numbers
 

BUMPER STICKER
Here is something to annoy Republicans. :lol:

Collateral damage ;)

The first two years, Obamesiah had the congress of his party but jobs never improved.
To him, it will always be someone else's fault.

What should the Obama administration's response to Iran's attempted act of war be?

A Sr. US defense official (unnamed in the article) says "The act is already done," the official said, noting the plot purportedly has been disrupted and calling it "much more of a law enforcement matter" than a military one.

"One of the people involved is still at large, but the other principal is in custody. So what does changing military posture do?"

He is deliberately trying to portray this as an act by two guys, rather than the terrorist act that it is supported by at least the Iranian military, if not higher. I hope this is just some lone misguided official and not the position of the Obama administration.

Given that this was posted only 54 minutes ago as I write, it must be characterized either as disingenuous or simply ill-informed. The Obama administration is taking all sorts of steps, but has not engaged in a specific retaliatory military strike. There is no question that it is being portrayed as a state-sponsored terrorist act by the Iranian government.

C'mon, Tracy, you're better than this. We can have a serious discussion about what the response ought to be, but let's start with being real about what's going on instead of trying to score points by implying (rather ham-handedly) that the Obama administration is, on this issue, "soft" on terrorism.

An assassination attempt (plot) does not an act of war make.

particularly when it is not an attempt
 

at a US official or citizen.

Either way politics is full of rotten apples on both sides don't fall for the Dem this or Rep that the real issue is US and Them, and Them ain't representing US.

Take back our government and kick out ALL incumbents, this was never meant to be a career but a civic duty. When a government dictates laws to its populous that DON'T apply to them we have tyranny plain and simple. Remove their pensions and put them on social security and social security will be fixed. Take them off of gov healthcare and put them in obamacare and they will fix healthcare. Stop allowing them to live by do as I say but not as I do!

The problem with "kick out all incumbents" is that it's a bit self-defeating.

If you go to Washington, it takes time to figure how to write bills, get support, get them through congress. If you continually cycle through people in government, it will get worse. The bigger problem is that the civility that we saw maybe 20 years ago has deteriorated. Although there was certainly partisanship then, it was nothing like today.

If I were to suggest an answer, it would target extremists in both parties and send a message that it won't be tolerated.

After Bin Laden was killed as well as Anwar al-Awlaki, I will not call the Obama administration soft on terrorism. I have been swamped at work, so forgive me if I'm not up on everything. The quote I posted above was from CNN, so I'm not trying to score any "points". What is the Obama administration going to do about this?

A bomb in a crowded restaurant with 150 people, including senators in Washington DC (as far as the Iranian backers knew) does not an assassination attempt make either.

That would be an act of terrorism and hardly the same as an act of war.

By your analogy then your federal government has committed several acts of war.

It's an attack sanctioned by Iran. Not just some terrorist group. And the collateral damage includes US senators. Our government has rightly viewed terrorist attacks against us as an act of war in the past. You treat something like this as an act of terror and slap Iran's wrist and they'll do it again. We need a zero tolerance policy on terrorism. And I still think this qualifies as an act of war anyway, rather than a terrorist act.

I don't think we can afford any more wars...we can't afford the two or three we got going on, now.

Shit, if we go by text book terrorism, we'd better go to war with our own federal government....which I'd support right from the start.

Call me a bore, but treason really isn't my thing.

Politicians been doing it for a long time.

Plus the colonists fighting for their freedoms, 230+ years ago were probably called treasonous. To me, I feel our votes do not really mean anything, the whole thing is a farce, and they are all handpicked to begin with. And even if our votes did count, when have we EVER gotten anyone who made word on their promises, I say it's time for SOMETHING to change, otherwise, we're all gonna be discussing the same thing 50 years from now, with no solutions.

Hell, what I love about Egypt and Libya was the people there going, "Enough is enough! Time to do something."

But don't worry about the treason thing....most Americans are lazy as hell (and I am an American, so don't anyone bother with the love it or leave it speech, or anything else Archie Bunker would say), so long as they got their beer, football and Dancing with the Stars, most of them are not going to do a damned thing.:rolleyes:

Is your view from the fact that Iran sanctioned the plan, that it was going to be an attack on an ambassador to the US, or that collateral damage includes US politicians?

How is this planned attack worse than what your country has attempted or done to other countries such as Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Panama, Grenada, and other Central and South American countries?

Hello friend. Thank you so much for posting this as it is extremely helpful.
:kiss::respect::drool::heart::cool::lol:;):):frown :

Remember during the financial crisis in September 2008 when Bush, Obama & McCain got together and worked out a solution to the financial crisis? One of the things they did was to increase the money supply from around $800 billion to $2.4 trillion!

Yay, housing prices stabilized, the stock market came back up, the economy is slowly coming back. We're all good now right?

No. By 2013-2015 double digit inflation is coming. It would have happened earlier, but the Fed has been paying interest to the banks on their extended reserves. Over at least the last 60 years, banks have had nothing in their extended reserves, because they would rather loan that money out and make interest off it. But with the fed paying interest on it, and the banks willing to do the fed a favor after getting bailed out, US banks now have over $1 trillion in reserves. This stalls inflation, but not forever.

So when it comes, expect rising interest rates (also double digit), less spending, the values of homes, stocks, cars will drop like a rock. The dollar will collapse, and then thanks to Obama almost doubling the debt, countries will realize we have no chance of paying off the debt and our credit rating will fall more than it already has.

Soros, Paulson, Buffett and other billionaires already know this. Over the last year they've been dumping massive amounts of US stock. Experts who predicted the 2008 crisis back in 2005 now predict the stock market will lose up to 90% of its value.

I'd almost like Obama to have a 2nd term so he can take the blame for that. He did agree to raising the money supply in 2008 to move the problem to the next term, and raised it again later. Inflation is a certainty now. And, knowing about the gigantic increase in the money supply, he raised the debt several trillion anyways. If Romney gets in and the economy collapses he will surely be blamed for things already set in motion. The country won't elect a republican for 50 years.

Tracy
So we are doomed either way. :eek:
Are you going to vote for Obama? :turnoff:

Haha, yeah right. I would never go that far. Romney would be better for the economy because he won't drive up the debt as fast and he'll kill Obamacare. In this case a better economy is still going to be really bad. It will just hopefully not be so bad that the government would collapse.

What about you?

I think Obama should take the cliff. In the long run it would be better for everybody.