2012 Presidential Election Part 4

[Gurtholfin]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

To what? Not my yob to educate you. Just like it's not His Liarness' yob to try to help Americans in danger.

Obama DENIED Diplomats DIED Then he LIED.

Who's reporting on this besides you and the right wing blogosphere? It's your job to back up what you're saying.


So... Link?

 

[streaker]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

Oh please. I'm morally offended and fiscally appalled that we went into Iraq to finish off Daddy's war. It's fiscally offensive to continue giving farm subsidies, oil royalty subsidies, and capital gains subsidies when farm land is going for record prices, oil companies make billions, and corporations are sitting on $5 trillion in cash. And yet I still have to pay for all of that.

The GOP can suck it up and pay for some stuff they don't like, too, like birth control, PBS, and food stamps.

LOL. Like NPR needs another dime of my money to feed me their drivel. Please. And if you want me to pay for some hard line libber's birth control, you can pay for my dog's pet insurance. Fair?

 

[streaker]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

Like those women who weren't legitimately raped, but just had a little surprise sex.

That represents what... .001% ? I could live with that. You people are getting a ton of mileage stretching your social umbrella to the unneeded masses just so they can vote Blue.

 

[unofan]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

my dog's pet insurance. Fair?

Why are we bringing your mom's medicare coverage into this?

(yes, that's a low blow, but you know what, fark it).

 

[Gurtholfin]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

Is that a code word the progressives are using now? Try using "not optimal" or "I am offended". At least those are honest emotions when you are put in a corner.

Oh look, it's the "arms deal gone bad so we had to let him die" guy.

I'm not in a corner. You guys have nothing to back up your latest wolf cry.


Where are you guys getting this info? I'm legitimately curious.

 

[Foxton]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

That represents what... .001% ? I could live with that. You people are getting a ton of mileage stretching your social umbrella to the unneeded masses just so they can vote Blue.

So about the budget pbs gets. A vital cut for Romney to close those gov't hand outs that are going to get the spending under control!

 

[streaker]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

Who's reporting on this besides you and the right wing blogosphere? It's your job to back up what you're saying.


So... Link?

It's tough to have the mainstream report on it when they are clearly not in favor of presenting news and not presenting political spin.

 

[streaker]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

Why are we bringing your mom's medicare coverage into this?

(yes, that's a low blow, but you know what, fark it).

That's okay, the left is legitimatley scared and it is their M.O. to attack. I can take it, but your slip is showing.

 

[streaker]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

Oh look, it's the "arms deal gone bad so we had to let him die" guy.

I'm not in a corner. You guys have nothing to back up your latest wolf cry.


Where are you guys getting this info? I'm legitimately curious.

A press conference to tell the American people would stop the conspiracy theorists. I guess people dying is only convenient to scream about when it isn't your guy doing the killing. I guess the gongshow will begin 11/16 otherwise.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

LOL. Like NPR needs another dime of my money to feed me their drivel. Please. And if you want me to pay for some hard line libber's birth control, you can pay for my dog's pet insurance. Fair?

Man, the ladies are really working it to make this election about GWB aren't they? Four years of this jumped up, cheap sh*t, Chicago pol and all they can talk about is Iraq and, of course, Bush. He's retired. Living in Texas. And isn't on the ballot this year. Whatever he did or didn't do is not relevant to His Liarness mentioning that unwatched video six times to the UN and sending the Gestapo out at night to arrest the poor slob responsible for making it.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

Who's reporting on this besides you and the right wing blogosphere? It's your job to back up what you're saying.


So... Link?

Link this, kemo sabe.

 

[Gurtholfin]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

It's tough to have the mainstream report on it when they are clearly not in favor of presenting news and not presenting political spin.

So you are comfortable making that statement while clearly taking all of your info from right-wing media and information sources?

Of course you are.

There must be at least one honest reporter in all of the land.


You and grandpa OP need to prove it, or I win.

 

[Gurtholfin]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

Link this, kemo sabe.

You got nothing.

 

[burd]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

You got nothing.

Better pull your goalie, Piosaurus. You need a point.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

So you are comfortable making that statement while clearly taking all of your info from right-wing media and information sources?

Of course you are.

There must be at least one honest reporter in all of the land.


You and grandpa OP need to prove it, or I win.

By your definition, all the "honest" reporters are body-guarding His Liarness, doing their best to make sure this story doesn't sink him. I found this piece from NRO. Don't bother with the pro forma dismissal that it's only from the "right wing blogosphere."

The argument you're advancing is perfect. Anyone critical of His Liarness in this matter is obviously "right wing" and must be dismissed out of hand. Since "Meida Matters" and "Wonkette" and that hideous lesbo on MSNBC aren't reporting the obvious lies he and Hillary have told, then it must not have happened. And they must not be lies. When the NYT says it's a lie, then it's a lie. But not before.

Your guy is a liar. And not just an ordinary political liar of the type we've all become accustomed to. Nope, your guy is a liar who doesn't care if four Americans are hideously murdered, because to honestly discuss their killing might diminish his chances at re-election.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/332001/wages-libya-victor-davis-hanson

Reflexive dismissal in 3. . .2. . .1

 

[Gurtholfin]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/332001/wages-libya-victor-davis-hanson

Reflexive dismissal in 3. . .2. . .1

It's not reflexive, it's logical.

From their own Google Places page: "Conservative commentary on American politics, news and culture."

I work in SEO, so here's a hint: They get to choose that sentence. Wasn't assigned to them by Google or any other nefarious liberal group.

It's not news, it's conservative commentary. It's throwing a theory out there, possibly cherry picking "facts." Possibly, with an agenda.

What is the single most important conservative goal of the past 4 years? To make sure Obama isn't reelected.

But we're supposed to accept that everything in that piece is God's honest truth...

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

It's not reflexive, it's logical.

From their own Google Places page: "Conservative commentary on American politics, news and culture."

I work in SEO, so here's a hint: They get to choose that sentence. Wasn't assigned to them by Google or any other nefarious liberal group.

It's not news, it's conservative commentary. It's throwing a theory out there, possibly cherry picking "facts." Possibly, with an agenda.

What is the single most important conservative goal of the past 4 years? To make sure Obama isn't reelected.

But we're supposed to accept that everything in that piece is God's honest truth...

What's your definition of a reliable source for "news?" NBC? Which deliberately edited audio tape to make George Zimmerman sound like a racist? The NYT which put a hit piece about a McCain "affair" on the front page? The WaPo, which put a 5,000 word hit piece about a Romney prank from 45 years ago on the front page? Of course an NRO piece is opinion. Who said it wasn't?

Notwithstanding your self-declared expertise, here is your standard for news (Cliffs Notes version): anything that support Obama's re-election is "news." Anything that doesn't isn't.

He's still a liar by the clock, and you know it.

 

[huskyfan]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

can we at least agree on the basic facts in Benghazi?

Ambassador and intel report possible threats from Islamist terrorists.
Ambassador guarded by Libyan hired guns.
Repeated requests for additional security.
Consulate attacked set on fire.
(ambassador and aide killed)
two former Navy Seals leave safe house near consulate request help. 2 or 3 times.
told to stand down.
they leave safe house and rescue 30 or so American personel and take them to safe house.
safehouse attacked.
Seals hold off attackers for 7 hours before being killed.
State Department (and situation room ?) watch in real time from two unarmed drones.
SecDef goes to White House.

questions to be answered (in my mind anyway)

why didnt the Amb have more security? as a gay American he was a likely target.
were SecState and Pres informed and when? its hard to believe they would not be informed in the first hour or two.
who made the decision to "stand down?
why?
who made the decision to bring in the anti Islamic film?

if this has even a whiff of David Axelrod I'm really really ****ed off that political operatives make security decisions. is that enough for impeachment? I doubt it.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

can we at least agree on the basic facts in Benghazi?

Ambassador and intel report possible threats from Islamist terrorists.
Ambassador guarded by Libyan hired guns.
Repeated requests for additional security.
Consulate attacked set on fire.
(ambassador and aide killed)
two former Navy Seals leave safe house near consulate request help. 2 or 3 times.
told to stand down.
they leave safe house and rescue 30 or so American personel and take them to safe house.
safehouse attacked.
Seals hold off attackers for 7 hours before being killed.
State Department (and situation room ?) watch in real time from two unarmed drones.
SecDef goes to White House.

questions to be answered (in my mind anyway)

why didnt the Amb have more security? as a gay American he was a likely target.
were SecState and Pres informed and when? its hard to believe they would not be informed in the first hour or two.
who made the decision to "stand down?
why?
who made the decision to bring in the anti Islamic film?

if this has even a whiff of David Axelrod I'm really really ****ed off that political operatives make security decisions. is that enough for impeachment? I doubt it.

That's a pretty fair summation. Other potential questions: Are we absolutely confident those Predators were unarmed? If there was an AC-130 nearby who decided it shouldn't be employed and why? Was anybody in the chain of command, given the circumstances, concerned about "violating Libyan airspace?" And why? Is that why other assets weren't brought to bear? And the biggest question, IMO, is who and how this totally false, specious narrative about a video was advanced, over and over and over again. Long past the time when anyone, anywhere thought it was relevant?

I don't know where all this loose talk about impeachment is coming from. In my own case, I suggested this matter is the worst presidential scandal since Watergate. From the standpoint of showing once again, that the coverup is worse than the crime. Not from the standpoint of impeachment hearings. Based on what we know now the administration's lack of action and subsequent coverup was the height of political cynicism, but not an impeachable offense.

Incidentally, I disagre with any suggestion that Amb. Stevens should have been afforded a higher level of protection because of his reported sexual orientation. I don't give a fig for that. All American ambassadors should be protected, period. And if something in an ambassdor's personal life (religion, race, sex, sexual orientation) makes him more likely to be targeted in a given country, then he should be assigned somewhere else.

 

[huskyfan]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4

I agree to your point of All our Amb should have adequate protection. But I kinda like the "in your face" spirit of assigning a gay amb to an Islamic country. or a woman. but, yeah, it makes them more likely targets.