Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 3  Next >

I thought that this was a spontaneous response to a movie?

Avatar

Posted: 06/17/2014 1:09 PM

I thought that this was a spontaneous response to a movie? 


The Benghazi affair gets even more surreal. The White House claims that a movie caused the Libyans to riot spontaneously. Well apparently it had at least one ring leader, now branded a terrorist, who has now been captured. Some one has some splainin' to do.

m.washingtonpost.com/world/nat...2a52_story.html
LAter

Go Dogs!
Biting is the easy way out.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/17/2014 1:21 PM

Re: I thought that this was a spontaneous response to a movie? 


This is just an imaginary problem and another fake conspiracy concocted by the Republicans.   This "ring leader" is a plant and is not a real person.  Just ask Comrade Ford...  he will tell you all about it.
"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him --- better take a closer look at the American Indian." Henry Ford
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/17/2014 2:04 PM

Re: I thought that this was a spontaneous response to a movie? 


You are correct, he'll say those 4 dead Americans are just a Republican contrived scandal that has no legs. In fact, the BO administration has never done anything remotely wrong.  Using the IRS to target innocent Americans? No big deal.  Sending guns to Mexican cartel and ending at least one American life? No big deal.  The commander in chief being absent while an Embassy is under attack? No big deal.  The President frequently taking lavish vacations on our dime? No big deal.... 
Sparatore wrote: This is just an imaginary problem and another fake conspiracy concocted by the Republicans.   This "ring leader" is a plant and is not a real person.  Just ask Comrade Ford...  he will tell you all about it.
"Wow, that escalated quickly!"
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/17/2014 2:17 PM

Re: I thought that this was a spontaneous response to a movie? 


Maybe Susan Rice will do the interrogations, that way we'll get the whole truth...  rolleyes
"Wow, that escalated quickly!"
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/17/2014 5:59 PM

Mmm, irony. 


US special forces may have captured an important figure in the Benghazi attack, but you guys choose to use it to criticize the administration.

And that gets me back to this point--the right never, ever gave one asshair about the actual lives in Benghazi.

Zip, zilch, zero, nada.

The only thing important is to use it as a partisan crapping point. 

Ford
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/17/2014 7:12 PM

Re: Mmm, irony. 


Ah yes, I'm glad you are feeling like yourself tonight...you haven't disappointed.  We weren't the ones who didn't protect the Embassy, We weren't the ones to give the stand down order.  We weren't the ones absent from the situation room during the attack.  But yet, WE are the ones who don't care about the lost lives in Benghazi???eek1 Why in the world do you think WE want to get to the bottom of what really happened??? BECAUSE WE care about the lost lives and don't want it to  happen again...which it certainly will with such an apathetic administration.  NO, FORD, it's YOU who doesn't give a crap about any lost lives.  If you did, you'd have criticized BO too...but you won't, because you think he can do no wrong.  You're a real work of art....I'm speechless....
CoachFord wrote: US special forces may have captured an important figure in the Benghazi attack, but you guys choose to use it to criticize the administration.

And that gets me back to this point--the right never, ever gave one asshair about the actual lives in Benghazi.

Zip, zilch, zero, nada.

The only thing important is to use it as a partisan crapping point. 

Ford
"Wow, that escalated quickly!"
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/17/2014 7:17 PM

Re: Mmm, irony. 



CoachFord wrote: US special forces may have captured an important figure in the Benghazi attack, but you guys choose to use it to criticize the administration.

And that gets me back to this point--the right never, ever gave one asshair about the actual lives in Benghazi.

Zip, zilch, zero, nada.

The only thing important is to use it as a partisan crapping point. 

Ford
Though there is almost certainly some truth to what you say, it is the conservative portion of this nation that seems more passionate about such things. National Security, National Security, National Security - Conservatives harp on this day in and day out. Liberals seem to only bring it up if there is a good talking point to be had. Strong military, Secure the Boarders, etc... Where is are the liberals on this...No I.D. check, no increased presence at the boarder, allow Illegals drivers licenses. Come one come all, this administration is in a constant state of 1839 boarder security mode - Come one, come all...free stuff to be had in the United States and the middle class (sans government workers) and up will pay for it.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/17/2014 8:32 PM

Re: Mmm, irony. 



FresnoStateBulldog wrote: Ah yes, I'm glad you are feeling like yourself tonight...you haven't disappointed.  We weren't the ones who didn't protect the Embassy…
"We?" And what "embassy?"

People have been dying at embassies and consulates for a long time now. It's an unfortunate hazard and something that is going to be a continual risk, but it seems like the outrage is especially selective to me. It seems "we" only care if "we" don't like the President. 

But you do avoid my basic point--the lack of caring about some actual justice being done to those who actually caused the deaths is overshadowed by faux-outrage over talking points. "We" are only interesting in partisan jabbing.

Ford
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/17/2014 8:55 PM

Re: Mmm, irony. 



SoCalValleyDog wrote:
 
Though there is almost certainly some truth to what you say, it is the conservative portion of this nation that seems more passionate about such things. National Security, National Security, National Security - Conservatives harp on this day in and day out. Liberals seem to only bring it up if there is a good talking point to be had.

I agree. But what I don't agree is that they are passionate about Benghazi past blowing it up in order to attack Obama. Here's an action that our special forces achieved that should be receiving universal acclaim and celebration. But instead, "Obama blah blah!"

Strong military, Secure the Boarders, etc... Where is are the liberals on this...No I.D. check, no increased presence at the boarder, allow Illegals drivers licenses. Come one come all, this administration is in a constant state of 1839 boarder security mode - Come one, come all...free stuff to be had in the United States and the middle class (sans government workers) and up will pay for it.

Those are "issues" that Republicans fight for action on--when there is a Democratic President. Reagan, GHW Bush, W Bush…no more action than Obama or Clinton. This is partially because of pragmatism--the concept of "securing the borders" is nebulous. The reality of completely sealing the borders is absolutely impossible on so many levels. Look at how aggressively Mexico  tries to seal it's southern border--and ours absolutely dwarfs it--and they can't shut down the illegals coming across it.  Until the people who say "everyone stays" and the other people who say "everybody goes" aren't the ones wagging the dog, this issue will stay stalled.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/17/2014 10:23 PM

Re: Mmm, irony. 


Obama and his administration purposely lied about what they knew about the attacks on Benghazi.  But why?  To protect Obama and his reputation?  To be able to make the claim that no terrorist attack occured against Americans while he was in office?  To protect Hillary?  It's certainly not to protect some CIA operation.  When Republicans start to rail against Susan Rice, they basically have no interest in finding the truth.  She's nothing. Hillary and Barack failed to provide adequate security for the Ambassador.  

Actually Ford is correct in that the Republicans don't care about Stevens. Todays Bush 43 Republicans don't give a crap about the lives of Americans fighting for or protecting this Country.  The Bush 43 Republicans care about protecting the status quo: high oil prices.   
FresnoStateBulldog wrote: Ah yes, I'm glad you are feeling like yourself tonight...you haven't disappointed.  We weren't the ones who didn't protect the Embassy, We weren't the ones to give the stand down order.  We weren't the ones absent from the situation room during the attack.  But yet, WE are the ones who don't care about the lost lives in Benghazi???eek1 Why in the world do you think WE want to get to the bottom of what really happened??? BECAUSE WE care about the lost lives and don't want it to  happen again...which it certainly will with such an apathetic administration.  NO, FORD, it's YOU who doesn't give a crap about any lost lives.  If you did, you'd have criticized BO too...but you won't, because you think he can do no wrong.  You're a real work of art....I'm speechless....
CoachFord wrote: US special forces may have captured an important figure in the Benghazi attack, but you guys choose to use it to criticize the administration.

And that gets me back to this point--the right never, ever gave one asshair about the actual lives in Benghazi.

Zip, zilch, zero, nada.

The only thing important is to use it as a partisan crapping point. 

Ford
LAter

Go Dogs!
Biting is the easy way out.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/17/2014 10:26 PM

Re: Mmm, irony. 



CoachFord wrote:
SoCalValleyDog wrote:
 
Though there is almost certainly some truth to what you say, it is the conservative portion of this nation that seems more passionate about such things. National Security, National Security, National Security - Conservatives harp on this day in and day out. Liberals seem to only bring it up if there is a good talking point to be had.

I agree. But what I don't agree is that they are passionate about Benghazi past blowing it up in order to attack Obama. Here's an action that our special forces achieved that should be receiving universal acclaim and celebration. But instead, "Obama blah blah!"

Yes, but Obama has deserved the criticism. Do you really think Reagen, or either of the bushes would have been out golfing it up during the Benghazi issue? I don't think they would.

Our forces were not sent to Benghazi, so I'm missing something on your last couple of sentences. However, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton completely screwed the pouch here, and to make it worse tried to completely spin it as something it wasn't.

Strong military, Secure the Boarders, etc... Where is are the liberals on this...No I.D. check, no increased presence at the boarder, allow Illegals drivers licenses. Come one come all, this administration is in a constant state of 1839 boarder security mode - Come one, come all...free stuff to be had in the United States and the middle class (sans government workers) and up will pay for it.

Those are "issues" that Republicans fight for action on--when there is a Democratic President. Reagan, GHW Bush, W Bush…no more action than Obama or Clinton. This is partially because of pragmatism--the concept of "securing the borders" is nebulous. The reality of completely sealing the borders is absolutely impossible on so many levels. Look at how aggressively Mexico  tries to seal it's southern border--and ours absolutely dwarfs it--and they can't shut down the illegals coming across it.  Until the people who say "everyone stays" and the other people who say "everybody goes" aren't the ones wagging the dog, this issue will stay stalled.

I don't think there is really that much grey area when it comes to securing our borders. Use eVerify and fine companies, holding them liable for employing illegals, including holding them liable for workers comp and disability. Do not hand out State licenses to illegals. Do not allow illegals entrance to U.S. schools. Do not allow illegals to use hospitals as their primary care facility. Do each of those and you will greatly stem the flow of illegals not coming here for harm.


Increase border patrol, surveillance, and the use of National Guardsmen at the border to discourage those coming across to do harm.

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/17/2014 11:40 PM

Re: Mmm, irony. 


The problem with some "republicans" is evident in this article: m.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...f9f1_story.html



---------------------------------------------
--- SoCalValleyDog wrote:


CoachFord wrote:
SoCalValleyDog wrote:
 
Though there is almost certainly some truth to what you say, it is the conservative portion of this nation that seems more passionate about such things. National Security, National Security, National Security - Conservatives harp on this day in and day out. Liberals seem to only bring it up if there is a good talking point to be had.

I agree. But what I don't agree is that they are passionate about Benghazi past blowing it up in order to attack Obama. Here's an action that our special forces achieved that should be receiving universal acclaim and celebration. But instead, "Obama blah blah!"

Yes, but Obama has deserved the criticism. Do you really think Reagen, or either of the bushes would have been out golfing it up during the Benghazi issue? I don't think they would.

Our forces were not sent to Benghazi, so I'm missing something on your last couple of sentences. However, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton completely screwed the pouch here, and to make it worse tried to completely spin it as something it wasn't.

Strong military, Secure the Boarders, etc... Where is are the liberals on this...No I.D. check, no increased presence at the boarder, allow Illegals drivers licenses. Come one come all, this administration is in a constant state of 1839 boarder security mode - Come one, come all...free stuff to be had in the United States and the middle class (sans government workers) and up will pay for it.

Those are "issues" that Republicans fight for action on--when there is a Democratic President. Reagan, GHW Bush, W Bush…no more action than Obama or Clinton. This is partially because of pragmatism--the concept of "securing the borders" is nebulous. The reality of completely sealing the borders is absolutely impossible on so many levels. Look at how aggressively Mexico  tries to seal it's southern border--and ours absolutely dwarfs it--and they can't shut down the illegals coming across it.  Until the people who say "everyone stays" and the other people who say "everybody goes" aren't the ones wagging the dog, this issue will stay stalled.

I don't think there is really that much grey area when it comes to securing our borders. Use eVerify and fine companies, holding them liable for employing illegals, including holding them liable for workers comp and disability. Do not hand out State licenses to illegals. Do not allow illegals entrance to U.S. schools. Do not allow illegals to use hospitals as their primary care facility. Do each of those and you will greatly stem the flow of illegals not coming here for harm.


Increase border patrol, surveillance, and the use of National Guardsmen at the border to discourage those coming across to do harm.



---------------------------------------------
LAter

Go Dogs!
Biting is the easy way out.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/18/2014 6:38 AM

Re: Mmm, irony. 



SoCalValleyDog wrote:


Increase border patrol, surveillance, and the use of National Guardsmen at the border to discourage those coming across to do harm.

Far too expensive and still probably not very effective. The border is too long. It would take a tremendous effort and expense to stop people who are coming here for a better life. You could slow the flow down a degree. That's where the nebulousness steps in--to what degree?  Helping Mexico with their border, plus helping the Honduran government regain control of their nation would stop most of the current immigration.

And we have to finally look at what our "war on drugs" has really accomplished in Central America and Mexico, too. 

As far as those coming across to "do harm," I assume you are worried about terrorism. All of the 9/11 terrorists came here legally--mostly on business or tourism visas. Any organized terrorist group that wants to attack the US doesn't need to sneak across our southern border. That's the hardest way to get into the US already.

Ford
Reply | Quote

Posted: 06/18/2014 7:01 AM

Re: Mmm, irony. 



CoachFord wrote:


As far as those coming across to "do harm," I assume you are worried about terrorism. All of the 9/11 terrorists came here legally--mostly on business or tourism visas. Any organized terrorist group that wants to attack the US doesn't need to sneak across our southern border. That's the hardest way to get into the US already.

Ford
From what i have been told and understand, prayer rugs are found routinely along the border.

Pre 9/11 your assertion would be pretty accurate but with DHS tracking folks that fit their profile it would be harder to come here and blend in.  That leaves the option of slipping over a border (north or south) and being off the grid
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/18/2014 7:26 AM

Re: Mmm, irony. 


2 years to find a guy that the U.S. press interviewed 48 hours after the attack...or should I say "spontaneous demonstration" otherwise I'll soon be audited by the IRS as the NSA is monitoring every keystroke emanating from my fingertips.  

The loyal foot soldiers of the hard left will continue to defend the indefensible and parrot the message that has progressed from simple radical ideology to enabling our enemies to do us real harm.   

I used to think BO is just an incompetent, hard left ideologue.  I was wrong.  He's far, far more dangerous...this is an all out assault.  God help us for the next 2.5 years.

 

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/18/2014 7:54 AM

Re: Mmm, irony. 



LuDog70 wrote: 2 years to find a guy that the U.S. press interviewed 48 hours after the attack…
How long did it take the Bush Administration to find OBL--and he was busy putting out promotional videos!

But let's be real--had they caught him in one year, you'd whine it wasn't six months. If they'd caught him after a week, you'd complain they didn't catch him in three days. If they had caught him the next day, you'd complain they didn't catch him before the attack. 

You just want to complain.

Ford

Last edited 06/18/2014 7:57 AM by CoachFord

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/18/2014 8:44 AM

Re: Mmm, irony. 



CoachFord wrote:
SoCalValleyDog wrote:


Increase border patrol, surveillance, and the use of National Guardsmen at the border to discourage those coming across to do harm.

Far too expensive and still probably not very effective. The border is too long. It would take a tremendous effort and expense to stop people who are coming here for a better life. You could slow the flow down a degree. That's where the nebulousness steps in--to what degree?  Helping Mexico with their border, plus helping the Honduran government regain control of their nation would stop most of the current immigration.

And we have to finally look at what our "war on drugs" has really accomplished in Central America and Mexico, too. 

As far as those coming across to "do harm," I assume you are worried about terrorism. All of the 9/11 terrorists came here legally--mostly on business or tourism visas. Any organized terrorist group that wants to attack the US doesn't need to sneak across our southern border. That's the hardest way to get into the US already.

Ford
The National Guard is already being paid so the cost would not be great. Besides, the savings from Healthcare and Education would be more than enough.

As far as those coming across to "do harm", was a general blanket for terrorist, cartel, and just your everyday scum.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/18/2014 10:42 AM

Re: Mmm, irony. 



CoachFord wrote:
LuDog70 wrote: 2 years to find a guy that the U.S. press interviewed 48 hours after the attack…
How long did it take the Bush Administration to find OBL--and he was busy putting out promotional videos!

But let's be real--had they caught him in one year, you'd whine it wasn't six months. If they'd caught him after a week, you'd complain they didn't catch him in three days. If they had caught him the next day, you'd complain they didn't catch him before the attack. 

You just want to complain.

Ford
It was reported this morning that our government knew where he was staying and they were waiting to apprehend him.  What they were waiting for is not clear. 

As far as complaining goes, the left is still blaming Bush for all of Obama's failures and Bush is no longer running our country.  While Bush was running our country, the left complained about everything he did or didn't do.  Some even blamed 9/11 on him and claimed he orchestrated it.  To act like libs didn't complain about everything during Bush's time in office is laughable.  Now that the right complains about Obama it is somehow unfair and cruel and even racist.  Grow a pair and quit whining.
"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him --- better take a closer look at the American Indian." Henry Ford
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/18/2014 1:06 PM

Re: Mmm, irony. 



CoachFord wrote:
LuDog70 wrote: 2 years to find a guy that the U.S. press interviewed 48 hours after the attack…
How long did it take the Bush Administration to find OBL--and he was busy putting out promotional videos!

But let's be real--had they caught him in one year, you'd whine it wasn't six months. If they'd caught him after a week, you'd complain they didn't catch him in three days. If they had caught him the next day, you'd complain they didn't catch him before the attack. 

You just want to complain.

Ford
Should we revisit who had the first and best crack at OBL and whiffed long before 9/11/01?  That would be the same president who denied the needed military assets in Mogadishu (perhaps you saw the movie).  He's also known as Hillary's Hubby.  

You must spend your days in a perpetual state of dizziness these days, all this spinning is hard on the body and even worse on the mind.

 

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/18/2014 5:00 PM

Re: Mmm, irony. 



LuDog70 wrote:
CoachFord wrote:
LuDog70 wrote: 2 years to find a guy that the U.S. press interviewed 48 hours after the attack…
How long did it take the Bush Administration to find OBL--and he was busy putting out promotional videos!

But let's be real--had they caught him in one year, you'd whine it wasn't six months. If they'd caught him after a week, you'd complain they didn't catch him in three days. If they had caught him the next day, you'd complain they didn't catch him before the attack. 

You just want to complain.

Ford
Should we revisit who had the first and best crack at OBL and whiffed long before 9/11/01?  That would be the same president who denied the needed military assets in Mogadishu (perhaps you saw the movie).  He's also known as Hillary's Hubby.  

You must spend your days in a perpetual state of dizziness these days, all this spinning is hard on the body and even worse on the mind.
It doesn't take any effort to point out the mindlessness of much of what I see. I knew before I finished the last post that you'd reply that Clinton should have psychically divined what Osama Bin Laden was going to do years later. It's as ridiculous of an assertion as saying that the Bush Administration should have stopped 9/11 as there was memo warning of it. The assertions about Bush, Clinton, and OBL are just whiny complaints using hindsight, not serious points to be taken seriously.

That just reinforces my point--it's just a pathological need to complain about anything the Democrats do. 

Ford
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 3  Next >