency security team paused to try to enlist support from Libyan militia allies. But the book is the first detailed account of the extent of the delay, its consequences for the rescue attempt, and who made the decisions.

The commandos’ account — which fits with the publicly known facts and chronology — suggests that the base chief issued the “stand down” orders on his own authority. He hoped to enlist local Libyan militiamen, and the commandos speculate that he hoped the Libyans could carry out the rescue alone to avoid exposing the C.I.A. base.

No meaningful Libyan help ever materialized.

In an emailed statement on Thursday, a senior intelligence official said “a prudent, fast attempt was made to rally local support for the rescue effort and secure heavier weapons.” The official said “there was no second-guessing those decisions being made on the ground” and “there were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support.”

The commandos were former members of American Special Forces teams hired by the intelligence agency as private contractors. Two of the team, both former Navy Seals, died fighting the attackers at the C.I.A. base later that night. Five others are credited as co-authors of “13 Hours,” which was written with their cooperation by Mitchell Zuckoff, a professor of journalism at Boston University. Mark Geist, Kris Paronto and John Tiegen are credited by name, and two of the authors use pseudonyms.

They say that they learned that the mission’s building had been set on fire during the short drive there, from another plea for help over the radio. The ambassador and the technician, Sean Smith, suffocated in the smoke.

No American fired a weapon of any kind in defense of the mission until the C.I.A. commandos reached the compound, more than 40 minutes after the attack began, the commandos say. The Libyan guards hired to protect the mission quickly retreated. The handful of diplomatic security agents, caught by surprise and outnumbered, withdrew to separate buildings without firing a shot.

One of the commandos fired grenades to help disperse the attackers and clear an entrance to the mission. They later exchanged fire when the attackers returned for a second assault. And the commandos say that after pulling back to the C.I.A. base they fought off-and-on gun battles with fighters lurking in the shadows outside for much of the night.

Although the commandos write of several Libyans who risked their lives to help the Americans, the difficulty of discerning friend from foe is a recurring theme. They write that a supportive militia leader who appeared to be helping them approach the mission also said he was talking on the phone with the attackers, trying to negotiate.

“What’s the difference between how Libyans look when they’re coming to help you versus when they’re coming to kill you?” the commandos joked with the diplomatic security agents. “Not much.”

The contractors say they raced so quickly to arm themselves when they heard the alarm that one failed to put on underwear. Another went into the battle in cargo shorts.

Then, fully armed, they found themselves waiting inside their armored vehicles, making small talk.

“Hey, we gotta go now! We’re losing the initiative!” Mr. Tiegen says he complained to the base chief, who he says replied, “No, stand down, you need to wait.”

“We are going to have the local militia handle it,” the chief added later, according to the commandos.

[Urzu 7]

So I skimmed that, but...does this clear Obama of the blame the Republicans have put on him for Benghazi? Or does this only make it so that Obama and his administration are more at blame for the incident?

I never followed much on the Benghazi incident. Why do republicans blame Obama; is there legitimate grounds, or is it just typical nonsense from the anti-Obama people? (I've always wrote it off as just that, honestly, because those people are completely predictable in how they regard and view Obama)

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

So I skimmed that, but...does this clear Obama of the blame the Republicans have put on him for Benghazi? Or does this only make it so that Obama and his administration are more at blame for the incident?

I never followed much on the Benghazi incident. Why do republicans blame Obama; is there legitimate grounds, or is it just typical nonsense from the anti-Obama people? (I've always wrote it off as just that, honestly, because those people are completely predictable in how they regard and view Obama)

It's hard to say, from the excerpt it looks like your typical bureaucratic red tape/incompetence ending up shitting on the people in the field.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by kyp275

It's hard to say, from the excerpt it looks like your typical bureaucratic red tape/incompetence ending up shitting on the people in the field.

You know what most militaries are like. Do nothing until we have further orders. Current policies prohibit so-and-so. Too many fearful chickens in the upper ranks.

[AnimeFan188]

6 Insane Details of Corrupt Politics That Movies Get Wrong:

"We try to stay positive here at Cracked, but we're starting to suspect that the
American political system is fucked. We know it sounds crazy, but hear us out --
Congress' approval is at an all-time low, and a record number of Americans now
believe that government corruption is widespread. So how the hell did things get
this bad?

We wanted to find out, so we sat down with three people who could shine some
light on this mystery: the former aid to a high-level career politician, a member of the
Electoral College, and the infamous former lobbyist Jack Abramoff (no, really). Here's
what we learned:"

See:

http://www.cracked.com/article_21786...you-think.html

[Urzu 7]

Republicans being scummy like usual; trying to suppress the votes of millions of minorities


http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=921184

Read the OP. There is a lot more details in the article, but I haven't read it, but I want to read it later. But the gist of it is that the republicans are trying to suppress the votes of millions of minorities in the upcoming election in an attempt to win a senate majority. They have a crosscheck list that they claim is to ensure there is less voter fraud (but trust me, that is complete bullshit and they know what they are doing). But to identify voter fraud, you are banned from voting if simply a first name and last name are shared. No 'Jr.' or 'Sr.' or 'III' or 'IV' in a name needed. Middle names disregarded. Social security numbers aren't even cross checked. Just first and last names. Oh, and the majority of the last names are common surnames for blacks, Hispanics, and Asian Americas, who, by the way, mostly vote democrat.

Like one poster says in a summary:

Summary for those rushing to reply: Republicans produced a list of millions of possible fraud voters, but people are flagged solely on the basis of if they share a first and last name with someone in another state. So John Paul Williams of Virginia and John R. Williams of Georgia are being flagged as being potentially the same person solely on the basis of their names; they explicitly are not checking social security numbers. This process is specifically targeting names common among minorities.

[GundamFan0083]

NeoGaf looks like it is the one full of shit.

Here in Colorado we have a huge illegal alien voter fraud problem, and we NEED to suppress that illegal vote for free and fair elections here in this state.

So no, the Republicans are actually correct in calling for safeguards on voting, the problem is the Dems know they will lose in a fair election.

If you're going to cite such a clearly bias left-wing source, allow me to cite a clearly bias right-wing source to show the other side of this argument.

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

NeoGaf looks like it is the one full of shit.

Here in Colorado we have a huge illegal alien voter fraud problem, and we NEED to suppress that illegal vote for free and fair elections here in this state.

So no, the Republicans are actually correct in calling for safeguards on voting, the problem is the Dems know they will lose in a fair election.

If you're going to cite such a clearly bias left-wing source, allow me to cite a clearly bias right-wing source to show the other side of this argument.

How are the republicans combating voter fraud appropriately when only first names and last names are cross checked and social security numbers are explicitly not checked? Also, this is a party that is known to attract many bigots and has many bigoted politicians...and the majority of the surnames of those approximately 7 million people on the list are popular surnames with blacks, Hispanics, and Asian Americans, while whites are underrepresented...and you think that this is a good and fair attempt by the republicans to fight voter fraud? It sure doesn't look like it...

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

How are the republicans combating voter fraud appropriately when only first names and last names are cross checked and social security numbers are explicitly not checked? Also, this is a party that is known to attract many bigots and has many bigoted politicians...and the majority of the surnames of those approximately 7 million people on the list are popular surnames with blacks, Hispanics, and Asian Americans, while whites are underrepresented...and you think that this is a good and fair attempt by the republicans to fight voter fraud? It sure doesn't look like it...

First off, this lie that keeps getting pushed around about racism in the GOP is nonsense. There are as many, if not more in the Democrat party as in the GOP.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...sm-mona-charen

The Dems were the party of the KKK, the party of the Southern States, and the party of economic impoverishment. Their history illustrates this well.

http://finance.townhall.com/columnis...2012/page/full

The real issue here being pushed by the GOP is the illegal alien vote. Racism, bigotry, etc. are all fucking excuses by the left to distract from this very real issue that needs to be dealt with by rounding them up and deporting them and then imposing a strict enforcement of the border using the military.

Sen. Guestavo Rivera (D-NY) has made the intentions of the Democrat Party very clear this year and that position is to support illegal voting in this country to fix the vote in favor of the Dems.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/16/ne...right-to-vote/

The reason the Dems have to do this is because all their predictions of the US becoming a left-wing country as the demographics turn to a more diverse country are now being shot to hell by the reality that more and more Americans of African Decent (and other minorities) are moving to the right away from the "Progressive-Utopian" ideas entirely (meaning towards a more Libertarian view).

So no, the GOP isn't the Party of racism, bigotry, or hate, it is in fact the Democrat Party and that truth is finally coming to light within the communities of minorities all over this country and it is about time.