Why are Republicans Wrong about Everything?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 33641 - 33660 of total 45430 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
kennyt

climber
Woodfords,California
May 10, 2013 - 10:10pm PT
Obama was joking! IDIOTS
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
May 10, 2013 - 11:02pm PT
Well, Unhinged, they did.

and also admitted "They are not good at math"


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/05/10/im-not-good-at-math-the-irss-public-relations-disaster/
Lynne Leichtfuss

Sport climber
moving thru
May 10, 2013 - 11:18pm PT
Good job Brandon. You are getting it. Name calling makes nothing happen but negativity.

***

When I was young I had great ideals, things were either right or wrong. As I lived life and grew older I noticed that, while I still had a black and white mentality, the world at large did not and operated in many shades of gray.

Instead of black and white the shades of gray were all the areas where money, not what was best for the planet and populus, became the main driver.

When I was fortunate enough to be appointed to the San Diego County Planning Commission this became crystal clear. Most appeals were made to the Planning Commission for financial gain, not for what was best for the community.

It didn't matter the political party. They all came to the table for their own personal $ gain.
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - May 10, 2013 - 11:21pm PT
EVERYTHING THEY KNOW IS WRONG


The Facts Are In and Paul Ryan Is Wrong
By Jonathan Chait
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/05/facts-are-in-and-paul-ryan-is-wrong.html

Changes in the way we think about the world are not “news” in the classic sense — they occur gradually, without discrete events to signal them. But they matter. Two such developments have come together recently, both reported in the New York Times. The first is the collapse of intellectual support for the notion that immediate austerity can boost economic growth. The second is a growing consensus that health-care-cost inflation is slowing for deep structural reasons, rather than having undergone a mere temporary dip from the recession. These trends have something in common: They blow to smithereens the intellectual foundations of the Obama-era Republican policy agenda.

During the last four years, the hoary Republican nostrums of lower taxes, spending, and regulation have cohered into a specific view of the world. Paul Ryan has been the leading figure in defining this view and persuading the entire party, almost without exception, to fall in line behind it. The Ryan worldview is that the United States is heading toward a massive debt crisis, that the crisis is driven primarily by rising health-care costs, and only his plan stands any chance of alleviating it. Ryan has expounded this view over and over:

It is of course unfair to judge the merits of an analysis solely by the rhetoric of its politicians; politicians have to sand off the rough and complicated edges of their ideas to appeal to a majority. The deeper expression of the Ryan worldview comes from Yuval Levin, a close adviser to Ryan, probably the most influential conservative intellectual of the Obama era (and who was recently recognized as such and granted a $250,000 Bradley Prize).


The fullest expression of Levin’s view came in a widely cited essay he wrote for National Affairs, “Beyond the Welfare State,” which came out right about when Republicans took control of the House of Representatives, and has served as their blueprint ever since. The most striking thing about the essay is its Marxian grandiloquence. Just as Marx believed of capitalism, Levin insisted the welfare state was utterly doomed, that the ailments he identified would necessarily continue indefinitely unless his chosen remedy was adopted.


Levin hinged his view upon two specific contentions. The first was that the debt crisis was not merely a long-term fear but an existing reality, responsible for the present crisis:


This conflation of short- and medium-term problems — of annual deficits with retirement liabilities, of sluggish growth with the burden of debt, of the Obama agenda with the broader social-democratic project — is in one sense an error, of course. But it is not ultimately an error. Indeed, it is a powerfully clarifying synthesis, which has given us a vision of our future: The fiscal crisis we face is an extended and expanded version of our deficit problem; the recession from which we are emerging was a preview of life under suffocating debt; the Obama agenda does seek incrementally to advance the larger social-democratic vision — especially on the health-care front, where that vision has seen its greatest fiscal failures.


This became the basis for the Republican view that deficit reduction could not be delayed and must be undertaken immediately, and that radical new tactics, like threatening financial chaos through defaulting on the debt, were a justified response to an emergency that did not lay over the horizon but was already upon us.


Levin’s second argument was a fanatical hatred for the Affordable Care Act. No supporter of the law could muster an enthusiasm that could match Levin’s revulsion for the law — the “false hope that the dream [of the welfare state] may yet be saved through clever tinkering at the edges.” It was bound to fail in absolutely every respect, especially in its claim that it could limit health care cost inflation. Far from it, argued Levin. Obamacare “will exacerbate the cost problem,” he wrote in 2010. Under the new law, he was certain, “cost cutting can only be achieved at the expense of quality care ​—​and even so it rarely happens.”


Levin’s arguments were hyperbolic versions of the critique of Obama that resonated among respectable centrists. The trillion-dollar deficits were shocking, dangerous; Obamacare didn’t do anything to limit the continuous rise of health-care costs. These propositions maintained enough political respectability that Republicans could turn (hyperbolized) versions of them into the premise for their domestic policy and be treated as sagacious guardians of fiscal responsibility.


The doctrine of expansionary austerity — the premise that we must cut deficits not just eventually but immediately — has suffered a series of disastrous reversals. It has failed repeatedly in Europe, and its most prestigious academic basis, a paper by Harvard’s Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, was exposed for a series of fundamental errors. A New York Times article this week represented a watershed, baldly stating in its headline, as the entire macroeconomic forecasting field has understood all along, that the short-term deficit was too low, no longer a counterintuitive dissent but a clear and barely contested reality.


Less visible, and possibly more interesting, is the growing mass of evidence that the health-care-cost inflation problem is indeed solvable. Both Republicans and Democrats agree that health-care costs, which have historically risen far faster than general inflation, pose the central threat to long-term fiscal stability. The Affordable Care Act attempted to control it at the same time as it expanded coverage to the uninsured.


Levin, and Republicans like Ryan, like to say that Obamacare’s cost control’s consist only of the Independent Payment Advisory Board — “unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats,” as Ryan calls them. In fact, the law created a wide slew of reforms intended to attack health-care inflation from every possible angle. The law created bundled payments, so that Medicare would pay hospitals or groups of doctors based on quality, not quantity, of care. It penalized hospitals that have to readmit patients owing to shoddy work (they previously would enjoy a second payday for doing so), taxed high-cost health-insurance plans, encouraged electronic medical records and research on effective treatments, and many other things. Nobody believed every one of these experiments would work perfectly. The idea was to try as many promising reforms as possible, and health-care wonks expressed cautious optimism that the law contained a wide breadth of them.


Over the last few years, health-care inflation has indeed decelerated — far more deeply than even the most optimistic backers of the law dare hoped. The federal budget for Medicare and Medicaid in 2020 is now projected to be 15 percent lower than forecasters expected a few years ago.


At first, the sharp slowdown in health-care costs was assumed to have happened because the recession is making people cut back on their medical care. Levin has clung stubbornly to this interpretation. But as the trend has persisted, and undergone deeper study, a consensus is emerging that this is not the case at all. Several studies have found that the recession does not account for all, and possibly not even most, of the slowdown.


The trend precedes Obamacare, too. But the law can’t be cleanly separated from the broad sentiment that the medical industry needed to overhaul its practices. As Matthew Yglesias argues, “If forward-looking investors think that future increases in health care spending will be met with legislative efforts to curb health care spending, then investments that rely on future high levels of health care spending won't be made and the system will lack the capacity to deliver ever-growing levels of services.” In keeping with Yglesias’s premise, construction on hospitals cratered since 2009 and has not recovered.


Even with the data on their side, none of the advocates of Obamacare is nearly as certain the law will succeed as conservatives like Levin are that it will fail. That is a testament only to the overweening ideological certainty that pervades the right.


The slowdown in health-care costs is provisional. Perhaps it will peter out, and Obamacare will require massive revisions. Perhaps, too, the interest rate spike Ryan has been warning of will suddenly appear.


But the key thing is that the conservative program since 2009 has hinged on the absolute truth of both these provisions. The certainty of the imminent debt crisis, and the certainty that Obamacare would worsen rather than ameliorate it, undergirded the party’s entire strategy. It is not merely the ideological extremism but Levin’s dialectical certainty that the welfare state will collapse upon itself that has driven the party’s refusal to compromise. Why not meet Obama halfway, see what we have learned in a few years' time? Because, he wrote, half-measures “would make real reforms less likely, by letting our leaders persuade themselves they have dealt with entitlements when in fact they would have only bought a little time.” There is no point in buying time to learn more about the nature and scale of the problem when your ideology has already furnished the answer.


And yet the canon of Levin and Ryan has undergone no revision whatsoever. The debt crisis is “irrefutably happening,” Ryan insisted recently. Obamacare, he said yesterday, will “collapse under its own weight.” Ryan and his party are so certain of these foundations his worldview rests upon that he can’t even be bothered to look down at the rubble all around his feet.
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - May 10, 2013 - 11:22pm PT
Lynne, I wrote you a post this morning, did you see it?
Lynne Leichtfuss

Sport climber
moving thru
May 10, 2013 - 11:41pm PT
Dr. F, just replied to your post and here's more :D

You said, "this is a passionate discussion on how to change the world."

I respond, "you can't change the world by talking, you need to do." SERIOUSLY.

Craig, you also said you need to change the hearts and minds of people to change the world. THAT, Dude, is what jesus came to do. Change hearts and minds. But the republicans and the soft liberals of his era killed him for it.

To change the world....we need to change our own world. We need to live a life that helps the bro. We need to NOT shop at Walmart cause they help our pocketbook BUT kill small business.

If America would live from the heart of love instead of greed we Could Change the World.

Peace and Joy, lynnie

Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
May 11, 2013 - 01:38am PT
Hey, republitards….

Didn't Romney say This company was a dead duck or something?

http://grist.org/news/tesla-gets-best-consumer-reports-auto-review-of-all-time/?utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&sub_email=robbertken2008%40mac.com

10 May 2013 10:51 AM
Tesla sedan gets best Consumer Reports auto review of all time
By John Upton

Consumer Reports just gave the Tesla Model S Sedan its highest-ever score for an automobile. The glowing review and sky-high score of 99 out of 100 came in the same week that the 10-year-old auto manufacturer enjoyed its first profitable quarter.

Some highlights from the breathless review:

This electric luxury sports car, built by a small automaker based in Palo Alto, Calif., is brimming with innovation, delivers world-class performance, and is interwoven throughout with impressive attention to detail. It’s what Marty McFly might have brought back in place of his DeLorean in  “Back to the Future.” The sum total of that effort has earned the Model S the highest score in our Ratings: 99 out of  100. That is far ahead of such direct competitors as the gas-powered Porsche Panamera (84) and the Fisker Karma plug-in hybrid (57).


The Tesla rivets your attention from the start. Simply touching the flush aluminum door handles causes them to slide outward, welcoming you inside. … And as you dip into the throttle, you experience a silent yet potent surge of power that will make many sports cars weep with envy.

Meanwhile, Nissan’s all-electric Leaf recently received a “Top Safety Pick” rating from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. From Green Car Reports:

A host of safety features, including dual-stage supplemental front air bags with seat belt sensors, side air bags, curtain side impact air bags for front and rear passengers, child safety rear door locks, Vehicle Dynamic Control (VDC) and Traction Control System (TCS) all contributed the the model’s score — and all are standard on the 2013 Leaf.

“Driver and passenger safety are top priorities for Nissan and the ‘Top Safety Pick’ designation by IIHS reflects the design and innovation that have gone into this car to make it a practical, no-compromise electric vehicle,” explained Erik Gottfried, Nissan’s director of electric vehicle sales and marketing.

It’s clear that electric-car makers aren’t just swapping out internal combustion engines for batteries — they’re putting in the extra effort to truly reimagine a new generation of American automobiles.


Skeptimistic

Mountain climber
La Mancha
May 11, 2013 - 09:12am PT
^^^^
There's this funny button on the top of my cell phone that no one seems to need anymore. I think it's called a "power button." Seems to shut down the whole phone and no one can call in/call out or track my movements while it's in "off" mode. Probably a lot cheaper than buying a jammer...
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 11, 2013 - 11:04am PT
Benghazi whistleblower Greg Hicks has been demoted to a desk job for speaking out on the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks at the U.S. post in Libya that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, his attorney said on Friday.

"He was offered a choice: no job or a job that doesn't mean anything," attorney Victoria Toensing told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV. "It's a desk job."


Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - May 11, 2013 - 11:14am PT
Apparently he is inept, and his demotion was justified


Whistleblower’s yarn fails to tie Benghazi lapses to politics


By Dana Milbank,

Published: May 8
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-whistleblowers-yarn-fails-to-tie-benghazi-lapses-to-politics/2013/05/08/fb436cd4-b82e-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_story.html


They summoned a whistleblower to Capitol Hill, but instead they got a virtuoso storyteller.

Gregory Hicks, the No. 2 U.S. diplomat in Libya the night Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed, was to be the star witness for Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the man leading the probe of the Obama administration’s handling of the attack on the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi.


Benghazi attacks hearing: Three State Department officials appeared Wednesday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in Washington. One of the officials, Eric Nordstrom, said the government’s probe into the deadly Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on U.S. compounds in Benghazi, Libya, failed to adequately take senior leaders to task.


Clinton appears before Congress over Benghazi attack: Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, testifying before Congress on the September attacks in Libya that killed four Americans, warned Wednesday that the United States must not retreat from hazardous diplomatic posts overseas.

But despite Issa’s incautious promise that the hearing’s revelations would be “damaging” to Hillary Rodham Clinton, Hicks didn’t lay a glove on the former secretary of state Wednesday. Rather, he held lawmakers from both parties rapt as he recounted the events of that terrifying night — revealing a made-for-Hollywood plot with a slow, theatrical delivery and genuine emotion.

He spoke of watching TV at his residence in Tripoli when a security officer “ran into my villa yelling, ‘Greg! Greg! The consulate’s under attack.’ ” He described his brief final phone conversation with Stevens, 600 miles away: “He said, ‘Greg, we’re under attack. . . . And I said, ‘Okay,’ and the line cut.”

He detailed the frantic effort to call in fighter jets from a U.S. base in Italy (“It would take two to three hours for them to get on-site” and there “were no tankers available for them to refuel”). He sipped water to regain his composure after recounting the “saddest phone call I have ever had in my life” — learning from the Libyan prime minister that Stevens had been killed. And he told of the hasty retreat from the United States’ diplomatic compound in Tripoli, where a similar attack was feared.

His yarn before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee mentioned embassy office manager Amber Pickens carrying ammunition to the getaway vehicles and smashing hard drives with an ax, as well as the rescue-by-ladder of a severely wounded David Ubben from the mortar attack that killed two others.

Hicks went on for 39 minutes — far beyond the customary five-minute allowance — and nobody objected until Issa finally paused the storytelling so lawmakers could pose questions.

Hicks had his grievances with how events in Benghazi were handled, but his gripes were about bureaucratic squabbles rather than political scandal. And this whistleblower spent a good bit of time tooting his own horn. “I earned a reputation for being an innovative policymaker who got the job done. I was promoted quickly and received numerous awards,” Hicks informed the lawmakers. “I have two master’s degrees. . . . I speak fluent Arabic. . . . I fast became known as the ambassador’s bulldog because of my decisive management styles. . . . Incoming charge Larry Pope told me personally that my performance was near-heroic.”

Issa and his Republican colleagues encouraged this cult of personality in their own statements, evidently anticipating an effort by Democrats to discredit Hicks. But it turned out there was no need.

Hicks, bald and with a white chin beard, said his “jaw dropped” when he heard U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice falsely claim on TV that there had been a protest at the Benghazi consulate, but he declined an invitation to challenge the veracity of the director of national intelligence, who said the statement reflected “our collective best judgment at the time.”

Hicks said he thought a flyover by U.S. jets could have deterred the second of the two attacks that night, but he declined to question the judgment of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who has said there was no way to get the fighters there in time.

Hicks was of little use to Republicans in their efforts to connect the lapses in the Benghazi response to Clinton or to the Obama White House. He said that he spoke to Clinton by phone at 2 a.m. that night and that she supported his actions. He undermined one of Issa’s claims — that Clinton had rejected an increase in security for the Libya facilities — when he agreed that the secretary of state’s name appears on all cables, even if she doesn’t write them.

Hicks did have some damning things to say about the State Department trying to block him from cooperating with Issa’s committee. But that wasn’t quite the evidence Issa had promised: that politics drove the administration’s response to Benghazi.

Instead of hearing a tale of political shenanigans, those in the audience (including Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota) heard a far better story of confusion and desperation on the ground — such as Hicks’s attempt the morning after the fighting to send a four-member Special Forces team from Tripoli to Benghazi for reinforcement. When military higher-ups rejected the request, the team leader, a lieutenant colonel, “was furious,” Hicks recounted. “He said, ‘This is the first time in my career that a diplomat has more balls than somebody in the military.’ ”

That’s not much use to Issa, but it will be a great line in the movie.
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
May 11, 2013 - 11:44am PT
Benghazi whistleblower Greg Hicks has been demoted to a desk job for speaking out on the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks at the U.S. post in Libya that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, his attorney said on Friday.

Let's see, Rong.

The guy who was running the security response, and the highest ranking officer in Libya, was demoted.

What do you think should have happened to him, Rong?
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
May 11, 2013 - 12:40pm PT
Benghazi-gate is a republican witch hunt to sully Hillaries run for the white house in 2016...The neo-cons are using the death of 4 Americans as propaganda to reach this political goal...shame , shame you patriotic conservatives.. The Pentagon has already determined that the 4 team , special forces unit could not have reached the consulate in time and were thus not inserted...The smaller government goals of the conservatives has its' draw backs and consequences... maybe the conservatives should quit trying to blame Obama for their own negligent legistions...?
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
May 11, 2013 - 01:53pm PT
Ok guys

THIS is the bottom line on Benghazi:

THIS is ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW
*

REPUBLICANS CUT FUNDING FOR EMBASSY SECURITY

GET IT YET?

The fools YOU vote for voted to CUT money for our US Embassy Security

Your Republicans are responsible for the DEATH of AMERICANS in BENGHAZI

Why the hell would anyone vote Republican after reading this?

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010.

On Wednesday morning, CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien asked the Utah Republican if he had "voted to cut the funding for embassy security."

"Absolutely," Chaffetz said. "Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have…15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/jason-chaffetz-embassy_n_1954912.html
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
May 11, 2013 - 01:55pm PT

suck on that ^^^^^^^^
Ricky

climber
Sometimes LA
May 11, 2013 - 02:32pm PT

I thought Benghazi has something to do with a shady Arkansas land deal.
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
May 11, 2013 - 05:20pm PT
Benghazi whistleblower Greg Hicks has been demoted to a desk job for speaking out on the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks at the U.S. post in Libya that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, his attorney said on Friday.

Incompetence can often lead to a demotion.

Curt
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
May 11, 2013 - 05:22pm PT
REPUBLICANS CUT FUNDING FOR EMBASSY SECURITY

GET IT YET?

The fools YOU vote for voted to CUT money for our US Embassy Security

Your Republicans are responsible for the DEATH of AMERICANS in BENGHAZI

Why the hell would anyone vote Republican after reading this?

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010.

On Wednesday morning, CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien asked the Utah Republican if he had "voted to cut the funding for embassy security."

"Absolutely," Chaffetz said. "Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have…15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/jason-chaffetz-embassy_n_1954912.html
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
May 11, 2013 - 06:59pm PT
In addition to a previous post on the subject of fat-arrogant-self-important pricks finally getting what they need from the free market.


With All of His Advertisers Gone, Rush Limbaugh Becomes A Right Wing Welfare Bum

By: Jason Easley ; May. 10th, 2013 ; more from Jason Easley

Rush Limbaugh’s advertisers have deserted him, and the only way his radio remains financially sustainable is by being bankrolled by right wing organizations. In short, Rush is now taking handouts.

After the news that 48 of Cumulus Media’s top 50 advertisers have requested that their ads no longer appear on Limbaugh’s show, the other shoe dropped. Media Matters reported that, “Rush Limbaugh’s syndicator, Premiere Radio Networks, is the single largest independent contractor to the Heritage Foundation according to their latest 990 filing with the IRS, receiving $2,236,555 from the think tank. With advertisers fleeing his show, and as a result radio companies suffering major losses, the fiscal sponsorship of the conservative movement is now fiscally critical…Without wingnut welfare, which has also included sponsorships from FreedomWorks, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity’s shows would not be financially viable.”



Conservatives argue that the free market should be left alone. They make entire careers out of “keeping the government out of the free market.” They oppose any government regulation or taxation because it interferes with the free market, but when the free market decided that Rush Limbaugh’s show was not financially sustainable they threw their ideology out the window, and started subsidizing Limbaugh’s program.

What Limbaugh is doing is even worse than welfare. Rush Limbaugh and his fellow right wing talk show hosts are engaging in payola. Groups like FreedomWorks and the Heritage Foundation spend millions of dollars a year paying the likes of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh to talk up their efforts without disclosing to their audiences that they are being paid to do so. Right wing talk radio is a pay to play business, and thanks to the advertiser boycott, payola is the only thing keeping Rush Limbaugh’s show financially afloat.

The advertiser boycott has been so effective that Rush Limbaugh is living off of corporate welfare.

Rush Limbaugh, who once suggested that poor people shouldn’t be allowed to vote, can’t generate enough advertising revenue for his show to financially sustain itself. The glory days are over for Limbaugh. He is now dependant on the generosity of his fellow ideologues. The same right wingers who want to defund PBS are secretly slipping Rush Limbaugh cash under the table.

If Big Bird should be subjected to the whims of the free market, Rush Limbaugh should too.



Thanks to the advertiser boycott, Rush Limbaugh’s show is in worse shape than anybody thought.



Who will the republitards get to do their big thinking for them when Limbagg is done? Will it be Fannitty or Michael Sewage…. or wil it be strictly Faux Bias News once the plug is pulled?
johnboy

Trad climber
Can't get here from there
May 11, 2013 - 07:01pm PT
Benghazi is nothing but a cheap carnival trick to keep the focus off all the other things the Republicans are doing that really deserve the attention of the media.
dirtbag

climber
May 11, 2013 - 07:54pm PT
Let's see, Rong.

The guy who was running the security response, and the highest ranking officer in Libya, was demoted.

What do you think should have happened to him, Rong?

Appoint him head of FEMA?
Messages 33641 - 33660 of total 45430 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews