Becky wrote: Raess....I will tell you this with a reasonable amount of certainty......
Our military is overwhelmingly not supportive of the current president.
Oh really?
Armed Forces Show Overwhelming Support for Obama
Foreign policy, military funding and plans for U.S. troops abroad are providing plenty of chewy campaign fodder for President Barack Obama and his GOP rival, Mitt Romney. But fundraising reports shed light on what the armed forces think about the the candidates.
Former Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul received significant support from the military for his strong stance on bringing troops home, and that briefly continued even after Romney pulled ahead as the clear GOP candidate.
Now, though, the military's support has shifted toward Obama. Romney has consistently received little financial backing from military donors.
Despite the fact that Paul once raised almost twice as much as Obama did from the military, the president has received $536,414 from military donors, compared to Paul's $399,274 and Romney's $287,435, according to research by the Center for Responsive Politics. These numbers are based on donations greater than $200, as reported to the Federal Election Commission.
Wow, I'm surprised by how little money has been donated period. There are 1.2 million military personnel. What does that everage out to - 65 cents a piece? We need to pay them more. I wonder what the distribution would be if you added in donations under $200.
They saw the military doesn't earn much but I have seen some huge re-enlistment bonuses being offered a few years ago. Probably not seeing those now, in fact some guys are being encouraged to move on.
Maybe the military is less political, or tries not to be outwardly political. One of my friends in the reserves posted an anti-Obama post on his Facebook and I told him it would be a good idea for him to delete that now.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
It's Official: For Barack Obama, The Buck Stops Not With President Obama, But With Hillary Clinton
From Elise Labott
Lima, Peru (CNN) -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the buck stops with her when it comes to who is to blame for security ahead of a deadly assault on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya.
"I take responsibility" for what happened on September 11, Clinton said in an interview with CNN's Elise Labott soon after arriving in Lima, Peru for a visit.
What happened to the President saying what Truman said that the buck stops here in an earlier speech.
Oh I forgot it is everybody else's fault.
Do you think Obuma will take responsibility tonight in the debate?
Not if it wasn't his fault. It's the Secretary of State who is resonsible for deciding what foreign embassies and installations get security. In this case, it was apparently a CIA installation, so it may not have even been Hillary's decision.
Seriously, don't blame Bush for inaction for 3000+ dead on 9/11 or the dozen or so attacks on US embassies during his administation but scream like a stuck baby pig for an immediate investigation of an attack in Libya when all the facts are still unknown. Get a grip, and let the facts come out.
A senior Obama campaign aide said Tuesday that President Barack Obama takes “absolute responsibility” for American diplomats serving abroad, a day after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she was responsible for the security of the U.S. consulate in Libya that was attacked on Sept. 11.
“It is pretty common knowledge that these decisions are made at the State Department,” Jen Psaki, a spokeswoman for the Obama campaign, said on Fox News’ “Studio B with Shepard Smith.” “That does not change the fact that the president takes absolute responsibility for the safety and security of diplomats serving abroad. That’s why he wants to get to the bottom of this more than anybody.”
So Hilary took the fall for the bad security. What does Barack have to say about him and his underlings blaming a video on [url=http://www.youtube.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;]www.youtube.com[/url]? Is he an idiot? Or just a liar trying to protect Hilary?
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Becky wrote: Raess....I will tell you this with a reasonable amount of certainty......
Our military is overwhelmingly not supportive of the current president.
Oh really?
Armed Forces Show Overwhelming Support for Obama
Foreign policy, military funding and plans for U.S. troops abroad are providing plenty of chewy campaign fodder for President Barack Obama and his GOP rival, Mitt Romney. But fundraising reports shed light on what the armed forces think about the the candidates.
Former Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul received significant support from the military for his strong stance on bringing troops home, and that briefly continued even after Romney pulled ahead as the clear GOP candidate.
Now, though, the military's support has shifted toward Obama. Romney has consistently received little financial backing from military donors.
Despite the fact that Paul once raised almost twice as much as Obama did from the military, the president has received $536,414 from military donors, compared to Paul's $399,274 and Romney's $287,435, according to research by the Center for Responsive Politics. These numbers are based on donations greater than $200, as reported to the Federal Election Commission.
Wow, I'm surprised by how little money has been donated period. There are 1.2 million military personnel. What does that everage out to - 65 cents a piece? We need to pay them more. I wonder what the distribution would be if you added in donations under $200.
