Ive never said i dont support us getting the perpetrators? Ive seen no evidence that the Prez is committed to finding them though as we have probably long since lost the bad guys by now by over politicizing the issue.Originally Posted by David88vert
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
He started speaking about the benghazi incident, so its impossible for him to be referring to both or all?Every single video I've seen, everyone says "...as far as I/we/they know, it was a spontaneous attack" Or "from the information we have..." "...we don't jump to conclusions". This is STARKLY and grammatically different than "we know for sure this was a spontaneous attack" There is absolutely no debate about it. Clearly there is a breakdown in communication if you think the two are similar.Then, for the next 4 weeks, he calls it a VIDEO PROTEST that was SPONTANEOUS. He gives a speech 2 weeks later calling the Benghazi attack the cause of a despicable video.
Except for the fact that he calls it an act of terror every single time he talks about it! LOL. IT DOESN'T MATTER whether it was a preplanned attack or a spontaneous one, they would both be acts of terrorism.He NEVER EVER EVER calls it an act of terrorism specifically or even in the weeks afterwards.
the video was produced in June and translated and uploaded to YouTube in September a week before the attack. I don't see the lies because I'm not witch hunting. If an investigation is being performed, information is going to change. If talking points are precursors to a cover up, then we should change the name of Fox News to Foxgate.So, SOMEONE LIED TO HIM, WHICH MADE HIM LIE (unknowingly) TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. How do you not see that? The Video had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ATTACK, THE VIDEO WAS RELEASED 6 MONTHS BEFORE THE ATTACK ON OUR EMBASSY.
Which backs up everything I just said. Thank you.THEN this comes out today
Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference - ABC News
OH LOOK ABC IS ACTUALLY REPORTING. ITS CLEAR HIlary and HIGHER are hiding something. The White House said only 1 word had been changed, now we find out its paragraphs 12 different times.
You are witch hunting. You're arguing semantics. You are practicing selective outrage. You and the rest of the right media is looking for a scandal where there isn't one. You are Jumping to conclusions.
The President has not lost them, as he is not the one searching for them. The FBI, CIA, etc, has these tasks. Let them have some time to do their jobs.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
I got "Page Not Available" when I tried to see the article from today on ABC.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Its this right here is why it upsets me. It's perverse, its disgusting. Thinking that someone was trying to protect his election, despite there not being any evidence for it. It's called "politicization of the deaths of 4 individuals"
I actually kind of agree here, but there is actually more to it. IF Obama had simply called it a terrorist act on Day 1, when they didn't really know what it was (I'm sure that they had suspicions), and called for justice (visualize Jesse Jackson style here), then he could have exploited it politically with ease. The way he chose to address it gives the appearance to me that he was not really trying to exploit it in a political manner, and why I think that it is just an error, and shouldn't be a big deal in regards to how we look at him. It is definitely not a reason for impeachment, like some have called for.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Let me be perfectly clear on my opinions on this.
1. Obama was not involved in the changing of the talking points. I believe that was done by his campaign staff, or at least under their orders. This includes the UN speech.
2. Since the info has started to trickle out, I do believe Obama is currently involved in the coverup. He knows who changed the talking points and why they were changed.
3. I believe the Obama admin did not come completely clean after the election because of politics. Everyone knows that Clinton is the front runner for the Whore House in '16. This could damage her beyond repair.
4. If there isnt some type of coverup at the State Dept, why are all the witnesses using private lawyers and not state dept ones? Why are there so many stories about intimidation? Why have we not heard the recordings from the coms between the FAST team and SOCOM?
What evidence is there, other than the current conjecture that keeps floating around, that this was a cover up? Obama had a mathematical advantage of winning before election season even started. Those people who would be interested in a fake scandal like this were not likely to vote for him anyways. If it was a cover up, his cover was blown in a matter of days, and he still won by a significant margin. And if it was a cover up, you would not know it was a cover up. The only person this hurts is Clinton's chances of election in 2016. And I doubt this will even have an effect that far out. No ones getting impeached. No one is gonna get canned other than the people that already quit.
Media circus. Grab your pitchforks, we're drumming up controversy. And part of me doesn't even think they're doing it on purpose. I believe some of them actually believe there's a controversy, and some just want to burn down the administration for whatever reason. With each subsequent circus attraction, GOP digs theirselves deeper and deeper into obscurity. Hopefully so much that a moderate faction emerges which pushes the democrats back left of right center.
Are they not allowed to have personal attorneys now?4. If there isnt some type of coverup at the State Dept, why are all the witnesses using private lawyers and not state dept ones? Why are there so many stories about intimidation? Why have we not heard the recordings from the coms between the FAST team and SOCOM?
Changed talking points.
Protests fabricated out of thin air.
Reported intimidation of State officials.
Lies from all over the administration.
Isnt the point of an investigation to find out what happened?
Wait, I thought you were a centrist? If that is true, why would you want to push the dems even further left than they already are? I guess a little bit of truth finally slipped out.
Of course they are. But it is certainly possible they want personal ones because they are going to give testimony that contradicts senior State appointees.
New information is recieved, talking points change. Not a cover up. Fox News does this all the time. But to be fair, they're trying to cover up the fact that they're not actually news.
So now there's no protests?Protests fabricated out of thin air.
We all see how that turned out. Whistle blowers ended up being shitty people from the get go.Reported intimidation of State officials
Where?Lies from all over the administration.
Yep. But this is a witch hunt.Isnt the point of an investigation to find out what happened?
What truth slipped out? That all we have is a choice between center right and far right when we go to the polls? I've said, everyones said this a million times. What's new? That since I'm forced to choose between shit and shittier, that Id rather them both offer ideas and solutions instead of one trying to tear down the other for no reason?Wait, I thought you were a centrist? If that is true, why would you want to push the dems even further left than they already are? I guess a little bit of truth finally slipped out.
Or its certainly possible that they can afford to hire personal attorneys. Or maybe its cause a state attorney might cause a conflict of interest. I don't know. Doesn't point to a cover up though.Of course they are. But it is certainly possible they want personal ones because they are going to give testimony that contradicts senior State appointees.
Obama and Romney?
Then you mean that Obama is "center right" to you, and that Romney is "far right"? If so, then you definitely are "extreme left" if Obama is "center right" to your position.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Proving once again you make up your own left right paradigm. He is center right based on his governing history and based on what he says his beliefs are.
Obama, center-right? Only European Socialists or Far Left Liberals see him as center-right.
Center-right then includes those who tend to think that on controversial issues the market is likely to work to the exclusion of the government, center-left tends to think that the government can play a significant role. Obama is center-left on pragmatic grounds - and that's being generous. The only way that you could attempt to put Obama in center-right is if you were comparing using Hitler and Mussolini and Franco on the far right, and Stalin and Lenin on the far left (Europe, not USA, get it?).
The extreme lefty's are Kerry and the Kennedys. Oh yeah, who did he recently appoint to Secretary of State?
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Revisionist facts. You should write a book on them.
Its ok. I understand you feel you have the right to put Obama where you want when you believe you can move the goal posts wherever you want.
Actually, it's Obama that is trying to move the goal posts. His populist agenda is specifically attempting to redefine the political center to the left, just as Reagan redefined it back in the 1980s.
Victors revision history, not people like you and me. I simply point out facts, some of which are recent and obvious, but I don't change the facts - that's the job of the current Administration.
BTW - Have you ever heard, "Hindsight is 20/20?"
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
LOL this is just funny, blank has officially turned into a brick wall.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
He wants to act like anything he posts is gospel, define what YOUR beliefs are, no no no TELL You what is right and left based upon his beliefs, ignore facts, and make fun of anything he doesnt understand.
You cannot argue with someone who has multiple ways of excusing himself from the debate. If you post facts, he will say its RIGHT WING LIES, if you post Videos, he will report on the 3 words he wants to see not the entire 5 minute paragraph, if you get technical, he acts like hes more intelligent than you.
Youll never win.
At least I can say when someone makes a valid point ill listen.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Never said any facts are right wing lies. Ever. If it seems like I've become a brick wall it's due to the rampant conversion of opinion to fact around here. If I tell you 2+2=4, I'm gonna be pretty brick walled about it because 2+2 doesn't equal anything else.
Edit: Gah... Missed where it was posted earlier.
Nothing to see here.
Blank has always been a self absorbed far left liberal elitist......
only difference now is that we have got him to open up and reveal himself.
Welp. Pack your stuff up boys, lets go home. Sinfix cracked the case.
And that has to be one of the most blatant misuses of context I've ever seen. Lol. No wonder Romney lost.
It's pretty transparent and obvious to anyone who doesnt have their head buried in the sand. Our constitution was meant to protect us from today.... from this type of government. Like every other tyrant in world history had devoted supporters who believed in that cause... here stands you.... devoted to these tyrants. Fully devoted to their propaganda. Our country will never fall to force, but it will be infected by people like you infecting others to believe this is "progress".
If there was a tyrant in place, I'd be right there with you. But since there isn't, it would seem that you're using the word "tyrant" in place of "someone I vehemently disagree with because I refuse to understand his position", thereby further devaluing the word "tyrant". So until you post something with a little intellectual avoirdupois, that is, something you've taken the time to critically analyze on both sides of an issue, with facts, then I'm gonna assume you're not interested interested in the truth, just in posting stupid shit to smear Obama. He isn't a tyrant at all. History and examples of actual tyrants would disagree with you. You're quick to compare him with the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mousellini, Pot, and others, but this is only because you're left with no options, no intellectual rebuttal. When you are dismissed with actual facts, you put up psychological defense mechanisms (i.e. pretending the education system is liberalized, or anyone who disagrees with you is "liberal") to avoid cognitive dissonance (thats that feeling you get in your head when you realize Im always right, but the new, correct information conflicts with your preconceived ideas) I know how you work, Sinfix. It's a pattern, and you're very effective at repeating it. Try something new.
Sore losers. It's no wonder the Republican Party is dissolving. Rather than accept defeat (by a black man in a predominately white institution, yeah I said it) and change their image and become the fiscally and socially responsible party they once were, they keep digging their heels deeper into crazy and marginalizing themselves. They are literally made up of sociopaths. And I'm not talking about crazy murderous individuals and what pop-culture defines as sociopaths, I'm taking about people that could really be clinically diagnosed with dissocial personality disorder.
I sure as hell hope so. Lol.Our country will never fall to force, but it will be infected by people like you infecting others to believe this is "progress".
Is Karl Marx a tyrant?
There's no need for you to keep confirming your political stance. We're all well aware of how tightly you fall inline with this regime and how delusional you are about the righteousness of their cause. You keep proclaiming that you're "always right" while everyone else labels you as a delusional fool. I see you for the fool that you are. You chose to be a fool. Why you're such a fool is up for debate.
Did you just ask this seriously?
You call me a fool, and in the same post suggested Karl Marx is a tyrant. Gotcha. LOLThere's no need for you to keep confirming your political stance. We're all well aware of how tightly you fall inline with this regime and how delusional you are about the righteousness of their cause. You keep proclaiming that you're "always right" while everyone else labels you as a delusional fool. I see you for the fool that you are. You chose to be a fool. Why you're such a fool is up for debate.
Didnt mean to insult one of your heroes. Apologies.
Do you understand yet why no one takes you seriously?
Do you know who Karl Marx even is, or what his work even consists of?
I'm guessing since you're pretty staunch in your criticism of Marx, you must have studied his work. What about his work do you disagree with?
Does that cognitive dissonance hurt?
Sinfix: "Well, the media says Marxism is bad and Obama is a Marxist"
Lets see what his answer is. Probably gonna evade the question somehow. Lol.
In the world we currently live in, i take pride in not being accepted. Seeing a world where being on food stamps and relying on government to take care of you is normal makes me sick to my fucking stomach. I dont expect you to take me seriously.... we might as well be speaking different languages. You're trying to sell me an idea that i want no part of. I would rather live on an island by myself and never have any other human contact than join in your welfare entitlement society that wants to spend their entire lives sucking on the government's titty. The things you stand for are trash, yet you have the audacity to look down on other people. It's no wonder you're so emotionally attached to this president, you're the same arrogant and delusional shit bag that he is.
Socialism breeds dictators.
Except I hate those same things. It just doesn't justify us getting rid of it. Public assistance has been a thing since before you were born and its not going away anytime soon. You'll be a part of it until the day you die.
If you don't want to be a part of the idea of trying to understand policy and economics, then why even post in this section?
False.
You suggested Karl Marx is a tyrant. Is he a tyrant or not?
I dont want to understand it. I want to oppose it. You and everyone like you who support Obama and liberal policies are fools. I will think of you as fools and call you fools "until the day i die" or until things change.
False says you...... because you have selective memory loss when it comes to history.
Karl Marx is the worst kind of tyrant the world has ever known. You can kill an enemy soldier, shoot down a plane or rocket, blow up a tank..... but it's a lot more difficult to counter attack the ideology infection of someone like Karl Marx. America will never fall to a "physical tyrant" by force.... ideology is the biggest threat to our way of life. Yes, without firing a single shot...... Karl Marx is a tyrant. Convincing people that theyre not being ruled over doesnt make them any less ruled over, it's simply more effective.
Socialism fuels dictatorships. The government cant give anything to anyone without first taking it. A government big enough to give you everything you need is big enough to take everything you've got. Simple truths..... proven by history, that delusional fools like you refuse to accept.
I think you are a little off the beaten path with that definition of tyrant. What makes Karl Marx any more of a tyrant than Adam Smith by your definition?
How do you oppose something you don't understand?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
