Tu quoque, the appeal to hypocrisy, ( you did that as well ) is a logical fallacy that attempts to attack an opponent’s position, by saying that their opponent failed to act consistently in the past. If they really held the belief they are arguing for, they would have done things differently in the past. This dismisses someone’s point of view based on criticism of the person’s inconsistency, and not the position presented. Its a personal attack that avoids the subject, a diversion from the topic.

This attack could be used against a veteran for taking a position against murder or even war, by saying that the veteran had killed many people when he was at war.

It is often used against a parent who is a recovering drug addict or alcoholic, for telling their child not to do drugs or get drunk. “But you did it”

And in politics it is used every time you point out that someone they support is lying, being a jerk ,or acting incompetently.

Even if what they say is true, and most of the time its not a good comparison. That fact does not justify their hero lying does it?

 

Do you think that if the other guy does something wrong, it gives you the right to do the same thing?

 

 

This short video pretty much sums it up

 

 

Not sure we leaned anything, it has never been a secret that Biden can be a jerk.

 

The poll says it was about a tie Ryan winning by the margin of error. Those surveyed did not find Biden very likable and did find Ryan likable. and They said Ryan expressed himself better.  This debate is not going to change any minds

 

What did you think of the debate?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sept. 9: The State Department receives credible information that American missions might be targeted in Libya, according to senior U.S. diplomatic sources. However, no warnings are given for diplomats to go on high alert and “lockdown,” under which movement is severely restricted (London Independent, Sept. 14).

A senior Pentagon source confirms to EIR that the White House and the CIA received a detailed warning of a pending attack from both the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency. The reports were detailed enough to identify the Ansar al-Sharia group as being directly involved in the planned attacks. The source notes that the DIA had recently boosted its human intelligence unit and had operatives on the ground around the world, and that the NSA was monitoring relevant global communications traffic.

Sept. 10: Ayman al-Zawahiri, the Egyptian emir of al-Qaeda, releases his annual message on the eve of 9/11/2001, calling for attacks on Americans, especially in Libya, in retribution for the drone murder of senior Libyan al-Qaeda operative Abu Yahya al-Libi on June 4, 2012.

August-early September: According to a hand-written journal belonging to Ambassador Stevens, found on the floor of the Benghazi compound by CNN, Stevens was worried about “the never-ending security threats” that he was facing in Benghazi, and specifically “the rise in Islamic extremism” and “growing al-Qaeda presence in Libya,” and “being on an al-Qaeda hit list.” CNN reporters were deployed to corroborate the reports in the diary, which was given to his family.

Sept. 11: Ambassador Stevens and three other U.S. personnel at the Benghazi compound are murdered in the course of an armed assault. Details of exactly what happened are still unclear.

What is known is that there were no Marines stationed outside or inside the consulate. The security, according to many sources, consisted of three guards from the Libyan 17th of February Brigade, and five unarmed Libyans employed by the British Blue Mountain Group. The Daily Beast’s Eli Lake, Sept. 21, reported on a U.S. intelligence intercept of a communication between a pro-al-Qaeda politician and the 17th of February Brigade, in which “the Libyan politician apparently asks an officer in the brigade to have his men stand down for a pending attack—another piece of evidence implying the violence was planned in advance.”

The attackers, according to some eyewitnesses, numbered as many as 125, and used rocket-propelled grenades and other heavy weapons. There are numerous reports of complicity between the attackers and the security detail, and the suspicious fact that the attackers knew the location of the safehouse to which those who survived the initial assault retreated, as well as the precise location of the Ambassador.

Sept. 12: EIR received a briefing from a high-level Washington source who reported, from a Libyan source, that the attack on the compound had nothing to do with a demonstration against the movie, and that Benghazi was known to be a hot-bed of jihadi activity, including the fact that there are two members of Ansar al-Sharia, the group suspected in the attack, on the Public Safety Committee which oversees the city.

Sept. 14: Sen. Susan Collins (R-Me.), Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, posts a blistering statement on her website:

“During the past two days, I have participated in classified briefings by the National Counterterrorism Center and the Department of Defense on the attacks on our consulate in Benghazi during which four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, were killed.

“The lack of security provided to the Ambassador and other American personnel in Benghazi is deeply troubling and inexplicable given the dangerous threat environment in that city. Earlier attempts in June to reportedly attack the British ambassador and to plant a bomb outside of our consulate clearly demonstrated how dangerous and unsettled Benghazi is. Surely, the State Department should not have relied on Libyan nationals to guard the consulate. Rather, armed U.S. Marines should have been assigned to provide security.

“The kind of weapons used by the attackers also strongly suggests to me that this attack was planned and not the result of a spontaneous protest….”

Sept. 15-16: Libyan President Mohamed Magarief tells al-Jazeera and the CBS TV show “Face the Nation” that “the way these perpetrators acted and moved, and their choosing the specific date for this so-called demonstration, leaves us with no doubt that this was pre-planned, determined…. It was planned, definitely. It was planned by foreigners, by people who entered the country a few months ago. And they were planning this criminal act since their arrival.”

Sept. 15: On the same day the Libyan President is insisting that the attack on the consulate was preplanned, UN Ambassador Susan Rice is sent onto several Sunday TV talk shows to proclaim that the attack in Benghazi was the result of a demonstration against the anti-Islam film “Innocence of Muslims.” This line continues to be spouted by Administration spokesmen until testimony by Homeland Security’s director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Matthew Olsen, on Sept. 19.

Sept. 17: A Libyan security guard, hired by Blue Mountain Group, is reported in the London Daily Telegraph to have said that there were no demonstrators at the time of the attack. Several other eyewitnesses subsequently declared that there never was a protest demonstration outside the Benghazi compound.

Sept. 19: CNN’s Anderson Cooper reports that “a source familiar with Ambassador Christopher Stevens’ thinking said that in the months before his death, he talked about being worried about the above threats to his life.” He follows this up the next night with the fuller story of Ambassador Stevens’ security concerns.

Sept. 26: Sens. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) demand that the State Department release relevant correspondence from Ambassador Stevens on the security situation, in the run-up to the deadly events of Sept. 11.

Sept. 28: Director of National Intelligence James Clapper issues a statement taking responsibility for the initial misassessment that the attack that killed Ambassador Stevens was the outcome of a demonstration gone amok, and claims that “subsequent evaluation” has confirmed it to be a terrorist attack.

Sept. 30: In a statement posted on his website, Senator Corker says that the State Department continues “deafening silence” in response to his requests, and those of other Senators, for information on what led to the terrorist attack on the Benghazi consulate.

 

The Obama administration stated over and over again (all while attacking Romney for being right) that all this was a spontaneous riot over a youtube video that just happened to fall on 9-11. They had no reason to believe that at all.

Knowing all this would you say The Obama administration is made up of fools or are they liars?

 

 

These days I hope everyone already knows that the unemployment rate is a messy why of looking at our economies health . Though employment rates and pay are the most important things to look at for us who are not rich and need our jobs.  The employment numbers can fall, not because more people are working, but simply because fewer people are looking for work. A far better alternative to our official unemployment rate, is to count employment rather than unemployment. By that measure (and its by far more accurate harder to play games with), the “employment-population ratio”,  it shows us what we already really know, there has been no improvement for years.

 

 

So welcome to the real Economy our president is so happy with. There are few jobs out there, and those that are out there, they pay honorably.

 

 

– Lower-wage occupations were 21 percent of recession losses, but 58 percent of recovery growth.

– Mid-wage occupations were 60 percent of recession losses, but only 22 percent of recovery growth.

 

Yes those new jobs, the few there really are suck. One more thing about all these jobs, a huge number of them not only pay poorly per hour, but they are only part time jobs. But our noble leaders minions are now saying that a lot of the 14.7% of the workforce who were unwillingly forced into part time work or are not working. They are now happy with working only part time. That 14.7% number has not changed all year, it shows zero improvement.

 

So are happy days here again?

 

Do we just need to stay the course, Obama’s policies will work someday?

 

Hopefully they work before we die. If what you are doing is not working, doing the same over and over again is a sign of insanity

 

 

 

 

And little more than that. This is the best description of last nights debate I have seen yet.

 

Obama looked, peevish, scripted.  Romney, relaxed, and owning the stage like one of the “big, swinging dicks” from Wall Street, which Obama both despises and relies upon.

And that’s the trick tonight, isn’t it?  Obama has always relied on the big money men in private, while disparaging them in public.  But what happens when he comes up against one of them in the most public  way possible?

Now we know the answer, and it ain’t pretty.

The president appeared small and petulant and reactive.  Romney looked presidential and secure and proactive. There was only one president on the stage tonight, and he doesn’t (yet) hold the office.

 

Its all about the way the average person sees it and that quote is the way the average person saw it. Obama did more than lose a debate it was so bad that he will lose votes over it

So for those on medication did you see Obama as the winner?

Those of us who actually watched it and saw Obama looking honorably and Romney looking great? At what point did you notice that Obama had just had his ass handed to him?

 

I saw that Obama was looking bad right away, but I only saw how bad it was this morning when every liberal commenting on this debate was ether depressed or angry. Even if they were saying Obama won they were pissed off. That sort of tells you the truth. Even they knew he looked bad they just did not want to admit it.

 

Edit Drinking game at bottom

It will be very hard for Obama to go into these debates using his campaign’s strategy of. “Okay I admit things suck now, maybe I’m not so great at this, but Romney is Satan’. Romney is so damn moderate he is dull. Trying to paint him as extreme and evil with him sitting there, that would fall on its face.  Romney’s  campaign’s strategy of  trying to say that Obama’s economic and foreign policies have failed. All anyone needs to do is read a newspaper or live on earth? Hell yes they have failed and everyone knows it. Its been four years now and Obama’s party ran the budgets two years before he entered office. Blaming Bush is not going to fly anymore. Maybe on the war but with Obama trying so hard to take credit for killing Osama Bin Laden. You cant be both a hawk and a dove on the same day.

Obama best strategy would be to lie big time (but carefully) and try to bore everyone into not watching the debate.

________

Here are some of Obama new taxes on the poor and middle class

Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance – as defined by President Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services — must pay an income surtax to the IRS. The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that six million American families will be liable for the tax, and as pointed out by the Associated Press:  “Most would be in the middle class.”

 

	1 Adult	2 Adults	3+ Adults
2014	1% AGI/$95	1% AGI/$190	1% AGI/$285
2015	2% AGI/$325	2% AGI/$650	2% AGI/$975
2016 +	2.5% AGI/$695	2.5% AGI/$1390	2.5% AGI/$2085

Yep there he goes taxing the middle class.

But Obama taxes the poor most of all:

Lets talk about the tax called inflation. We see that tax everyday at the gas pumps and the grocery stores. When a nation borrows more than can ever be paid off, you need to lower the value of your money in order to ever pay it off. Or as Obama’s federal reserve chairman calls it “quantitative easing” (Link). Intentionally devaluing your money but not doing it officially.

Inflation is the cruelest tax of all, it hits the poor hardest of all.

Inflation effects the price of food and fuel more than anything else,  these are international commodities where the value of the dollar means almost everything. When your dollars are worth less than they were last month, those in the Middle East demand more of them. They are not going to accept your cheapen money as if it were worth the same as it once was. In other words $100 a barrel of oil today is the same as $56.73 a barrel was in 1990. In other words $100 a barrel for oil today is rather cheap so enjoy paying what you are paying for gas. Its is still going to go up, it will not stay down unless the worlds economy stays down. As of right now inflation has started to jump. Yes it is very much due to our monetary policies. Thongs are going get far worse as soon as we get out of this recession. Obama made this mess far worse but the results of it. Well we are doomed to bay for Obama’s failing no matter who is in office. Lets hope Obama in not there to make it worse before he goes The dead housing market is the only thing that is holding the official inflation numbers down today (yes they would be a lot worse). But if you are not buying a new house, rents are higher, gas is higher, food is higher, hell its all higher all while wadges have dropped. We have less money to pay more

_____________

 

Are you better off today that you were four years ago?

Obama’s goal is to deflect, confuse and bore people on the subject so they stop thinking about the way things are. He can not talk about his record. He needs to just be likable and hope Romney comes across as mean and scary. If he can do that his ads and his extreme support in the media will win this for him.

“You may be worse off today than 4 years ago. But you are better off with the devil you know than this evil super devil named Romney”

 

 

 

 

He was a street evangelist at Hemp Fest of all places.

“You do know that Satan’s season will end?”

I smiled at those words, “maybe, but it’s been a long and very fun season”.

That was less than 6 years ago, my new friends thought I was an agnostic. They knew I was no atheist, I made that clear. “Atheism is a religion of fools and those who play with words”. But no signs of Christianity were to be found in my words, or my life.

Have I ever doubted my faith? No I can not doubt something which I have seen and felt. But I was fully able to ignore what I knew to be true. To know what you want to do is wrong, is a painful thing. To pray for strength and be rewarded with weakness is heartbreaking. Guilt is no fun, so I solved that issue by ignoring the source of that guilt. Ignoring it until the guilt went away. I took what I wanted and did what I was dreaming of, and I loved it. It all fell apart in the end, but that is another story.

all that changes nothing, I was no Christian (no fruit) for a long while. But my version of faith has never been a blind faith. It has always been backed up by something. Maybe that first day, when I needed to decide, on that day, there was a leap of faith to be made. But the jump was a short one and proof was there waiting for me. I once chose to ignore God, but never did I deny my own personal experiences.

So regarding the big question, of have I ever doubted my faith? No I have not, at least not on the big issue of whether the God I worship is real or not. But on almost every other issue, the smaller issues. I still have my doubts every day. Not all the things I believe have been proved to me. If something has not been proved to me, I operate on a degree of faith I can’t say I am totally comfortable with. So to the question of doubts, yes I have them, lots of them. The degree to which I have doubts all depends on the subject. I wish I were all knowing and totally confident, but I’m so far from it.

 

Have you ever doubted your faith or lack of it?