Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 92      1   2   3   4   Next   »
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #1 
As I noted in another thread, getting some members on the record is very difficult to do.  There's a concerted effort to avoid any questions and when I ask a good one, it often goes ignored.  Soon after I forget all about it.  Thought rather than chase folks around, (well I'll try to make a better effort anyway), I'll simply ask here and continuously edit this post with new inquiries that come to mind.  As always, there is no obligation to take a position on any of them.



1)  What's wrong with Obama setting a red line and then making a decision to attack when it's crossed?

2)  Should a second attack by Assad be considered a red line by the US?

3)  Were you for the invasion in Iraq and against intervention in Syria?

4)  Do you think we should hold leaders accountable with force for using chemical weapons?

5)  Why would President Obama risk his entire Presidency, by instructing the IRS to scrutinize every Conservative tax exempt application with Tea Party in their name, when you realize many of these tax exempt organizations will take in and eat up donations that will never see the light of day in a political ad and would ultimately keep these funds away from the more powerful political PAC's?

6)  Ms. Rice went on the Sunday shows to discuss Bengahzi with only the information confirmed as of that date.  Regardless whether you believe this or not, why would the White House carry on a two or three day lie if they truly knew the actual information and knew it would soon be released?  What in the world does one gain from that?

7)  Do you think a sitting Congressman, who supports the President with regards to intervening in Syria, should tell the world our President is a community organizer and no Commander-in-Chief?

8)  Do you think a Congressman telling the world our President is weak invites attacks against our nation?

9)  Can you name a leftist politician and far left politician and explain the political distinction between the two?

10)  What should we do about individuals who have the money but refuse to buy health insurance only to end up needing dialysis or some other very expensive treatment soon thereafter?

11)  If passing voting laws stops some criminals from voting why won't passing laws requiring background checks on private sales at gun shows stop some criminals from purchasing weapons?

12)  Do you think a citizen born outside of the Country should be eligible to become President?

13)  We have over 6,000 registered members.  How many more different people do you imagine have visited this site without registering?

14)  If we phased out SS and Medicare as some on the Right would like to see happen, what would happen to old people who failed, deliberately or otherwise, to save any money for their old age thus ending up penniless with no family?

15)  Do you think we should try and phase out our Social Security and/or Medicare programs?

16)  Do you think O'Reilly was on point when he said if McCain or Romney were currently President, these GOP members would completely support the Syrian intervention?  Is there any question in your mind?


Most of my questions are designed to show a significant inconsistency from my friends on the Right, or to show how some of the positions they promote have not been thought out to their conclusion.  Many are deliberately designed to be unanswerable and are intended to make the case for the ideology I promote that much stronger.  The readers can come to their own conclusions based on the answers provided or the questions ignored.  I'll work harder at adding my thoughts here as opposed to risking being ignored in other threads.





pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,035
Reply with quote  #2 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
As I noted in another thread, getting some members on the record is very difficult to do.  There's a concerted effort to avoid any questions and when I ask a good one, it often goes ignored.  Soon after I forget all about it.  Thought rather than chase folks around, (well I'll try to make a better effort anyway), I'll simply ask here and continuously edit this post with new inquiries that come to mind.  As always, there is no obligation to take a position on any of them.



1)  What's wrong with Obama setting a red line and then making a decision to attack when it's crossed? Nothing, if that's all it was.  But he set the red line without thinking what to do if it actually got crossed.  He lined up no support domestically or internationally, initially was going to act unilaterally, decided on the spur of the moment to get Congressional approval, and finally was forced to react to actions out of his control and cede control of the entire affair to the Russians with whom our relationship has greatly diminished in the last 5 years.

2)  Should a second attack by Assad be considered a red line by the US? Only if it threatens our national interests.  In my opinion, it won't meet that standard.

3)  Were you for the invasion in Iraq and against intervention in Syria? Yes - entirely different situations with regard to our security interests.

4)  Do you think we should hold leaders accountable with force for using chemical weapons? Only if their use can be considered a threat to us.  Slightly related, should leaders be held accountable for genocide regardless of the method by which it is carried out?

5)  Why would President Obama risk his entire Presidency, by instructing the IRS to scrutinize every Conservative tax exempt application with Tea Party in their name, when you realize many of these tax exempt organizations will take in and eat up donations that will never see the light of day in a political ad and would ultimately keep these funds away from the more powerful political PAC's? His hubris lead him to think there is no way he could get caught and when it comes to getting elected, I believe he would do or say anything at all toward that end.  After all, if he had lost the election, there would have been nothing to risk anyway.

6)  Ms. Rice went on the Sunday shows to discuss Bengahzi with only the information confirmed as of that date.  Regardless whether you believe this or not, why would the White House carry on a two or three day lie if they truly knew the actual information and knew it would soon be released?  What in the world does one gain from that?  Because the lie conformed to the campaign theme Obama started that Al Qaeda was on the run and greatly weakened.  We now know that wasn't true at all but we were in the final stretch of a campaign and it was the best answer to get across the finish line.

7)  Do you think a sitting Congressman, who supports the President with regards to intervening in Syria, should tell the world our President is a community organizer and no Commander-in-Chief? First Amendment.

8)  Do you think a Congressman telling the world our President is weak invites attacks against our nation?  No, I think an actually weak president, such as we have now, invites attacks against our nation.

9)  Can you name a leftist politician and far left politician and explain the political distinction between the two? There are too many issues to answer this succinctly but Joe Lieberman comes to mind as leftist and Barack Obama is far left.  Lieberman truly understands that we need to have military strength (as one of many attributes) to be seen as a world power and he is willing to work across the aisle to get things done.  Obama has neither of those characteristics - his leftist ideology separates him from those that aren't as far left and disables his ability to seek common ground.

10)  What should we do about individuals who have the money but refuse to buy health insurance only to end up needing dialysis or some other very expensive treatment soon thereafter? They fend for themselves until they have nothing left to pay and then insurance pools step in - either taxpayer funded or insurance company funded.

11)  If passing voting laws stops some criminals from voting why won't passing laws requiring background checks on private sales at gun shows stop some criminals from purchasing weapons?  Not comparable.  Showing ID at the time of voting can't be circumvented by a black market.

12)  Do you think a citizen born outside of the Country should be eligible to become President?  Not if the Constitution prohibits it.

13)  We have over 6,000 registered members.  How many more different people do you imagine have visited this site without registering?  Don't know and don't care.

14)  If we phased out SS and Medicare as some on the Right would like to see happen, what would happen to old people who failed, deliberately or otherwise, to save any money for their old age thus ending up penniless with no family?  What happened to them prior to SS and Medicare being in place?


Most of my questions are designed to show a significant inconsistency from my friends on the Right, or to show how some of the positions they promote have not been thought out to their conclusion.  Many are deliberately designed to be unanswerable and are intended to make the case for the ideology I promote that much stronger.  The readers can come to their own conclusions based on the answers provided or the questions ignored.  I'll work harder at adding my thoughts here as opposed to risking being ignored in other threads.





woody

Registered:
Posts: 9,010
Reply with quote  #3 
Horse Hockey to your 14 questions. I have answered most all of them multiple times. Obama is inept, at the job he was elected to. He may be a nice guy, and a wonderful family man, but he was not properly vetted for this job, and it is obvious. If there were to be any saving grace to this administration, he would have had advisers direct him towards appropriate career officials that could have guided this administration through the bumps. Instead, he chose the Academia, and the Liberal Leftist to head his departments. The career governmental employees, the everyday state department employees, and the FBI and CIA stiffs, can't wait for this inept President to walk out the door. It is amazingly superficial what this President has to offer the world community, let alone the American public.
__________________
Rats flee from the sinking vessel. They traverse nimbly upon a rope, safely cleated to the dock, that is private enterprise. Socialism is dead, and tits up in the water. A bloated, death show, for rubberneckers of all classes to view.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,035
Reply with quote  #4 
I want to go on the record to say that I played the game.  My hope is that Dewey will discontinue hiding behind his "That's above my pay grade" or "I don't have the experience" or "I'll trust my president" type answers.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #5 
pabar - Thanks.  I think you answered a few, danced around some, and evaded a few others.  But you at least put yourself out there to some extent.  Hopefully you understood I would likely take some answers and offer up a counter.

7)  Let's start with this one.  The question was "should a US Congressman tell the world our President is weak?"  I think you evaded the question by not offering up your opinion on the appropriateness but let's go with what we got.  Many of you may remember the President once apologized for inappropriately referring to the GOP opposition as "the enemies" in a campaign speech about immigration reform.  The Right jumped all over him for these comments and continue to do so today.  In my example, I believe the comment by the Congressman was equally inappropriate but pabar excused it as "First Amendment".  The President sure didn't get this leeway.  I'll let our readers decide if they find this terribly inconsistent.

12)  As many will remember, large numbers on the Right continuously questioned the birthplace of our President thus implying he may not be legitimate.  I have no doubt many of these folks felt if he was born outside of the US, he didn't qualify to be President.  Now with a potential Presidential candidate from the Right being Canadian born, many will now lean in the other direction and suggest the Constitution may not prohibit it.  I'll let the readers decide how consistent this entirely different reaction appears to them.

2)  What is in our national interests?  This is obviously a subjective question and different people will have different opinions.  Many people believe if we allow Assad a second chemical weapon attack it should be viewed as a red line due directly to it's effect on our national interests.  They believe ignoring an attack will encourage even more attacks, maybe on our allies, and encourage other bad actors to feel free to use them as well.  In addition, these same people likely believe such attacks are contrary to our best interests due to the millions of refugees being forced into the territories of our allies, thus creating a huge burden and possibly weakening them significantly.  This certainly can't be in our best interests.  The point is it's not at all odd that folks think our national interests are at stake and a second attack should certainly be treated as a red line.  Nonetheless, despite this very solid case that our national interests are in jeopardy, many on the Right will still refuse to accept this alternative opinion and sharply criticize any action against Assad as if only they can truly know what is in our best interests.  The point being nobody plans on attacking anyone if it's not in our national interests.  That's a given.  I'll let our readers decide if only the Right can know what those interests are and if they should be welcome to dismiss the contrary opinions of others.

14)  You evaded this question too but, again, we'll go with what we got.  In the past, we cared for the penniless and/or sick elderly with our tax dollars.  Thanks to our social programs, that's been mostly resolved.  Let me ask, without social programs like SS and Medicare, would you care for them with our tax dollars, after there funds ran out, as you propose we do with the young man who refused to buy insurance?  If not, why not?



Maybe I'll address some more tomorrow.
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,296
Reply with quote  #6 
Dewey - many of us have answered many of these questions in various threads, often more than once.

This game is a little silly, to be honest, and I'm not sure exactly what's in it for anyone to respond here as well, other than to be attacked.

Your response to pabar's comments also shows how you will exaggerate to make a point, like you accuse others of doing.  Are you really still crying about a few people who questioned Obama's birth certificate?  That was quite awhile ago - time to move on.

Do you not think, if Ted Cruz runs, the left would kill him for that same thing?

This beloved President of yours is stumbling and fumbling.  It is his practice, and many of those on the left, to:
- make a statement (red line, keep your insurance, IRS is isolated to a couple of rogue agents in Cincy, on and on, I was never proud of my country until now, the NSA is not spying on ordinary Americans)

- attribute it to others, or disown it altogether (it was George Bush, I plead the 5th)

- outright lie about making the statements (I didn't set a red line, he never said you could keep your exact plan, what difference does it make)

- twist the statements or parse the words to change their meaning later (he really meant that, if you feel like paying 100 times more because this health care law raises your prices astronomically, and your carrier doesn't dump you, then of course you can keep it)

- demagogue your opponents (Republicans want to end SS, dump grandma over the cliff, phony scandals)

Until Democrats start being at least semi-intellectually honest about their President, his stumbles, and his debasing of the political debate in the country through demonization of his opponents, there isn't a whole lot of point to answering 20 questions and trying to have a debate.
masare

Registered:
Posts: 2,642
Reply with quote  #7 
Quote:
Until Democrats start being at least semi-intellectually honest about their President, his stumbles, and his debasing of the political debate in the country through demonization of his opponents, there isn't a whole lot of point to answering 20 questions and trying to have a debate.


Now that is funny...coming from the party who demonizes anyone who disagrees with them!

The truth is, figuring out what to do about Syria is a difficult, complex problem that requires reflective problem solving...but then again the Repubs just like to get their gun and go to war (unless it would make the democrats look strong--in that case they don't want to go to war) so what is the use of a civil conversation with this group?  Well not all Repubs but certainly the ones who post on this site!
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,035
Reply with quote  #8 

Masare -

See my post about Ted Cruz complimenting Obama.  See my previous posts agreeing that Obama did the right thing by seeking Congressional approval before attacking Syria.

See the numerous comments from Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Barbara Boxer, et al doing nothing but attacking Bush for eight years.

How insightful of you to point to us that Syria is a difficult, complex problem that requires reflective problem solving.  Would you please give us some concrete examples of what "reflective problem solving" involves?  Does it involve drawing a red line without reflecting on the consequences of such an action?  Does it involve a flip comment from the Secretary of State that accidentally becomes the trigger that allows the Russians to take control of the situation away from us?  Does it involve a last-minute decision to seek Congressional approval while simultaneously stating that an action can be taken even if Congress does not give that authorization?

Please elaborate with specific examples on your claim that "Repubs just like to get their gun and go to war".  Please further elaborate with specific examples on your claim that "unless it would make the democrats look strong--in that case they don't want to go to war".  I think the 50,000 readers on this forum would like to know how you arrived at these statements.

pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,035
Reply with quote  #9 
Masare - how about if you take Dewey's quiz at the beginning of this thread?  I would love to read your answers.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 23,601
Reply with quote  #10 
JG, masare and DC are exempt from Q and A, eventhough I Had the same thought.  They let dewey do all the heavy lifting but its the bantam weight division.  If you look back dewey accused CoachB25 of evading his questions during the election and started similar threads..  Folks tire from the silliness
__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #11 

Quote:
Originally Posted by pabar61

See my post about Ted Cruz complimenting Obama.  See my previous posts agreeing that Obama did the right thing by seeking Congressional approval before attacking Syria.



pabar - President Obama has praised some Republicans for coming to the right decision on supporting Syrian strikes and for making the right call in backing the immigration reform plan.  I'm not sure what your point is here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pabar61

Does it involve drawing a red line without reflecting on the consequences of such an action? 



Yes, the President draws a red line to make it known there will be consequences.  Now he's prepared to act.  I see no inconsistency here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pabar61


Please elaborate with specific examples on your claim that "Repubs just like to get their gun and go to war".  Please further elaborate with specific examples on your claim that "unless it would make the democrats look strong--in that case they don't want to go to war".  I think the 50,000 readers on this forum would like to know how you arrived at these statements.



pabar - That's like asking your side to elaborate on examples of Democrats wanting to pay people to do nothing.  It's an opinion.  Now if you want a supporting opinion, Bill O'Reilly point blank said if Romney or Reagan were President, the Republicans would be all in favor of intervention.  I think it's safe to say many have reached a similar conclusion.

pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,035
Reply with quote  #12 

How about if we let Masare defend herself?  I assume she's capable.  And how about if you ask Masare, JG and DC to fill out your form?

Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #13 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pabar61

And how about if you ask Masare, JG and DC to fill out your form?



pabar - That's fine but what is it you would be looking for?  The first four or so questions regard intervention in Syria.  It would make perfect sense regardless whether masare or JG was in favor or against action in Syria due to these weapons.  There is no inconsistency from them to search out.  Their position on these matters would be respected either way.  Now if they'd been posting here for months criticizing the President and asking "what in the world are you going to do about Syria", then I'd press a bit more.  But they haven't.  They didn't push and then bail once the CIC made a decision.  Can you see the difference?

Now which of the last ten questions would you most like to see them answer?  Thanks.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,035
Reply with quote  #14 
I'd be looking for the same thing you're looking for.  Let's find out if there's any inconsistency by having them participate.  There is certainly plenty of inconsistency from the left in general and I suspect there will be some from the left on this forum.  Also, your questions cover far more than Syria. 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #15 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikec
Dewey - ...there isn't a whole lot of point to answering 20 questions and trying to have a debate.


mikec - If you have no interest in telling readers if you have a red line against a second chemical weapons attack in order to keep your position safely unknown until you hear from Obama, then you're right about no point in having a debate.

If you are truly trying to make readers believe the Obama's aren't proud of their Country, trying to convince them Obama had something to do with the IRS scrutiny, or thinking you can convince readers Obama's red line didn't come with consequences, then you're right about no point in having a debate.

If you think it's right to condemn any inappropriate statement the President makes but to ignore inappropriate statements that Conservative politicians make, then you're right about no point in having a debate.

If you think it's in the Conservative's best interests to ignore the President taking out Bin Laden, and many other terrorist leaders in what has been an excellent campaign as CIC in reducing worldwide threats, in order to make a case he is weakling because politicians don't want to support his Syrian intervention, then you're right about no point in having a debate.

Lastly, if you think the best strategy is to simply pound this President on a daily basis and dismiss, deflect, or block any positive accomplishments along the way, then you're right about no point having a debate.

With regards to dumping grandma over the cliff, you've never heard me say any such thing.  If you're going to take TV highlights to pin on me and other Progressives, then it's time I start pinning the silliness of rape cannot lead to pregnancy rubbish that comes from your side on some of you.  As to some Conservatives wanting SS to be phased out, I didn't make this accusation until I had evidence of those who support such a move.  I won't pin it on you if you're not in that camp but please don't suggest I'm making stuff up.  I'll add that to my question list in post number one and you can see for yourself how many will answer one way or the other.

15)  Do you think we should try and phase out our Social Security and/or Medicare programs?
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #16 
I asked this question a few days ago and nobody commented. 

16)  Do you think O'Reilly was on point when he said if McCain or Romney were currently President, these GOP members would completely support the Syrian intervention?  Is there any question in your mind?


6)  Ms. Rice went on the Sunday shows to discuss Bengahzi with only the information confirmed as of that date.  Regardless whether you believe this or not, why would the White House carry on a two or three day lie if they truly knew the actual information and knew it would soon be released?  What in the world does one gain from that?  pabar says, "Because the lie conformed to the campaign theme Obama started that Al Qaeda was on the run and greatly weakened.  We now know that wasn't true at all but we were in the final stretch of a campaign and it was the best answer to get across the finish line."

pabar - I still want the readers to understand how telling a lie for six days, only for the truth of the event to come out on the seventh day, helps any election that's still fifty days away?  Wouldn't the accusation of lying outweigh any gain of spin?
JoiseyGuy

Registered:
Posts: 24,434
Reply with quote  #17 
Dewey - I think they would support whatever the POTUS set forth, and for all the wrong reasons.     Frank
__________________
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking. Where it is absent discussion is apt to become worse than useless." Leo Tolstoy

"Do not try to teach pigs to sing. It will frustrate you and infuriate the pigs who will unite in anger against you, and you will never achieve singing your song". Dr. Petersen
JoiseyGuy

Registered:
Posts: 24,434
Reply with quote  #18 
In our back and forth (mostly forth) here on Misc. I think that sometimes we forget that an administration is an administration made up of many people with influence, and certainly not a single person.  Sure, I remember Truman's "The Buck Stops Here"; however . . . For example, in the previous administration, I believe that there were at least 3 people in position to wield power, and who did, in effecting policy.   I read that Mitch McConnell, for example, said that he would do anything to make sure that POTUS was not reelected.  Party before nation?  I'm sure that there were Democrats who felt and did that also.  Wrong reasons I say. For our government to be effective, representatives must have a value that ranks well above the dollar, The Party, and the Corporation donor. It is called "patriotism" or simply "caring" or even "pragmatic idealism".  It is currently missing in Washington, especially in Congress.  Malcomb Muggeridge said that the position of President of the USA is very interesting in that a good man can do very little good, but then a bad man can do very little bad.  I suppose that he meant checks and balances, but what happens when the checks are used to create imbalances???       Frank
 
PS - This whole political situation in Washington is more like a football game than a boxing match.  Then again, I read this morning that the quarterback gets too much credit and too much blame.  No one bats 1.000 - oh yah, that's baseball. When I read some overly simplistic stances concerning foreign policy, I think that sometimes people view it as Obama in the ring against Assad - or maybe Putin.  Just isn't that simple.  "Let's kick some towelhead a$$" is just plain immature and silly. Maybe our government will operate efficiently and effectively when it grows up.    

__________________
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking. Where it is absent discussion is apt to become worse than useless." Leo Tolstoy

"Do not try to teach pigs to sing. It will frustrate you and infuriate the pigs who will unite in anger against you, and you will never achieve singing your song". Dr. Petersen
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,035
Reply with quote  #19 
Bill O'Reilly is not the sharpest tool in the shed, in my opinion and I generally put no stock in what he says.  Having said that, I do think some Republicans are very partisan just as some Democrats are very partisan and would be critical of a Republican POTUS where they are currently supportive of this particular POTUS.  I remember how Nancy Pelosi asked of George Bush, "Where are the jobs Mr. President?" when the unemployment rate was much lower than it is today.

Regarding the Benghazi lie, when you have the mainstream media in your back pocket, as Obama has for 5+ years now, the potential consequences of telling a lie are greatly diminished.

Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #20 
pabar - I'm no cop but I think you need a motive before accusing someone of deliberately doing wrong.  Why lie about it for six days knowing the truth will be out in seven?  If there's nothing to gain prior to the truth coming out, it makes no sense to me at all to do a short term lie.  On the other hand, I understand one playing safe and not calling it a terrorist attack before being completely certain.  Don't want to have egg on your face.  Sharing only what you can confirm while waiting for truth to be known makes perfect sense.  If the election were held during this six day period, then I'd see the motive.  Lacking any motive whatsoever, you haven't convinced me and it appears you haven't convinced the American people.  Same argument applies in the IRS scandal.  Until tonight, adios.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,882
Reply with quote  #21 
They lied because they thought they could get away with it. It shows how stupid and incompetent they are, fueled by arrogance.
Same with the IRS "two rogue agents in Cincinatti" story. Stupid and incompetent.
Same with all the NSA spying lies. They think it's top secret so they lie, but then Snowden reminds them it's not top secret anymore and exposes their latest lies. 
Stupidity and incompetence are the hallmark of this administration.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,035
Reply with quote  #22 
Dewey - I've never seen a more arrogant president than Obama.  I am certain he thought there would be no detection.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,882
Reply with quote  #23 
Maybe the moron in the white house was thinking the US media would run cover for him, like they do on domestic issues.
Maybe the moron didn't realize other countries have leaders too, and it never occurred to him that Libya's president would expose the lie.
Maybe the moron thought Americans wouldn't cdead when an Ambassador is killed in a terrorist attack.
Maybe the moron thought he could hide behind "classified" because the CIA activity in Benghazi was "secret."

Its hard to say what the moron and his minions were thinking, beyond just being moronic.

If I was a cop, I would want to know why the moron was blocking 30+ witnesses from talking to me, and hindering my investigation at every step. 

The list goes on and on, and it was all covered in the Benghazi thread once already. I guess Captain Rehash forgot about all those answers. Or maybe he's just intellectually dishonest.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #24 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pabar61
Dewey - I've never seen a more arrogant president than Obama.  I am certain he thought there would be no detection.


pabar - Getting away with it plays no role here.  Let me give this made up analogy...

Next Thursday the official Fire Department report comes out that my home burned down because I was barbequeing inside the house.  Just the same, I'm thinking until then I'm going to tell my friends it was because of an electrical short. 

Now I could go that route and get away with it for a week.  But what have I accomplished?  I'm really setting myself up.  I repeat, telling a lie when the truth is just around the corner does far more harm than good.  Nobody would ever choose to do this, be they morons, idiots, or whatever.  Are you guys just messing with me or do you even care if the readers believe your conclusions?
masare

Registered:
Posts: 2,642
Reply with quote  #25 
"Maybe the moron in the white house was thinking the US media would run cover for him, like they do on domestic issues."

FIB maybe you should take a long look in the mirror?  It's this kind of response that diminishes this forum.  I didn't read past this statement because all I could think was "it takes a moron to know a moron".  And there you have it...civil discourse gone...ridiculous arguments that only solidify already rock hard beliefs!  Minds like yours stuck in the steely vault of your own truths make any discussion a joke!
enjoy game day!
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,882
Reply with quote  #26 
Quote:
Originally Posted by masare
"Maybe the moron in the white house was thinking the US media would run cover for him, like they do on domestic issues."

FIB maybe you should take a long look in the mirror?  It's this kind of response that diminishes this forum.  I didn't read past this statement because all I could think was "it takes a moron to know a moron".  And there you have it...civil discourse gone...ridiculous arguments that only solidify already rock hard beliefs!  Minds like yours stuck in the steely vault of your own truths make any discussion a joke!
enjoy game day!


The difference is that I didn't turn my back on the US Ambassador to Libya.Or trot out some minion with bad information to lie about it. Or block a Congressional investigation. Etc etc 

But at least you finally seem to understand that Obama's a moron. Congratulations!
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,035
Reply with quote  #27 
Dewey - i think you're being intentionally naive.  Why did the administration push the video story when within hours of the attack, it was known that it was terrorism?  For a full week they kept up the video story when they knew it wasn't true.  You haven't come up with a plausible explanation for why they did that.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #28 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pabar61
Dewey - i think you're being intentionally naive.  Why did the administration push the video story when within hours of the attack, it was known that it was terrorism? 


I've answered this over and over.  The video had been confirmed as a fact and it was deemed possible by some that it may have been the reason, or part of the reason, for the actions in Benghazi.  The fact terrorists were involved and/or precisely who these terrorists were had not been confirmed to the extent it could be shared with the American people.  In other words, those who made the call remained uncertain exactly what happened and we still getting to the bottom of it all.
masare

Registered:
Posts: 2,642
Reply with quote  #29 
Are you monkeys still harping on Bengazi?  Bengazi?....21 potential 2nd graders did not start school this year because they live in a country that covets their right to own a machine gun more than they care about young innocent children being safe...and you guys talk at nauseum about Bengazi...you are Without a doubt the worst excuse for human beings!
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,882
Reply with quote  #30 
Those poor kids trapped in a gun free zone with no one to protect them from crazy people. Shame on America for not protecting our children.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.