T1B

Bucmonkey wrote:trots this idiocy

Go fuck yourself, you brainless, sack hoovering dipshit.

mvscal wrote:

Bucmonkey wrote:trots this idiocy

Go fuck yourself, you brainless, sack hoovering dipshit.

Would not expect any less from you Mexi-American.

Dinsdale wrote:Takes a rare talent, especially for someone who didn't grow up drinking the tap water in Kansas City, MO.

It doesn’t take a travelogue for these parts to tell you how to hydrate sensibly…


Boulevard Collaboration/Deschutes Conflux

mvscal wrote:

I never made any such claims, asswipe.

I never said you did, the video is used as a representation of someone speaking out of their ass before the facts are in.....

Let's review the facts now, shall we?

let's

1. There were numerous attacks on the consulate itself and in the area. Security was deemed so bad that the Brits and several NGOs pulled out of Benghazi. (I'll take your word on it so check)

2. Numerous requests for additional security were made prior to the attack and were denied. (I'm not sure what constitutes "numerous", but I'll take your word on it so check)

3. Real time intelligence was being provided to Washington within the hour of the first gunfire. (check)

4. Available reinforcements were told to stand down during the attack itself. This includes those at the CIA annex a mile away (they eventually disobeyed orders to rescue those trapped at the consulate) and SOCOM units based in Sicily which could have been on station in about two hours and broken up the attack in about two seconds. (check)

5. After the fact, a deliberate lie about video protests was promulgated at the highest levels of government and repeated by the President, the Secretary of State and UN Ambassador to name a few. (and how is it that you know this was a deliberate lie?)

if I assume everything you've said (except the deliberate lie statement) is correct, I still am not getting how this equates to a dereliction on obamas part.....I mean lets look at it from another perspective.....

it's a two months before the election and Obama is presented an opportunity to order security/military people to kill some AQ jihadists during an attack on our consulate and you honestly think he's going to miss out on an opportunity like that?

giving orders to defend our consulate would have been seen by the American public as very Presidential and would have all but sealed an obama landslide in the upcoming election.....do you actually think he'd pass on that?

seriously, you can't be this fucking stupid

Four more years of this shit? I don't fucking think so.

maybe, maybe not...but just the idea of obama winning and making fuckwits like you cry for the next four years would be worth it....

Moving Sale wrote:

Dinsdale wrote: IKYABWAI

You don't ready to well do you?

He fishes well if he's ready too.

Felix wrote:(and how is it that you know this was a deliberate lie?)

It's quite simple really. They knew what the actual circumstances were and then they told a different story to the public. Perhaps you can explain how that might happen accidently?

I still am not getting how this equates to a dereliction on obamas part.

Then you are a hopeless idiot.

it's a two months before the election and Obama is presented an opportunity to order security/military people to kill some AQ jihadists during an attack on our consulate and you honestly think he's going to miss out on an opportunity like that?

Well, he did so what's your point? It's not his fault because he went to bed early or was otherwise completely out of the loop?

giving orders to defend our consulate would have been seen by the American public as very Presidential and would have all but sealed an obama landslide in the upcoming election.....do you actually think he'd pass on that?

No, I don't actually think he'd pass on that. I actually know he'd pass on it because he actually did pass on it.

You can stop acting like this is some kind of murky scenario and we're still waiting on the facts. We know exactly what was known, when and by whom. There never was any fog of war and the fog of bullshit has been blown well clear apart from that remaining between the ears of anyone stupid enough to buy into Barry's clownshow.

mvscal wrote:
You can stop acting like this is some kind of murky scenario and we're still waiting on the facts. We know exactly what was known, when and by whom. There never was any fog of war and the fog of bullshit has been blown well clear apart from that remaining between the ears of anyone stupid enough to buy into Barry's clownshow.

and you can stop acting like you were sitting in the briefing room at the time of the attacks.....there are still a lot of questions surrounding exactly what happened.....don't take my word for it, listen to what a former secretary of state said....



interesting that rice continually refers to "fog of war"

Dinsdale wrote:

Left Seater wrote:Then again I also don't get the Starbucks fascination.

When you pay $4 for $0.20 worth of coffee, it somehow makes it taste better.

Is that the theory behind Fat Tire too? It doesn't work.

If I didn't know better, I'd swear that they stole Starbucks's secret burning roasting method for use on their malt grains...

Fat Tire - proving that a "craft beer" can be considerably worse than PBR.

It isn't that it's "bad" -- more that it's "offensively bad."

'zactly.

Starbucks: $2.25 for a cup of burnt coffee; Fat Tire: $8.00 for a sixer of burnt beer. I think I understand now how Obama got elected....

Interesting take from the SF dude. Pretty much aligns with what you find away from MSM.

Although the one part about a gap in the Marine coverage is probably bullshit.

Felix wrote:.....don't take my word for it, listen to what a former secretary of state said....

Jigaboo secretaries of state have never been worth a shit and neither have female secretaries of state. naturally you pick the sole example that combines both.

there's no need to wait for any investigation for obama to find out just what the fuck he knew, when the fuck he knew it, and exactly what the fuck he did or didn't fucking do about it.

who cares? this libya shit is nothing.

Bizzarofelice wrote:who cares? this libya shit is nothing.

People died; Obama lied.

Felix wrote:there are still a lot of questions surrounding exactly what happened

Absolutely. Unanswered questions such as:

Who denied requests for additional security despite the obvious danger?
Who denied available reinforcements once the attack was underway?
Who authorized the false cover story about a protest?

Oh and who still thinks it's Presidential to leave men to die in the field when very simple, inexpensive steps could have been taken to prevent it?

Truman wrote:

Bizzarofelice wrote:who cares? this libya shit is nothing.

People died; Obama lied.

what? four people were killed by camel fuckers. hasn't the past decade taught you that it happens? what does obama have to do with this? did he rally the camel fuckers to attack?

No. The guy who made the video did. Why do you hate Letterman?

Jizzarofellatio wrote:

Truman wrote:

Jizzarofelllatio wrote:who cares? this libya shit is nothing.

People died; Obama lied.

what? four people were killed by camel fuckers. hasn't the past decade taught you that it happens? what does obama have to do with this? did he rally the camel fuckers to attack?

Obama was present in the situation room (maybe), as POTUS, all he had to do was say the word, and shit is a lot different. That is what he had to do with it. His inaction caused a loss of life,and pretty much reinforced the idea that you can fuck with the United States and get away with it. Protection of the diplomats is a bit important, but campaign stops and TV shows are more important to this moron.

An ambassador is pretty high up the chart as far as ranking goes. The other ambassadors probably putting in for a transfer about now. Still waiting for that action of his to find the perps and punish them.

Bizzarofelice wrote:what does obama have to do with this?

He sat there and watched them die on live TV.

Derron wrote:
Obama was present in the situation room (maybe), as POTUS, all he had to do was say the word, and shit is a lot different. That is what he had to do with it. His inaction caused a loss of life,and pretty much reinforced the idea that you can fuck with the United States and get away with it. Protection of the diplomats is a bit important, but campaign stops and TV shows are more important to this moron.

So Obama should have fired into the crowd and killed Libyans before things got bad?

And this is a big deal? You guys have really bit on this hook. They needed something to take a notch out of the Obama foreign policy wins and really tried to push this stupidity. And you guys are reacting to the stupidity. Should I be surprised?

Bizzarofelice wrote:And this is a big deal?

For real?

Nice to see you keeping those toes on the line, like a good little robot.

To answer your question -- it must be a big deal, if the White House decide to cook up a lie to try and deceive the public.

Why is that OK to you?

Bizzarofelice wrote:So Obama should have fired into the crowd and killed Libyans before things got bad?

There wasn't any crowd, you stupid fuckhead.

Bizzarofelice wrote:the Obama foreign policy wins

Please provide an itemized list of these alleged "foreign policy wins."

Bizzarofelice wrote:And you guys are reacting to the stupidity.

Indeed we are. Every time you mash "submit". Funny how that works.

Truman wrote:

Bizzarofelice wrote:And you guys are reacting to the stupidity.

Indeed we are. Every time you mash "submit". Funny how that works.

Well played, KCTru, well played.

mvscal wrote: 5. After the fact, a deliberate lie about video protests was promulgated at the highest levels of government and repeated by the President, the Secretary of State and UN Ambassador to name a few.

You do realize that to a liberal, a lie is not a lie. It is merely an end to the means, and being truthful does not have to be the case. They have no concept of right or wrong, just their way.

Truman wrote:

Bizzarofelice wrote:who cares? this libya shit is nothing.

People died; Obama lied.

Dinsdale wrote:

Bizzarofelice wrote:what does obama have to do with this?

He sat there and watched them die on live TV.

Exhibits F and G. Nice going you fat stupid fucks.

Bizzarofelice wrote:
And this is a big deal? You guys have really bit on this hook. They needed something to take a notch out of the Obama foreign policy wins and really tried to push this stupidity. And you guys are reacting to the stupidity. Should I be surprised?

The killing of a US ambassador and other US operatives is a big deal. Whacking an ambassador is right up there with a cabinet level official. Not doing everything you can to prevent such things from happening is incompetence. Not responding is just saying it is OK to do that.

Obama foreign policy wins ? Go ahead and start listing those out maybe.

Moving Sale wrote:

Truman wrote:

Bizzarofelice wrote:who cares? this libya shit is nothing.

People died; Obama lied.

Dinsdale wrote:

Bizzarofelice wrote:what does obama have to do with this?

He sat there and watched them die on live TV.

Exhibits F and G. Nice going you fat stupid fucks.

Didn't you already enter me into evidence as Exhibit C? Try to keep up, Shorty. BTW, your case is crumbling around you...

So Epic Fail wants to enter two more truthful statements as evidence in his favor?

Worst. Lawyer. EVER.

You better watch your ass there Truman...the midget may drop some gluttony smack on you.

Truman wrote:
Didn't you already enter me into evidence as Exhibit C? Try to keep up, Shorty. BTW, your case is crumbling around you...

You are fat enough to be exhibits C, F, M and Q.

And you're short enough that if you were entered as evidence, you'd be tossed.

Derron wrote:You better watch your ass there Truman...the midget may drop some gluttony smack on you.

No worries, Der.

Per Dinsdale's Second Law of Smack, you never gratify an opponents lame attempt at smack.

Regardless, I think the stock reply in the Smack Handbook (Abridged Edition of course - we ARE dealing with little people here) reads:

"Even if that were true, you're still short/gay/short and gay, and I can always diet."

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.

Truman wrote:
I can always diet."

Then get on it you fat flyover fuck.

mvscal wrote:

Absolutely. Unanswered questions such as:

Who denied requests for additional security despite the obvious danger?
Who denied available reinforcements once the attack was underway?
Who authorized the false cover story about a protest?

obviously it was obama....hell, he probably sent wires to his al qaeda buddies telling them the best time to hit the consulate.....so when do the impeachment hearings start? will tickets be available via stub hub, or will I have to take my chances with scalpers?

Felix wrote:.....so when do the impeachment hearings start?

Duh. Right after the election, provided Obama cheats out wins a second term, and the GOPhers take the Senate...

Felix wrote: so when do the impeachment hearings start?

When did early voting start?

No later than November 6th, though.

Felix wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Absolutely. Unanswered questions such as:

Who denied requests for additional security despite the obvious danger?
Who denied available reinforcements once the attack was underway?
Who authorized the false cover story about a protest?

obviously it was obama

So did he engineer the lie, or is he not in control of his staff, and we have a Bushesque staff-run-akok situation going on?

It's an either/or question, so choose your answer carefully...

Or continue to wear the blinders, because since you hate the GOP, Obama must not have done anything wrong...

the Logical Fallacy of the Partyliners.

He either lied to the American public about what happened, OR his staff is out of control. Period. So, which of those do you think qualifies him to be president?

Did you give Bush's out of control cronies a pass on the yellowcake fiasco? Or is it OK to get Americans killed if you have a D by your name? I mean sure, the Bushites lied as a pretense, Obama lied to cover up his involvement in a scandal, but is one act OK, and the other not?

Sad that ANYONE would endorse such shameful conduct. Clinton lied about 250,000,000 dead half-people, Bush and Obama lied about real dead people. You get the government you deserve.

Dinsdale wrote:
So did he engineer the lie, or is he not in control of his staff, and we have a Bushesque staff-run-akok situation going on?

false dichotomy-A false dichotomy or false dilemma occurs when an argument presents two options and ignores, either purposefully or out of ignorance, other alternatives.

In general, a false dichotomy gives the impression that the two oppositie options are mutually exclusive (that is, only one of them may be the case, never both) and that at least one of them is true, that is, they represent all of the possible options.

the Logical Fallacy

that's funny