AC-130 Gunship - Benghazi Attack

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 4:48 am

Felix wrote:
the Logical Fallacy
that's funny

That's kinda what I was going for.

Except mine wasn't.

We know FOR FACT the administration, at some level, told a flagrant lie.

Just a matter of which level.

So it is indeed an either/or scenario.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 6:11 am

Dinsdale wrote:
We know FOR FACT the administration, at some level, told a flagrant lie.

link?

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 6:44 am

Felix wrote:
link?

I've been trying that for month with no luck.

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 2:30 pm

it is on fox news all the time. there's got to be a fact in there somewhere.

Truman · Post by **Truman** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 2:38 pm

Felix wrote:
Dinsdale wrote:
We know FOR FACT the administration, at some level, told a flagrant lie.

link?

Tedious. As nicely summarized by an IBD editorial:

When President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton stepped into the Rose Garden the morning of September 12, they likely knew [correction: they surely knew] the attack on our Benghazi consulate the day before was organized by terrorists. They knew because they were privy to a flurry of emails among administration officials discussing the attack in real time. Yet they said nothing about what they knew and, worse, had done nothing to mount a rescue despite American forces being less than an hour away during the seven hour blitz. According to Fox News, 300 to 400 national security figures received these emails in real time almost as the raid was playing out and concluding. These people work directly under the nation’s top national security, military and diplomatic officials.

Try googling the quotes below if you want a link. There's only thousands...

“Extremists and terrorists used (the video) as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the consulate in Libya. As offensive as this video was and, obviously, we’ve denounced it and the United States government had nothing to do with it.”
Barrack Obama, President of the United States

“We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with.”
-Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State

“This is a response to a hateful and offensive video that was widely disseminated throughout the Arab and Muslim world.”
- Susan Rice, American Ambassador to the United Nations

“This is a fairly volatile situation, and it is in response not to United States policy, obviously not to the administration, not to the American people. It is in response to a video, a film, that we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting — that in no way justifies any violent reaction to it.”
-Jay Carney, White House Press Secretary

I’d say those four quotes are fairly representative of the “Obama Administration” Dins cited. No worries though, Felix, there are thousands more where those came from, many of which lie about the actual lies themselves. Now please kindly go fuck yourself. And take that sawed-off, sniveling midget with you.

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 2:41 pm

Truman wrote:
Felix wrote:
Dinsdale wrote:
We know FOR FACT the administration, at some level, told a flagrant lie.

link?
Tedious. As nicely summarized by an IBD editorial:

When President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton stepped into the Rose Garden the morning of September 12, they likely knew [correction: they surely knew] the attack on our Benghazi consulate the day before was organized by terrorists. They knew because they were privy to a flurry of emails among administration officials discussing the attack in real time. Yet they said nothing about what they knew and, worse, had done nothing to mount a rescue despite American forces being less than an hour away during the seven hour blitz. According to Fox News, 300 to 400 national security figures received these emails in real time almost as the raid was playing out and concluding. These people work directly under the nation’s top national security, military and diplomatic officials.

Try googling the quotes below if you want a link. There's only thousands...

“Extremists and terrorists used (the video) as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the consulate in Libya. As offensive as this video was and, obviously, we’ve denounced it and the United States government had nothing to do with it.”
Barrack Obama, President of the United States

“We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with.”
-Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State

“This is a response to a hateful and offensive video that was widely disseminated throughout the Arab and Muslim world.”
- Susan Rice, American Ambassador to the United Nations

“This is a fairly volatile situation, and it is in response not to United States policy, obviously not to the administration, not to the American people. It is in response to a video, a film, that we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting — that in no way justifies any violent reaction to it.”
-Jay Carney, White House Press Secretary

I’d say those four quotes are fairly representative of the “Obama Administration” Dins cited. No worries though, Felix, there are thousands more where those came from, many of which lie about the actual lies themselves. Now please kindly go fuck yourself. And take that sawsed-off, sniveling midget with you.

what? that doesn't even address the question.

Truman · Post by **Truman** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 2:49 pm

Bizzarofelice wrote:what? that doesn't even address the question.

Dins wrote:He either lied to the American public about what happened, OR his staff is out of control.

Critical thinking is not your strong suit, Bace. BTW, the question was "link?".

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 3:02 pm

Dins wrote:He either lied to the American public about what happened, OR his staff is out of control.

terrible logic. it isn't one or the other. big leap of logic.

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 3:03 pm

Truman wrote: Critical thinking is not your strong suit, Bace.

actually, it is one of many things i am very, very strong in.

Truman · Post by **Truman** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 4:51 pm

Bizzarofelice wrote:
Dins wrote:He either lied to the American public about what happened, OR his staff is out of control.
terrible logic. it isn't one or the other. big leap of logic.

Actually, it isn't terrible logic, considering that the Administration
a) lied to the American public on countless occasions concerning the events that took place in Benghazi; and
b) displayed gross negligence and incompetence in handling the situation.

These are facts, Bace, whether you choose to accept them or not.

Truman · Post by **Truman** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 4:55 pm

Bizzarofelice wrote:
Truman wrote: Critical thinking is not your strong suit, Bace.
actually, it is one of many things i am very, very strong in.

Cool. Then this event won't be so hard for you to acquiesce, once you start using some.

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 5:01 pm

Truman wrote:
Bizzarofelice wrote:
Dins wrote:He either lied to the American public about what happened, OR his staff is out of control.
terrible logic. it isn't one or the other. big leap of logic.
Actually, it isn't terrible logic, considering that the Administration
a) lied to the American public on countless occasions concerning the events that took place in Benghazi; and
b) displayed gross negligence and incompetence in handling the situation.

These are facts, Bace, whether you choose to accept them or not.

at what point do the terms "gross negligence" and "incompetence" become fact? you are leaning very heavily on things that are judgement calls. you think facts are determined when you feel they have happened. a fact is not an emotional response.

^^^^^
that right there is the critical thinking that has me running game of y'all fools.

me 1
you 0

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sun Oct 28, 2012 5:04 pm

Forget Benghazi...

I WANT ANSWERS TO OBAMA'S LIES ABOUT BEN GAZZARA!!!!

"The cover-up on Ben Gazzara's death is worse than Watergate!"
Sincerely, Wolfman

"The Gazzara disinformation came directly from Obama! Impeach that shit-skinned niqqer!!!!"
Sincerely, mvscal

"My children are brain damaged and can't count to 10 and have difficulty identifying simple shapes. Release the Gazzara files NOW!"
Sincerely, Derron

Derron · Post by **Derron** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 5:21 pm

You libtards getting dizzy yet ?

You have the spin machine going full speed this morning. When presented with the links you requested, you simply ignore them and continue to spin your rhetorical bullshit even faster. Of course you are just marching to your leaders orders like good lib lemmings.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... l-lexicon/

Code: Select all

Gorilla dust is the image White House Press Secretary Jay Carney uses to disparage the political tussle between congressional Republicans and Democratic President Barack Obama over the payroll tax cut and his American Jobs Act.

Carney, a wordsmith trained in the colorful style of magazine writing during his formative years with Time, threw out the descriptive phrase during a Thursday briefing, and 24 hours later, Carney was called to account for the phrase.

“Gorilla dust is, as I understand it, a diversionary tactic that gorillas use when they are doing combat,” he explained to amused reporters. “They throw up dust. It’s a defensive measure to get people to be distracted or get their potential opponents to be distracted. ”

A Republican alternative to the president’s payroll tax legislation is what Carney derides as gorilla dust – a distraction.

A quick Google search turns up this on the website dougletongued.org, suggesting the imagery may be a perfect political fit:

“When two male gorillas confront each other, they’re too canny most of the time to actually fight, so they resort to the tried-and-true political tactic of intimidation. Both scurry about in a frenzy, grimacing menacingly, beating their chests and tossing clouds of dirt into the air. It’s a serious encounter, full of powerful and primitive energies, a test of testosterone. Soon one becomes convinced that the other could win the threatened physical engagement, and retreats. It’s called gorilla dust, and nations stir it up all the time.”

Truman · Post by **Truman** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 5:30 pm

Bizzarofelice wrote: at what point do the terms "gross negligence" and "incompetence" become fact? you are leaning very heavily on things that are judgement calls. you think facts are determined when you feel they have happened. a fact is not an emotional response.

No, but the timeline of events that occurred qualify the word "fact" as an accurate description. Or is that explanation too emotional for you?

So ignoring pleas for security, failing to respond to a tactical situation, and watching Americans die in real-time is NOT an example of gross negligence or incompetence? Ponderous.

that right there is the critical thinking that has me running game of y'all fools.

me 1
you 0

Oh, fun! Scoreboard time!

Yeah, you're a regular Washington State in that "running game" of yours, with statistics to match. And the only thing "critical" is your diagnosis after your last CAT scan.

Just curious, Bace: You plan on refuting anything written here, or are you content to allow your flat-line ad hominems speak for themselves?

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 6:08 pm

Truman wrote: So ignoring pleas for security, failing to respond to a tactical situation, and watching Americans die in real-time is NOT an example of gross negligence or incompetence?

No, it is. This is why, even though you are a fat flyover fuck, you have always called for Bush's head in any and all 9-11 threads. It is also why you did not vote for Bush in 2004.

Derron · Post by **Derron** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 7:18 pm

Moving Bowels breaks out the spreadsheet smack. Awesome.

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 7:53 pm

Truman wrote: ad hominems

you're trying too hard

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 8:26 pm

Truman wrote: No worries though, Felix, there are thousands more where those came from, many of which lie about the actual lies themselves. Now please kindly go fuck yourself. And take that sawed-off, sniveling midget with you.

so were the statements you quoted lies or statements made based on bad information?

exactly what purpose would it serve to lie about the causation of an act of terrorism? how would it better serve obama politically to call it a reaction to a video than to call it a terrorist attack by al-Qaeda?

I mean look, the people that are accusing the white house of some cover up can't even get their stories straight.....

and the whole "cia agents told to stand down" story emanates from one source-Fox News.....sorry, I just can't take their word for it....but if it did happen it will come out....but if it didn't, do you suppose Fox News will apologize for the misinformation? I mean when can I expect a Fox apology for lying to the American people about Mr. Stevens being dragged through the streets?

Truman · Post by **Truman** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 9:07 pm

Felix wrote:so were the statements you quoted lies or statements made based on bad information?

You tell me. Are you truly this daft in real-life, or has Google yet to come to Idaho?

They're LIES, dickhead.

Blatant. Serial. Irrefutable. There’s only a dozen links to the Benghazi timeline on T1B alone.

Felix wrote:exactly what purpose would it serve to lie about the causation of an act of terrorism? how would it better serve obama politically to call it a reaction to a video than to call it a terrorist attack by al-Qaeda?

You mean, besides wanting to save their own asses and secure re-election?

Oh, I dunno… Perhaps they wanted to deflect attention away from the fact that they peed down their leg while their consulate was being over-run and their ambassador was being slaughtered? You do realize that nobody was supposed to find out the truth, correct? I think that’s why they call it a “cover-up.”

Felix wrote:I mean look, the people that are accusing the white house of some cover up can't even get their stories straight.....

Funny… It appears the Administration is struggling with the same problem. Tough to muster talking points when the White House keeps changing theirs. Was that an observation, or did you actually have something to say?

Felix wrote:and the whole "cia agents told to stand down" story emanates from one source-Fox News.....sorry, I just can't take their word for it....but if it did happen it will come out....but if it didn't, do you suppose Fox News will apologize for the misinformation? I mean when can I expect a Fox apology for lying to the American people about Mr. Stevens being dragged through the streets?

Why, right after the Administration apologizes for blaming the entire fiasco on some poor slob’s video. Regardless if whether the whole “CIA agents told to stand down” story is true or not, hundreds of operatives saw the assault on Benghazi in real-time…

And our president did nothing.

That’s why this matters. Please tell the Idaho militias where you live...

Truman · Post by **Truman** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 9:17 pm

Bizzarofelice wrote:
Truman wrote: ad hominems

you're trying too hard

That's our Bace!

Really, we couldn't have had this discussion without you[/givesaudienceasidewayslook...]!

What a smart guy! Hey! And feel free to help yourself to some Omega punch and cookies!

And over here we have Sidney, Juglesh, Larry...

Truman · Post by **Truman** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 9:22 pm

Moving Sale wrote: No, it is. This is why, even though you are a fat flyover fuck, you have always called for Bush's head in any and all 9-11 threads. It is also why you did not vote for Bush in 2004.

Oh, look! More wisdom from Herring Sale!

Why would I call for Bush's head? Why wouldn't I have voted for him in 2004? Why do you lose in court so much? Why do you get your ass handed to you every time you login to this Board?

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:16 pm

Felix wrote:how would it better serve obama politically to call it a reaction to a video than to call it a terrorist attack by al-Qaeda?

Who gives a fuck?

It wasn't a reaction to a video. There wasn't any protest outside the Benghazi consulate. It was a terrorist attack by Islamist militants and they knew all of that for a fact within the first hour.

I seem to recall the only thing missing from the publicity photos of all the honchos during the bin laden op were a few tubs of popcorn as they watched the entire thing in real time on their laptops.

Strange how this alleged "fog of war" seemed to descend when Ambassador Stevens and three other foreign service personnel were being slaughtered by Islamist militants that weren't supposed to exist since our hero had them on the run ever since a decrepit old pimp was shot to pieces in his cinderblock crapshack.

Go ahead and "spike the football" again, you stupid, fucked up niqqer.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:34 pm

Truman wrote: Why would I call for Bush's head?

Because of his ignoring pleas for security, failing to respond to a tactical situation, and watching Americans die in real-time.

Why wouldn't I have voted for him in 2004?

Because he got a three star general killed in 2001.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:50 pm

Bizzarofelice wrote:
Dins wrote:He either lied to the American public about what happened, OR his staff is out of control.
terrible logic. it isn't one or the other. big leap of logic.

true enuffffff. could be bothm, btw

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:53 pm

Moving Sale wrote:
Dinsdale wrote:So Epic Fail wants to enter two more truthful statements as evidence in his favor?

Worst. Lawyer. EVER.
I'm not commenting on the validity of your statement you fat stupid fuck.

That would be a statement against interest, wouldn't it?

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:04 pm

Cuda wrote:
Moving Sale wrote:
Dinsdale wrote:So Epic Fail wants to enter two more truthful statements as evidence in his favor?

Worst. Lawyer. EVER.
I'm not commenting on the validity of your statement you fat stupid fuck.
That would be a statement against interest, wouldn't it?

Head to shore fuckface. You are in way over your head.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 4:01 am

mvscal wrote:
It wasn't a reaction to a video. There wasn't any protest outside the Benghazi consulate. It was a terrorist attack by Islamist militants and they knew all of that for a fact within the first hour.

I know you keep saying that but that's based on foggy reports from unknown sources by Fox news....again, I'm not going to take their word for it....sorry.

Strange how this alleged "fog of war" seemed to descend when Ambassador Stevens and three other foreign service personnel were being slaughtered by Islamist militants that weren't supposed to exist since our hero had them on the run ever since a decrepit old pimp was shot to pieces in his cinderblock crapshack.

it was Condoleza Rice that said that.....

Go ahead and "spike the football" again, you stupid, fucked up niqqer.

your feigned outrage is also noted.....of course, you weren't there, you don't know what happened, you have reports put out by people that have decided to politicize the deaths of four Americans....you don't give a fuck about Chris Stevens and quit pretending like you do.....you and your ilk are a fucking disgrace....

Rooster · Post by **Rooster** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:02 am

"Gorilla dust"? So because this involves Obama, would this actually be called "silverback gorilla dust"?

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 6:52 pm

Sudden Sam wrote:What possible reason could the administration have for not assisting the embassy staff after the attack began?

I can't come up with any scenario where any good could come of their decision.

Sometimes there isn't a good outcome. There are only less bad outcomes. I can think of number of reasons why they would have sold out the people on the ground. Have you forgotten Eagle Claw and Blackhawk Down? I know Hillary at least remembers the latter. Also remember they knew for real who and what they were up against (a heavily armed Islamist militia group), so they would have to factor in organized and alert resistance on some level. IMO, there is a significant risk of an operation like that going pear shaped and resulting in a complete bloodbath. That's a tactical reason for not going.

The quote from Jay Carney outlines their political motivation.

“This is a fairly volatile situation, and it is in response not to United States policy, obviously not to the administration, not to the American people. It is in response to a video, a film, that we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting — that in no way justifies any violent reaction to it.”
-Jay Carney, White House Press Secretary

Deflecting criticism away from the administration is their primary political objective. Obviously if a rescue operation ran into a blizzard of rocket, mortar and MANPADS fire and a bloodbath ensued leveling half the city, it would be rather difficult to make the story disappear down the memory hole.

Obviously a call was made that the risk of failure outweighed the lives of the people on the ground and they were left to fend for themselves. Sucks to be them...or anyone else who might one day find themselves in similar circumstances.

Plus Curious Barry needed to get some shuteye. It was going to be a big day tomorrow! He was going to take a fun plane ride to Las Vegas!! Hooray! Curious Barry loves plane rides! He also likes mingling with celebrities! That's almost as much fun as golf. He really doesn't like that boring 'terrorists burning up US Ambassadors and looting their consulates' stuff. Curious Barry doesn't know why anybody would care about boring stuff that isn't fun. He just wishes people would stop talking about it and pretend it never happened!

Wolfman · Post by **Wolfman** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 10:49 pm

31 years ago: nice contrast:

In August 1981 two Libyan fighter planes jumped a pair of F-14 Tomcats which were part of a naval exercise in the Gulf of Sidra; one fired a sidewinder missile. The Tomcats then shot the Libyan planes down.
The encounter happened in the morning Libya time, at night California time; President Reagan, in Los Angeles for a party, had gone to bed and did not learn of it until early the next day. His attitude was, there was no decision for him to make: The American fighters, and the battle group they belonged to, had their rules of engagement, which the fighter pilots had followed. At the time, George Will wrote, “When a horse flicks off a fly, it’s a crisis for the fly, not the horse.”
Reagan wasn’t told, yet we responded. Obama was told, yet we didn’t.

Carson · Post by **Carson** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 1:29 am

mvscal wrote:Plus Curious Barry needed to get some shuteye. It was going to be a big day tomorrow! He was going to take a fun plane ride to Las Vegas!! Hooray! Curious Barry loves plane rides! He also likes mingling with celebrities! That's almost as much fun as golf. He really doesn't like that boring 'terrorists burning up US Ambassadors and looting their consulates' stuff. Curious Barry doesn't know why anybody would care about boring stuff that isn't fun. He just wishes people would stop talking about it and pretend it never happened!

This would have been the greatest episode of Captain Kangaroo ever.

Derron · Post by **Derron** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 5:44 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6M9y7Hy ... e=youtu.be

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Fri Nov 02, 2012 1:03 am

Really?

WASHINGTON (AP) - CIA security officers went to the aid of State Department staff less than 25 minutes after they got the first call for help during the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, U.S. intelligence officials said Thursday as they laid out a detailed timeline of the CIA's immediate response to the attack.

The attack on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks on the United States by what is now suspected to be a group of al-Qaida-linked militants killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

The timeline was offered just days before Tuesday's presidential election in a clear effort to refute recent news reports that said the CIA told its personnel to "stand down" rather than go to the consulate to help repel the attackers.

The officials told reporters that when the CIA annex received a call saying the consulate was under attack less than a mile (1.6 kilometers) away, about half a dozen members of a CIA security team tried to get heavy weapons and other assistance from the Libyans.

But when none was available, they went ahead with the rescue attempt. The officials said that at no point was the team told to wait.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to provide intelligence information publicly.

The Obama administration's response to the attack on the consulate has been challenged by Republicans in Congress and elsewhere, questioning whether enough military and other support was requested and received.

And it has become an issue in the election, with President Barack Obama's Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, and Republican lawmakers accusing the White House of misleading Americans about the nature of the attack.

Initial descriptions of the attack suggested that it may have been linked to a protest over an American-made anti-Muslim film.

On Thursday, intelligence officials said they had early information that the attackers had ties to al-Qaida-linked groups, but did not make it public immediately because it was based on classified intelligence. And they said the early public comments about the attack and its genesis were cautious and limited, as they routinely are in such incidents.

They added that while intelligence officials indicated early on that extremists were involved in the assault, only later were officials able to confirm that the attack was not generated by a protest over the film.

So, Obummer's foreign policy is to assume all terrorist attacks are a result of youtube videos that few Arabs have seen, until proven otherwise?

Really?

THIS is the latest twist in trying to dig out of the mountain of lies they've told to date?

"We're going to assume any attacks on our embassies are because of some rarely seen video, and not an organized effort, until we can establish otherwise."

On Thursday, intelligence officials said they had early information that the attackers had ties to al-Qaida-linked groups, but did not make it public immediately because it was based on classified intelligence.

So, what strategic advantage was gained by not confirming that the attackers were who everyone knew it was from the getgo? I'm going go with... "none."

So, after the intial round of proven lies, the new story is "we knew beforehand it was al Qaida."

Well then Genius-in-Chief, why the fuck didn't you... oh, I dunno... send some reenforcements?

Even when these clowns have had a month and a half to get their lies figured out, they STILL can't come up with one that makes sense.

Just complete incompetance, followed up by lie after lie after lie after lie.

Yup folks -- this is the tool you elected to our highest office.

Nice job.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Fri Nov 02, 2012 1:08 am

Felix wrote:
Dinsdale wrote:
We know FOR FACT the administration, at some level, told a flagrant lie.

link?

Feeling stupid yet? You should... it was documented from the beginning. But since the GOP is using it against Obummer, it must not be true, since you hate the GOP... dumbass.

They've now ADMITTED to it, dumbass. Not that it wasn't their only option once the lies started flwoing like wine, but at least they've taken the baby step of admitting it...

Not without a feeble, doesn't-add-up-to-any-sort-of-logic, moronic attempt at trying to justify it, but at least they admit to lying about it.

But congrats on your ability to keep your party-blinders on through this whole thing, to the bitter end... they look good on you.

How's that Most Transparent Administration In History That Admits They Lie thing working for you?

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Fri Nov 02, 2012 4:03 am

Dinsdale wrote:

since you hate the GOP

what ever gave you the idea I hate the GOP? some pretty dece people in the party (Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Richard Lugar) but the GOP has been hijacked by the ultra right wing and decent republicans are almost non-existent....the current crop of republicans are nothing but far right obstructionist asswipes that wouldn't even make good dog catchers, let alone representatives, senators, or president....they have no interest in doing anything to help the middle class.....if they get in they are going to push this country over the fiscal cliff while feeding off the financial carcass of our economy....

They've now ADMITTED to it, dumbass.

link?

But congrats on your ability to keep your party-blinders on through this whole thing, to the bitter end... they look good on you.

get this through your fucking skull moron.....I'm not voting for obama.....it's the same statement I've been making for the past year....I have no confidence in the current white house, but I can't bring myself to vote for a fucking skeezball like romney....I may be looking for real estate by marty if that douchenozzle is sworn in as POTUS....he's a fucking weasel and if he's elected this country will have made one of the biggest fucking mistakes in modern history....

you can bank on it.....

Truman · Post by **Truman** » Fri Nov 02, 2012 4:11 am

Felix wrote:the current crop of republicans are nothing but far right obstructionist asswipes

Obstructionist? Seat a Republican president and GOP majorities in both houses and you'll fast change your tune. Not that you would appreciate the results...

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Fri Nov 02, 2012 5:51 am

Truman wrote:Not that you would appreciate the results...

oh I can appreciate the results of republican economics, we're just starting to right the disaster that was the previous 8 years of republican economics.....so what's mitts economic plan? i've been looking for it for months and can't seem to find it.....lots of buzz words, promises, threats, etc., but a tad low on specifics.....

the plain truth of it is, you have no idea what his plan is, because he doesn't have one.....but, he's got most of Bush's economic advisors surrounding him, so I'm assuming he plans on employing the trickle down economic plan which has never worked, and never will work, but you'll guzzle it for no other reason than "it's not obama"....

look, if you could make a case for electing romney, I'd listen....but the fact is, not one republican I've talked to can provide me with any reason whatsoever as to why I should vote for him....they can't even justify their own support for mittens.....

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Fri Nov 02, 2012 6:07 am

When We Deceive

So far the administration has attributed its lapses to the “fog of war” and suggestions that only the Tripoli embassy not the Benghazi consulate was deemed vulnerable. Now, from a recent cable, we know that the latter was untrue, and that the only fog of war consisted in a handful of administration spokespeople frantically trying to get their stories straight. Real-time aerial video of a battle is not the fog of Wellington trying to figure out where Napoleon will strike next.

The central issue of the entire Libyan debacle remains motive: Why did the administration ignore repeated warnings of the vulnerability of our people on the ground, and of likely Islamist attacks? Then, in the middle of a video-filmed assault, why were they frozen into inaction as Americans fought to the death, Alamo style? And then why in the aftermath did they they fob culpability off on an obscure two-month-old video, and arrest the director on trumped-up probation charges? And why now do they have no fallback narrative other than silence?

Rack!

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Fri Nov 02, 2012 6:36 am

Felix wrote:oh I can appreciate the results of republican economics, we're just starting to right the disaster that was the previous 8 years of republican economics....

Before I go further, I'll reiterate -- I HATE the GOP.

At present, I hate the dems more, but I've done plenty of hating on both in my life. So my position comes from that of a neutral observer.

The "disaster" you mention isn't "the previous 8 years of republican economics." Not even close.

The current hurt we're feeling was a result of the feel-good "let's make everyone just a little more equal" policies of the 90's, which was a dem idea, which was fully endorsed by the repubs (with evil concessions to make them buy in). Anyone who thinks it wasn't a bipartisan effort is a fucking idiot.

Putting a special interest group in charge of who Fannie and Freddie should back loans for? (The fed has no business in the mortgage industry, and only a retard thinks they do.). Pure genius. But wait...

remind me again who the superstar lawyer who dictated where the loans went was again?

I'm trying to remember his name...

Wait, it's coming back to me now...

His name was Barack Obama.

No one save for Billy J Clinton was more implicit in our current mess than Barry O... but retards decided to vote fr the off-the-charts corrupt Chicago politician... let's not discount the ignorance factor in our current situation.

But don't worry -- the liberal mantra of "everyone deserves a college education" is another bubble that's about to burst. The liberal ideology isn't based in reality.

So, since the election, unfortunately, is an either/or proposition, should you endorse one of the supporters and henchmen of the people who created the economic collapse, and advocates attempting to keep the bubbles inflating...

or the othe guy?

Pretty much a no-brainer.

And to top it off, I'm pretty sure Douche Romney has never sat idly by while watching Americans who begged him for help died on webcam, then lied and lied and lied and lied about it afterwards.

But since you brought up Romnomics -- what cash value do you place on the life of my local homeboy who fought to the death at the embassy... the one Obama sacrificed for political gain... the one whose parents said that Obummer wouldn't look them in the eye when he tried to pander to them in a photo-op? The one whose parent have a roadside monument decrying that POS a couple miles up the road from me?

How many people has Mittens the Douche killed? How many lies has he told trying to cover up his negligent homicide?

Since there's a pathetic two choices, and one has PROVEN himself evil, is there really a choice?