British Man Found Shirtless and Agitated on Pattaya Roadside

[Chicog]

You are under no obligation to answer anything you do not wish to answer.

Do not try to cite another post by the post number. If any intervening posts have been deleted, then the post number will change. The same if a deleted post is restored.

Stick to the topic.

I was trying to then someone tried to drag out an old topic. The topic we were discussing was "Why can't Romney read a map".

But I didn't know Post numbers change though, that's both odd and inconvenient. What is the underlying BB on here, vBulletin? phpBB? I ask because I have to implement one internally, and I sure as s*** don't want that "feature".

Edited October 24, 2012 by Chicog

[Neurath]

Should the Democrats lose this there's a moral: don't hope to do in your second term what you're too afraid to do in your first.

[Scott]

Chicog: And I haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about, but if it is English, then you might want to inquire in the forum support sub-forum.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Scott

[maidu]

For those who want to politicize the death of 4 Americans in Benghazi, and try to put blame on Obama and/or Sec. Clinton, here's something you can put in your pipe and smoke:

1983: 220 Marines, 18 sailors and three soldiers, along with sixty Americans injured in one horendous terrorist attack, ....in Lebanon. You know who was president at the time. You want to blame R.Reagan for those deaths? I didn't think so.

The deaths were politicized, NOT by Romney, but by Obama when he had his admin lie to the people in order to preserve his image as the man who put al Qaeda on the run. Blaming Romney for politicizing Benghazi is the same as blaming the Democrats for politicizing Watergate.

I am blaming Romney and Ryan and the Republican attack machine for politicizing the Beghazi incident. The very next day, at the president's very next speech, he condemned it as an act of terror. Because the prez didn't frame his words exactly like the Republicans would have wanted, Romney's speech writers saw the tiniest opening for a politicized attack, and they threw everything and the kitchen sink at it. Romney tried to wave that red flag at the 2nd debate and got shut down faster than a Mitsubishi Zero flying in to a nest of Corsairs. He lost face, and the Republicans are wiping the phlemb off their faces and trying to milk it some more for all the negative spin they can. The Benghazi thing was terrorist, and the prez called it that. Why beat a dead horse?

The bigger issues are Romney wanting to increase military spending by one to two trillion dollars. That 12 zeros!. Obama wants to decrease military spending, which everyone knows is very wasteful. Romney wants a nuclear reactor in everyone's backyard. Obama is about conservation of energy and developing viable alternatives. Romney is about drilling for oil in the Arctic region and every offshore region on both coasts, and the heck with inevitable oil spills (heck, that's the cost of doing business. we're people, therefore we're superior to all other species).

[Ulysses G.]

Two weeks later, the Obama crew were still claiming that it was all caused by a video and according to leaked emails that just came out, they knew that it wasn't within two hours. The cover up is what always gets these guys in fthe end.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[maidu]

Two weeks later, the Obama crew were still claiming that it was all caused by a video and according to leaked emails that just came out, they knew that it wasn't within two hours. The cover up is what always gets these guys in fthe end.

Does it really matter either way? Even if you're right, which I don't think you are, it's one big non-issue. It's a canard (look it up).

It's trying to divert people's attention away from the real election issues. Maybe it's working, because you get people like me responding to something that a non-issue. Congradulations.

Of course the death of 4 innocent Americans is sad. Those who sincerely care, mourn, and then we all go on to deal with things we need to deal with. The death of hundreds of uniformed men at Lebanon was sad. We brushed ourselves off and went on. We didn't spend the ensuing weeks trying to blame top officials. The deaths in Benghazi were apparently caused by Al Quaeda. The president has stated emphatically that he will use the resources available to apprehend and/or kill the killers. What more do you want him to do - publicly pierce his genitals with a stingray spine (as Mayan leaders did)?

[Ulysses G.]

I has become a huge story and the mainstream media is covering it. It may be a non-issue to you, but millions of Americans want to know what happened and why.

[Chicog]

Two weeks later, the Obama crew were still claiming that it was all caused by a video and according to leaked emails that just came out, they knew that it wasn't within two hours. The cover up is what always gets these guys in fthe end.

Two weeks later Obama was telling people "I am not going to detail what happened until the investigation is complete". It appears that only Fox News and their accompanying rabid media seem to have identified the perpetrators from their Facebook page and Tweets.

But then again, I'd expect that from them, they'll call anything without needing much evidence to support it.

Romney wants a nuclear reactor in everyone's backyard. Obama is about conservation of energy and developing viable alternatives.

Not sure about that one, maidu. Romney is for pumping oil and burning coal like fury to reduce dependence on foreign oil (which frankly is a ludicrous and counter-productive idea on so many levels).

I think both candidates are in favour of nuclear energy as a clean and safe power source (even after Fukushima), but personally I think it needs a lot more work before it can be called safe.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Chicog

[Asiantravel]

Fast and Furious version # 2

The real reason behind Benghazigate

Was Obama gun-walking arms to jihadists?

http://www.washingto...d-benghazigate/

Edited October 24, 2012 by Asiantravel

[geriatrickid]

The allegations of coverup and government conspiracy bring to mind the aftermath of 9/11. Even though Saudi Arabian hijackers flew 2 planes into the WTC, there are people today that still insist that this was a government conspiracy and a controlled demolition etc. There are some that insist that the UK and Israeli secret service were involved. I can guarantee that as the Ben Ghazi even unfolds, we will see some of the same allegations made.

During an event such as this and its immediate aftermath there is a deluge of information and reports. There will be crackpot conspiracy theories floated by those with an agenda. The information has to be vetted. A responsible government does not act upon twitter or facebook claims. It is easy to say, why didn't someone in the government pronounce that this was a terrorist attack. Well, how about some common sense? An attack on a consulate is not going to be a manifestation of love is it? If people are shooting and setting fire to the premises, it is obvious that something is wrong. Does t have to be spelt out to some people? Apparently, it does as some folks are devoid of common sense. the prudent approach is to wait until one has the facts and can make an assessment before claiming a terrorist plot. Have a look at when the US embassy in Kenya was bombed. It took time before the responsible parties were identified. The same for the USS Cole attack.

[Baloo22]

The allegations of coverup and government conspiracy bring to mind the aftermath of 9/11. Even though Saudi Arabian hijackers flew 2 planes into the WTC, there are people today that still insist that this was a government conspiracy and a controlled demolition etc. There are some that insist that the UK and Israeli secret service were involved. I can guarantee that as the Ben Ghazi even unfolds, we will see some of the same allegations made. During an event such as this and its immediate aftermath there is a deluge of information and reports. There will be crackpot conspiracy theories floated by those with an agenda. The information has to be vetted. A responsible government does not act upon twitter or facebook claims. It is easy to say, why didn't someone in the government pronounce that this was a terrorist attack. Well, how about some common sense? An attack on a consulate is not going to be a manifestation of love is it? If people are shooting and setting fire to the premises, it is obvious that something is wrong. Does t have to be spelt out to some people? Apparently, it does as some folks are devoid of common sense. the prudent approach is to wait until one has the facts and can make an assessment before claiming a terrorist plot. Have a look at when the US embassy in Kenya was bombed. It took time before the responsible parties were identified. The same for the USS Cole attack.

You present a false equivelence between the the wild claims of the "truthers" of 2001 9/11 and the questions that the Obama Administration is now facing. You say "the prudent approach is to wait until one has the facts and can make an assessment before claiming a terrorist plot." That's exactly what the Obama Administration did NOT do. It was the Obama Administrations that failed to use due diligence and waiting for information. Instead, they claimed that it was a spontaneous demonstration or angry mob. They tried to put the blame on the producer of a YouTube video. They continued to do so even after receiving information that contradicted that "theory".

[uptheos]

I thought Romney handled the Pakistan aid question, very well. Everyone expected him to say the opposite of what he did.

He's absolutely right, when a country has a couple of hundred nuclear warheads, you need to keep them close as allies (as much as it pisses us off).

[Baloo22]

Here is one of the latest items to emerge on info on the Benghazi attack that the Obama Administration had available to it. Other news agencies are also reporting on it.

CNN: E-mails: White House knew of extremist claims in Benghazi attack By Elise Labott, CNN Foreign Affairs Reporter

October 24, 2012 -- Updated 1344 GMT (2144 HKT)

Here are a few excerpts. You can read the complete CNN article at the link about

"Washington (CNN) -- Two hours after the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, the White House, the State Department and the FBI were told that an Islamist group had claimed credit, government e-mails obtained by CNN show.

One of the e-mails -- sent from a State Department address to various government agencies -- specifically identifies Ansar al-Sharia as claiming responsibility for the attack on its Facebook page and on Twitter."

"The administration also suggested that an anti-Muslim video produced in the United States likely fueled a spontaneous demonstration in Benghazi as it had in Cairo, where the U.S. Embassy also was attacked.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland and Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, all cited the video as a motivating factor in the attack."

[notmyself]

Here is one of the latest items to emerge on info on the Benghazi attack that the Obama Administration had available to it. Other news agencies are also reporting on it.

CNN: E-mails: White House knew of extremist claims in Benghazi attackBy Elise Labott, CNN Foreign Affairs Reporter

October 24, 2012 -- Updated 1344 GMT (2144 HKT)

Here are a few excerpts. You can read the complete CNN article at the link about

"Washington (CNN) -- Two hours after the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, the White House, the State Department and the FBI were told that an Islamist group had claimed credit, government e-mails obtained by CNN show.

One of the e-mails -- sent from a State Department address to various government agencies -- specifically identifies Ansar al-Sharia as claiming responsibility for the attack on its Facebook page and on Twitter."

"The administration also suggested that an anti-Muslim video produced in the United States likely fueled a spontaneous demonstration in Benghazi as it had in Cairo, where the U.S. Embassy also was attacked.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland and Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, all cited the video as a motivating factor in the attack."

Also in the link

The group denied responsibility the next day.

In other news....

Local minibus operator 'xxxxxx' goes into liquidation after paying out compensation to some 12000 people who were on the minibus at the time of last weeks crash. When the company was asked how so many people could fit into the minibus they said they didn't know but they asked everyone twice and all 12000 said they were 100% on the bus.

[Baloo22]

Two weeks later, the Obama crew were still claiming that it was all caused by a video and according to leaked emails that just came out, they knew that it wasn't within two hours. The cover up is what always gets these guys in fthe end.

Does it really matter either way? Even if you're right, which I don't think you are, it's one big non-issue. It's a canard (look it up).

It's trying to divert people's attention away from the real election issues. Maybe it's working, because you get people like me responding to something that a non-issue. Congradulations.

Yes, it does matter. It's just one more of many items that demonstrate that the smooth-talking "community organizer" Obama (with less management experience than your average 7-11 manager) is not, and never was, up to the job of President of the United States. Just one more item in the nearly four years of Obama failure. Add that to nearly four years of 8% plus unemployment and it's time to fire Obama (and his sidekick Chalerm Biden) and hire a new person for the job.

Romney was not my first choice either, but he does have a large amount of management experience and has demonstrated his competence. If after three and a half years of a Romney Administration, he has not gotten unemployment down in the 5% range, then we can fire him also.

Hiring the same man, Obama, who has demonstrated failure for the last three and a half years and somehow expecting different results is true insanity!

[koheesti]

If this Benghazi controversy is all just the imagination of partisan Republicans, WHY was the first question from left-leaning debate monitor Bob Schieffer?:

SCHIEFFER:

The first question, and it concerns Libya. The controversy over what happened there continues. Four Americans are dead, including an American ambassador. Questions remain. What happened? What caused it? Was it spontaneous? Was it an intelligence failure? Was it a policy failure? Was there an attempt to mislead people about what really happened?

Read more:

http://www.politico....l#ixzz2AEYCLWRw

Edited October 24, 2012 by koheesti

[notmyself]

Only a couple of weeks left and I wonder what the 2 hopefulls will be up to. I hear Romney is trying to steal the show by putting on a Halloween party for the poor and homeless.

I'm going to spend the time increasing my liquidity because I think the Dow Jones is going to jump whoever wins. If the DJ goes up say 400 points in the first 48 hours, the FTSE will do 150-170 which I would be an idiot to miss out on.

[koheesti]

Trump's Obama bombshell: Release college & passport records by 17:00 on Oct 31 and Trump will donate $5 million to the charity of Obama's choosing.

Here's the video of Donald's plea...

http://wtvr.com/2012/10/24/donald-trumps-big-reveal-against-pres-barack-obama/

All in all, not much of a bombshell.

[Jingthing]

The Elusive Undecided Voter Revealed!

Start at 6:50. Then meet NELL.

http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/tue-october-23-2012-john-grisham

Hint: she didn't watch the debate. She's leaning towards: Obamaromneybamarom

[Jingthing]

Trump's Obama bombshell: Release college & passport records by 17:00 on Oct 31 and Trump will donate $5 million to the charity of Obama's choosing.

Here's the video of Donald's plea...

http://wtvr.com/2012...s-barack-obama/

All in all, not much of a bombshell.

Their other dirty tricks to buy this election not working? Such as employers making workers work for Romney when they are for Obama! Edited October 24, 2012 by Jingthing

[notmyself]

Don't open any email with the subject line 'We built it' because it contains a Trojan. Most modern day security software centers its attention on little nooks and crannies but 'We built it' just walks in through the front door.

[Ulysses G.]

Two weeks later, the Obama crew were still claiming that it was all caused by a video and according to leaked emails that just came out, they knew that it wasn't within two hours. The cover up is what always gets these guys in fthe end.

Does it really matter either way? Even if you're right, which I don't think you are, it's one big non-issue. It's a canard (look it up).

It's trying to divert people's attention away from the real election issues. Maybe it's working, because you get people like me responding to something that a non-issue. Congradulations.

Yes, it does matter. It's just one more of many items that demonstrate that the smooth-talking "community organizer" Obama (with less management experience than your average 7-11 manager) is not, and never was, up to the job of President of the United States. Just one more item in the nearly four years of Obama failure. Add that to nearly four years of 8% plus unemployment and it's time to fire Obama (and his sidekick Chalerm Biden) and hire a new person for the job.

Romney was not my first choice either, but he does have a large amount of management experience and has demonstrated his competence. If after three and a half years of a Romney Administration, he has not gotten unemployment down in the 5% range, then we can fire him also.

Hiring the same man, Obama, who has demonstrated failure for the last three and a half years and somehow expecting different results is true insanity!

Hear, hear. Romney was not at the top of my list either, but I have grown to respect him during the campaign. A lot of his decisions on campaign strategy were criticized by conservatives, but it looks like he was right all along. He has stood up to the Obama campaign's tactic of massive and dishonest character assassination. He made it look foolish and like a complete waste of money in the long run..

As you said, the last four years have been a complete failure. It is time for Obama to go.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[keemapoot]

I guess the net effect of all this Benghazi business is not that the nature of the offense was so egregious, but that the quasi-cover up has eroded some credibility of Obama and this could account for some of Romney's rise.

Despite an awful economy, the president's likability numbers held firm. Many wanted to believe in this larger-than-life president. His clumsy handling of Benghazi, however, has opened a gap in the president's credibility. What else can explain Mitt Romney ascending in polls to equality with the president on foreign policy and terrorism before the last debate?

It may be that voters think both candidates have stretched the truth, but credibility is the coin of a presidency. The political cost of devaluing that coin is higher for an incumbent seeking a second term and higher still for this one. Two weeks from Election Day, Barack Obama has been shown in Benghazi to be a president with feet of clay. It may well take him down.

http://online.wsj.co...0367569926.html

I still think this is not a major reason if Obama goes on to lose, rather I attribute that to his first debate performance, but this was certainly not a good thing at this point in time. I think he'd still be on track to win, even in spite of Benghazi had he shown up for that first debate.

Edited October 24, 2012 by keemapoot

[Ulysses G.]

The first debate hurt him a lot, but attacking Romney personally - instead of using surrogates - smacks of desperation and is eroding Obama's likeability numbers. The voters are not buying those fabrications anymore.

Remember when President Barack Obama was likable? Once upon a time the public viewed the incumbent more favorably than his challenger by large margins. These days Obama's favorable and unfavorable ratings are similar to Mitt Romney's. The televised debates have unveiled the current administration as alternately listless, manic, angry, soporific, rude, bullying, aloof, and thin-skinned. Americans who have just begun to tune into the election are seeing the president unmediated. They no longer are looking at him through the scrim of fawning press, majestic settings, and roaring crowds. And they are discovering that Obama is not so likable at all. He is actually something of a jerk. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2012/10/20/obama039s_likeability_fading_293619.html

[keemapoot]

I'm not so sure Obama is a jerk, but he certainly fell into that trap of incumbent entitlement, which says "I'm the President, and you're not." He went into that first debate seemingly annoyed to be there with someone like Romney, and vastly miscalculated the effect. The dead seriousness of such a blunder was evident in the absolute astonishment & disgust by his most strident supporters as personified by Mathews/Maher etc..

Alternatively, Romney has never had any charm or likability to speak of, and has flip flopped all over the map, but at least he has kept his credibility intact. In that respect, it's easier to get away with stuff as a challenger than the sitting President.

[Ulysses G.]

I have never found Obama to be particularly charming or likeable - even when I voted for him in the last election - so I am always mystified as how he got this reputation. As far as I am concerned, his "charisma" is an invention of the press. I don't find Mitt Romney to be particularly charming or likeable either, but no less so than Obama.

Those who read coverage of the Obama administration closely will have known this for a long time: The president is cold, abstract, prickly, and insular. His brand of cerebral partisanship is better suited for liberal blogging than for leading the free world. He doesn't enjoy interacting with strangers or even with associates outside his immediate clique. He has few close friends. He relies on about half a dozen senior advisers. His impromptu speech is given to cutting, sarcastic remarks.

Put him in front of an adoring and obsequious audience and he will be charming and suave. But the real Obama is revealed the second you remove the klieg lights. http://www.realclear...ing_293619.html

Edited October 25, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[koheesti]

Of course the death of 4 innocent Americans is sad. Those who sincerely care, mourn, and then we all go on to deal with things we need to deal with. The death of hundreds of uniformed men at Lebanon was sad. We brushed ourselves off and went on. We didn't spend the ensuing weeks trying to blame top officials.

I sincerely care about the safety of our diplomats. I'm sure I'm not the only long-term American expat here on TV with friends working at various embassies and consulates around the world. One recently left Afghanistan, one is in Mexico, another is in an EU country that has had its share of Islam-inspired violence. Some, I don't know where they are now. Besides friends, I have many acquaintances who work for the State Dept. overseas. When I hear of attacks on our diplomats I worry. When I hear of a diplomat's death, I am truly saddened. The military trains for this. They expect to get attacked and are more prepared to fight back and defend themselves. Diplomats aren't fighters and are more vulnerable - especially when their requests for more security are denied.

[GentlemanJim]

I see Romney is on the defensive again after another Republican running for the Senate has said concerning his anti abortion stance that when women get pregnant after being raped it is the intention of God! What's the difference between a radical islamist and a radical christian..............a turban !

Can't wait for the ducking and weaving from Romney today.

[keemapoot]

Charm, likability & charisma combined with competence and leadership qualities is exceedingly difficult to find in a candidate. Watching this abomination of election process it's easy to understand why great leaders don't step forward for the job. I suppose the days of Clinton, Reagan, JFK etc., are long gone....

Edited October 25, 2012 by keemapoot

[Ulysses G.]

I don't know. There were a lot of duds between those guys and they were not considered charming, likable and charismatic until they were successful. Reagan had much the same reputation as Reagan until his first debate and a lot of democrats have nothing but distain for him until this day. Maybe, history will repeat itself. I hope that it is soon.