Duck_dodgers007 Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 So, in as nice of a way that I can say it, quit being an arrogant prick. No, you stop being a stupid idiot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 And really, this is getting to a Bush/Goat Story level of ridiculousness now. Wow Tom, you must be frustrated or tired, thats the dumbest comparison/statement that I have read from you....................... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 You taking me to task for anything I say is a solid contra-indicator of the foolishness of any of my statements. So now you're taking the route that we should do the old "did, did not, routine. Not going there. When you want to make sense on this topic, I'll discuss. No, you stop being a stupid idiot! Tom, is that you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Tom is no friend of Obama but yall turn on him the moment he calls it as he sees it...to say everything is rosey here is naive but to comment as some of you have is nothing short of the exact behavior you hate that came unfairly against Bush in circumstances that by any standard had a much greater impact on the country. It's a topic of politics in here don't fool yourselves...no wonder Mr. Issa is so powerful these days Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Wow Tom, you must be frustrated or tired, thats the dumbest comparison/statement that I have read from you....................... Yeah...I was gonna say the same thing. We are far, far away from Bush/goat here. As I've said, this has been dripped out, day by day, for a reason. The most likely explanation: somebody(s) at CIA is pissed, and Obama/Hillary/Panetta/all 3 are going to have to pay the piper. As I write this...literally...they are dripping out yet another new piece of this story on FOX. I turned on FOX, for the express purpose of seeing if there was another piece of data/ of the story, and here it is. It doesn't even matter that it is predictable...so is the tide, and nothing stops that either. Now, it's a cable that says Stevens told Hillary specifically(they've used that word 3 times now) that he needed more security, and that there was meeting about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck_dodgers007 Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Wow Tom, you must be frustrated or tired, thats the dumbest comparison/statement that I have read from you....................... . Because he doesn't tow the party line? You are tool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Because he doesn't tow the party line? You are tool No, because that analogy is the kind of work we expect from you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Tom is no friend of Obama but yall turn on him the moment he calls it as he sees it...to say everything is rosey here is naive but to comment as some of you have is nothing short of the exact behavior you hate that came unfairly against Bush in circumstances that by any standard had a much greater impact on the country. It's a topic of politics in here don't fool yourselves...no wonder Mr. Issa is so powerful these days No Tom is suffering from the "Independent" syndrome. I don't mean the real Independents in the outside world, but many of the proclaimed independents here that get their breasts in a frenzy no matter what. The difference with Tom is that he does it from high above, where he thinks he belongs. No, because that analogy is the kind of work we expect from you. I wonder how this new "alliance" between Tom and Ducky will work out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 (edited) No Tom is suffering from the "Independent" syndrome. I don't mean the real Independents in the outside world, but many of the proclaimed independents here that get their breasts in a frenzy no matter what. The difference with Tom is that he does it from high above, where he thinks he belongs. Everybody belongs above politically motivated conspiracy theories against any president. I'm certainly no opposer of criticism and skepticism but this circus is act 2 of fast and furious desperately trying to find anything that supports the natural conclusion that Obama is personally liable of national shame and impeachment. Tom is above this. B/c he chooses to be. Edited November 1, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck_dodgers007 Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 No Tom is suffering from the "Independent" syndrome. I don't mean the real Independents in the outside world, but many of the proclaimed independents here that get their breasts in a frenzy no matter what. The difference with Tom is that he does it from high above, where he thinks he belongs. I wonder how this new "alliance" between Tom and Ducky will work out? Probably about a few seconds, but no way he should have to take stink from a complete moron like you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 (edited) Because he doesn't tow the party line? You are tool Hey Davey Dodgers or Duck in Norfolk or whatever fool name you're going by.......................its way past your bedtime so put away your Halloween candy and scoot upstairs. ...........and its "toe the line" but no one here expects any more from you. . Edited November 1, 2012 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Everybody belongs above politically motivated conspiracy theories against any president. I'm certainly no opposer of criticism and skepticism but this circus is act 2 of fast and furious desperately trying to find anything that supports the natural conclusion that Obama is personally liable of national shame and impeachment. Tom is above this. B/c he chooses to be. Fast and Furious? That was an embarrassment, this is worse. F&F: The career people cashiered themselves to go against the political people, because the political people tried to use law enforcement to push a political agenda. Those are the facts. Guys threw away their careers because wrong is wrong, and they did the honorable thing. This is much worse. We have guys losing their lives, after calling for help, that we could have easily provided? It wasn't like this was a snap decision made in the heat of combat, with incoming rounds. Panetta was sitting on his ass watching this happen. We don't know if the President was too. These guys are dishonoring themselves...by saying that there needs to be an investigation...to determine what they themselves did/didn't do? That's like saying you need an investigation to find out what you had for dinner tonight. Come on. Don't embarrass yourself, or dishonor yourself, by defending the indefensible. This ain't court, and nobody's paying you here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 (edited) Everybody belongs above politically motivated conspiracy theories against any president. I'm certainly no opposer of criticism and skepticism but this circus is act 2 of fast and furious desperately trying to find anything that supports the natural conclusion that Obama is personally liable of national shame and impeachment. Tom is above this. B/c he chooses to be. You are absolutely wrong in your conclusion that this is an Obama "witch hunt", at least on my part. Obama, by his actions has brought about more than serious doubts about his credibility (if you weren't already convinced before). As far as Tom goes, don't be a fool. He claims to "snipe at the retards from the balcony" when what he actually does is take potshots at everyone at both sides of the fence he's so securely attached to. Edited November 1, 2012 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Hope this isn't too "all over the place"............lol FOX News reported: The U.S. Mission in Benghazi convened an “emergency meeting” less than a month before the assault that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, because Al Qaeda had training camps in Benghazi and the consulate could not defend against a “coordinated attack,” according to a classified cable reviewed by Fox News. Summarizing an Aug. 15 emergency meeting convened by the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Aug. 16 cable marked “SECRET” said that the State Department’s senior security officer, also known as the RSO, did not believe the consulate could be protected. “RSO (Regional Security Officer) expressed concerns with the ability to defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support, and the overall size of the compound,” the cable said. According to a review of the cable addressed to the Office of the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Emergency Action Committee was also briefed “on the location of approximately ten Islamist militias and AQ training camps within Benghazi … these groups ran the spectrum from Islamist militias, such as the QRF Brigade and Ansar al-Sharia, to ‘Takfirist thugs.’” Each U.S. mission has a so-called Emergency Action Committee that is responsible for security measures and emergency planning. The details in the cable seemed to foreshadow the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. compound, which was a coordinated, commando-style assault using direct and indirect fire. Al Qaeda in North Africa and Ansar al-Sharia, both mentioned in the cable, have since been implicated in the consulate attack. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 The details in the cable seemed to foreshadow the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. compound, which was a coordinated, commando-style assault using direct and indirect fire. And Bush's August 6 PDB seemed to foreshadow the deadly Sept. 11 attack on New York. Except it didn't. "Seemed to foreshadow" is bull **** spin. Keep telling yourself "but this is different!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Hope this isn't too "all over the place"............lol . This tragedy is three-part. There was the denied requests for security before 9/11, the things that transpired on 9/11, and what appears like a coverup afterwards. I can't speak for anyone else, but the search for the answers here has absolutely nothing to do with the elections. On the other hand, If Obama is found complicent and wins reelection, does anyone really want Joe Biden as President after Mr. Cool gets impeached? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Hope this isn't too "all over the place"............lol. See? Drip, drip, drip. Are these the drips that happen before the flow? Or are these the drips that come after? If it is after, then yeah, it's a more than a little splashy, and somebody needs better aim. If it's before, then look out: that power outage Bills game will have nothing on the torrents flying around. And, nobody will forget flush, or whom to flush. And Bush's August 6 PDB seemed to foreshadow the deadly Sept. 11 attack on New York. Except it didn't. "Seemed to foreshadow" is bull **** spin. Keep telling yourself "but this is different!" What did it foreshadow then? "Put Libya on the list of stops on the President's "Victory over Al Queda" world tour"? Come on. I understand that most people slept through the Democratic Convention. But, really, you don't see the 2+2 here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 And Bush's August 6 PDB seemed to foreshadow the deadly Sept. 11 attack on New York. Except it didn't. "Seemed to foreshadow" is bull **** spin. Keep telling yourself "but this is different!" Tom, quit being an ass. The intelligence Bush had was non-specific. This was a specific concern and request for security. The UK and Red Cross left because of the volatility. We stayed with inferior security knowing that Al Quada was present in the area. You know you were incensed about this situation earlier in this thread. What are you doing, practicing for your debate team now by switching to the other position? Face it, this hasn't been one of your better days/nights and you would be well advised to do one of your disappearing acts when you know you're well behind. Take some consolation though, Ducky and TNB are with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxrock Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Specificity. Foreign to some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Everybody belongs above politically motivated conspiracy theories against any president. I'm certainly no opposer of criticism and skepticism but this circus is act 2 of fast and furious desperately trying to find anything that supports the natural conclusion that Obama is personally liable of national shame and impeachment. Tom is above this. B/c he chooses to be. And yet I'd be willing to bet Tom would agree that if Benghazi happened with a Republican president in office, Tyrone Wood's father would be on the Cindy Sheehan World Guilt Tour with every major news organization and Sunday news program you could find. News cycles would be non-stop about the Republican incompetency that lead to the deaths of four brave Americans, leaving a crushed father pleading with answers from a war-mongering WH that wouldn't even look him in the eye. The fact that the WH refuses to answer questions about this should bother you. And we both know if a Republican were in office, it would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts