|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Benghazi /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1350929927 Message started by WebsterMark on 10/22/12 at 11:18:47 |
|
Title: Benghazi Post by WebsterMark on 10/22/12 at 11:18:47 I’ve been away for a long time from this site, but I’ve popped in as a visitor from time to time to chuckle at the post from the Obama circle jerk group. Since my member-name hasn’t been deleted I thought I’d post that I noticed I don’t see anything about Hopey getting our ambassador killed in Benghazi. Sounds like that should be the perfect topic for half you guys who judge everything under the umbrella of who served and who didn’t. Seems like a president who was toking on weed instead of putting on the uniform would be ripe pickings. I mean come on, we’ve got post about CNN, voting machines, some completely idiotic post about food stamps being good for the economy and on and on. So what gives fellas? You cool with Hopey flying off to a Vegas fund raiser and a Jay Z get together while the poor guy’s body wasn’t even cold yet? |
|
Title: Re: Benghazi Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/22/12 at 11:31:03 Im a lot less concerned about who served than who lies to us about what really happened. It was a planned attack, not a riot that just popped up & got too big to handle & the embassy had been asking for security for weeks. Lies on top of lies on top of lies come at us from all sides.. believe what comes from the TV,, our parents did, our grandparents had the radio & then TV, & the lamestream media has been under the thumb of the POwers that Be for decades,, & our parents & their parents before them tried to vote to send the right people to DC to Right our Ship of State,,& they were lied to, over & over, just as are WE.. One must Dig for the uncomfortable truths. If things were as advertised, our nation wouldnt be in the shape its in. There IS an unseen force, the decision makers are not elected & Ford was right when he said if the American people UNDERSTOOD how our financial system actually works, there would be a rebellion. That the majority will not expose themselves to the facts & instead choose to Believe they already know, because they Live in America & have been to school & theyve seen enough on TV to believe the Feed is a good thing is the reason we cant take control. Thats the crux of the matter, the Fed. Kill that & the rest of the cancer will die. |
|
Title: Re: Benghazi Post by Starlifter on 10/22/12 at 16:14:03 Ha ha Webster, I knew you would keep coming back like a bad penny. ;D ;D "Toking on weed instead of putting on the uniform would be ripe pickings." ...yup, unlike that Vietnam 'war hero' Rmoney." ;D ;D ;D " I noticed I don’t see anything about Hopey getting our ambassador killed in Benghazi." It was his party that cut funding to the State Department. Sort of late for tears... Umm, oh yeah, remember a few years ago? There was *shrub ignoring intelligence that the 9/11 attack was imminent..he told his advisor: Okay, you've covered your ass, now beat it. Then the war criminal went on yet another vacation causing the death of over 3000 Americans. Oh yeah Webster, welcome back. Let the fun begin. ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Benghazi Post by WebsterMark on 10/22/12 at 16:23:27 ...yup, unlike that Vietnam 'war hero' Rmoney." Sorry, but maybe I missed your post slamming Obama for not serving. Shoot me a copy of that, will ya?.... It was his party that cut funding to the State Department two points to this and I'd really want to get a straight answer from you.... 1) are you suggesting obama didn't respond to security request because he didn't have the funds? 2) obama has borrowed and spent money like a drunken sailor. Are you saying he considered the options but couldn’t bring himself to increase the debt? What say 'ye? |
|
Title: Re: Benghazi Post by Starlifter on 10/22/12 at 17:35:17 "Obama has borrowed and spent money like a drunken sailor. Are you saying he considered the options but couldn’t bring himself to increase the debt? What say 'ye?" I say; Repeat After Me: Obama Cut the Deficit and Slowed Spending to Lowest Level in 50 Years. <snip> Romney's campaign website continues to host the following statement: "Since President Obama assumed office three years ago, federal spending has accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history." On Friday, we discovered yet another reason why this is a super-colossal lie. With the end of fiscal year 2012, the Congressional Budget Office announced the 2012 federal budget deficit: $1.1 trillion. Taken purely at face value, this number is enormous. Yet every Democrat, and especially the Obama campaign, ought to be telling anyone who will listen: Not only has the president cut the deficit by $312 billion during his first term (so far), but he's cut the deficit by $200 billion in the past year alone. And the CBO projected that the 2013 Obama budget, if enacted as is, would shrink the deficit to $977 billion -- a four year total of nearly $500 billion in deficit reduction. Okay, yeah, I get it. It's risky to mention the deficit, but not when you couch it in math and the facts. As I've documented before, the CBO reported in January, 2009 that the federal budget deficit for that fiscal year, which began on October 1, 2008, was already $1.2 trillion. President Obama's additional '09 spending added another $200 billion to the deficit, bringing the total to $1.412 trillion. Unprecedented and huge, but given the enormity of the financial crisis and the depth of the recession, there weren't many other options on the table. Add two wars into the mix and there you go. But since then, deficit spending has dropped precipitously. Why? Chiefly because President Obama signed the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act in February, 2010, which mandates that new spending be offset with spending cuts or new revenue. Yes, a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress passed this legislation. Guess how many congressional Republicans voted for the law. Zero. Not one. Perhaps during this week's debate, Vice President Biden could ask Rep. Paul Ryan who voted against the bill. Consequently, the president is responsible for the lowest government spending growth in 60 years, according to the Wall Street Journal's Market Watch. |
|
Title: Re: Benghazi Post by WebsterMark on 10/22/12 at 17:46:16 have you ever answered a direct question in your life? again... two points to this and I'd really want to get a straight answer from you.... 1) are you suggesting obama didn't respond to security request because he didn't have the funds? 2) obama has borrowed and spent money like a drunken sailor. Are you saying he considered the options but couldn’t bring himself to increase the debt? |
|
Title: Re: Benghazi Post by Doug B on 10/22/12 at 17:57:02 Although maybe not popular among the masses - I agree with JOG's comments I served in our military 1985-89 but I don't think its necessary to serve as President I've been around long enough(I turn 50 on Friday) to know that much of what goes on around us (and is related as fact by our media) is not what it seems and not just day-to-day little things Columbus discovered America We didn't know the Japanese were coming Dec 7th 1941 Lee Harvey killed JFK We didn't know about 9-11 We live in a corrupt society(starting at the top) with all Federal agencies corrupted to some degree and all for the sake of the almighty buck(or power) many believe as long as our only "real" choices are Democrat or Republican that its a choice of the lesser of 2 evils :( |
|
Title: Re: Benghazi Post by Starlifter on 10/22/12 at 17:59:10 1. Yes. 2,...did you not read my last post??? "But since then, deficit spending has dropped precipitously. Why? Chiefly because President Obama signed the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act in February, 2010, which mandates that new spending be offset with spending cuts or new revenue. Yes, a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress passed this legislation. Guess how many congressional Republicans voted for the law. Zero. Not one. Perhaps during this week's debate, Vice President Biden could ask Rep. Paul Ryan who voted against the bill. Consequently, the president is responsible for the lowest government spending growth in 60 years, according to the Wall Street Journal's Market Watch." Webster, admit it..you are a dupe, a stooge, a rubber-stamp 'yes man', a very low information voter, a person who falls for FOX nooze and the other propaganda sources and memes,100%. You are so gullible you take in this BS as gospel. You fall for their propaganda hook, line, and sinker. Hell, if you were a fish I would have had you for dinner.(burp). Too bad people of your ilk are allowed to vote...Maybe we do need an intelligence test to qualify folks like you to vote. ;D |
|
Title: Re: Benghazi Post by WebsterMark on 10/22/12 at 18:14:30 there, now, was that so hard...... So, you're saying the President of the United States let 4 men including an ambassador die because he wouldn't pay for it? Really? That's what you're going with? So he let them die so some obscure editorial writer could continue his favorable columns? Maybe we do need an intelligence test to qualify folks like you to vote yea, i agree, we desperately need an IQ test..... |
|
Title: Re: Benghazi Post by Starlifter on 10/22/12 at 20:09:29 You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. No sense debating nonsense with a low information, tea-bagging, right-wing, closed minded, kool-ade drinking, radical right, fact denying, FOX bot, lie spewing, Republican stooge. :P BTW, did you watch the debate tonight? Obama took your lying know nothing poser to the woodshed and opened a big can of 'whoop-ass on him. ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Benghazi Post by Starlifter on 10/22/12 at 20:13:04 Go to bed now Webster, you'll live to fight another day...not tired yet? Open one of Hugh Hefner's "Binders Full Of Women" and abuse yourself to sleep. ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Benghazi Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/22/12 at 20:28:57 Ive seen reports on the debate tonite, 2 by lefties, 2 by political atheists like myself. Looks like they saw different events. The lefties declare a win by a knockout by BAMmy,, the 2 other guys say Romney won, but not by a huge margin. & They dont LIke Romney,, they, like me, dont like either one, |
|
Title: Re: Benghazi Post by WebsterMark on 10/22/12 at 20:31:38 You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. again, no answers to specific questions which of course was expected. |
|
Title: Re: Benghazi Post by WebsterMark on 10/22/12 at 20:38:47 Ive seen reports on the debate tonite Jog; from what I saw, this debate will not move any dials. No one gained, no one lost. Talking heads saw it different of course. Overall, Romeny still has to be the favorite to win by a tiny, tiny margin if the election were today, but anything can happen in next two weeks. Will go down to wire. and I'd still argue with you it makes a huge, huge difference who wins. I understand your point the lesser of two evils is not much of a choice, but it's a choice nonetheless. Look at all the elections over the years and imagine the landscape if the other guy had won, good or bad. |
|
Title: Re: Benghazi Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/22/12 at 21:35:08 Okay,, I want everyone to make sure theyre sittin in a SAFE manner, nothing hard/sharp to fall on, nothing in your mouth to choke on,, Ready? I believe that had McCain won, we would be in WURSER shape.,. I have no idea what we would see from a Lame Duck Bammy, but it worries me, a Lot. But,, after seeing all Ive seen, I just cant make myself WANT Rmoney. |
|
Title: Re: Benghazi Post by WebsterMark on 10/23/12 at 04:58:40 No sense debating nonsense you're not debating. you made statements, i challenged, you changed subject, ran away and are desperatly trying to come up with some saying that you think scores points or something. Whatever. Point is, according to you, your president let 4 americans die because he wouldn't pay for security. So, provide evidence to the contrary. |
|
Title: Re: Benghazi Post by WebsterMark on 10/23/12 at 05:03:22 I believe that had McCain won, we would be in WURSER shape.,. that's a bit hard to believe, but not beyond the pale. Real healthcare reform that seperates healthcare from being an employer provided benefit might have started instead of obamacare which in the long run is our only way out of the healthcare mess. But this massive spending spree we're on might still have been the same. Senators don't make very good Presidents. So, i'll give you that as a possibility. |
|
Title: Re: Benghazi Post by srinath on 10/24/12 at 04:33:51 417374656273645B77647D160 wrote:
You mean like Mitt dodging the draft by running off to france ? And good for you repug's after cutting funding to several state department requests ... then this happens and you blame the guy in charge ... More of the "drain the oil" and blame the driver when the motor blows up double speak from the repugs. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Benghazi Post by srinath on 10/24/12 at 04:43:31 1B292E3F38293E012D3E274C0 wrote:
Obama may or may not have done more for security if he had the approval from congress. However, sadly we dont know, the cuts were made. Obama has not borrowed or spent anything in the discretionary non defence arena. People get older, and start collecting retirements - aka - we need to pay them, we agreed to, people get hurt in wars - and we have to treat and pay them, we agreed to as well as sent them to war under false pretenses. We have to. We have to pay food stamps to people we have pulled into the program - Bushies did that, however we are obligated to pay that. Again we agreed to. So expenses go up. Nothing we can do about that, unless we want to be called liars .. .which I know will not affect Mitt 1 bit, however we do like a president who follows the laws and commitments made by the govt. So this was a expense that had to be approved by the repugs, and did not, and so didn't get done. So people got killed. Unfortunate, but pay up or shut up Repugs. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Benghazi Post by WebsterMark on 10/24/12 at 05:15:13 So again, are you suggesting he let people die because he didn't want to spend money? (what is it with you and Star that you won’t answer questions directly ? Your knee jerk response is to say ‘yea, but look at what the other guy did….. Fine, point out what the other guy did, but answer the question first.) Obama knew fairly quickly what was going on (or should have known, others in the WH did), but didn't respond. The attack lasted 7 hours. When your ambassador says it's dangerous and needs more security, when everyone else has pulled out except you, when you have no hesitancy in spending millions and millions without a second thought, the idea that funding cuts which were (or were not) put into place are the reasons behind Obama saying no to any request for additional security is not really a viable reason now is it? |
|
Title: Re: Benghazi Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/24/12 at 05:40:47 Yea,, cant send Aid to a Hot Spot w/o Congressional Approval,, Thats a LIE, The Pres can send TRoops anywhere, any time, in response to imminent danger, & THEN get Congressional Approval. BUT,, we havent even done That in Years.. we dont have an approved war anywhere,,theres no declaration of war for anything weve been in since I can even remember. You guys are LAME,, It must just SUCK knowing, deep down, how absolutely, completely & totally WRONG you are,& how absolutely, completely, 100% screwed UP this act was by your Sainted President.,He CHOSE to not respond to a plea for help, multiple times, from a HOT SPOT.. Now, ya gotta ask yerself WHY he chose to allow those people to sit there w/o enough security, YOu can BET if it was because the Bubs wouldnt hand over the $$$, the MOMENT it went down, he woulda been on the TV, telling us all about How He was wanting to send in security, but the Bubs wouldnt let him,, But thats not what happened, is it? Noooo,, what happened was, we got Lies,,lies that would cover HIS lame ass,, &, he wouldnt have NEEDED to cover his as with lame lies IF he had the Bubs to blame it on,, SOOO, YOu Lame excuse makers, wake UP,, YOur excuse isnt even LOGICAL, |
|
Title: Re: Benghazi Post by srinath on 10/24/12 at 05:51:05 536166777061764965766F040 wrote:
Hey I dont have to answer anything you're not the boss of me ... your question is foolish ... Its a cot benefit analysis ... people do it all the time ... and its pointless to blame anyone in retrospect ... People buy small cars cos they are cheaper and cost less to run ... they get in an accident and get hurt/killed ... you go about blaming them for buying a cheap car ... or the flip side ... People use this same logic, or lack there o to buy lottery tickets ... then someone wins big ... they interview them on TV and end with ... "you cant win if you dont play" Sorry numbers are against you ... or for you ... its all numbers ... the $$$ may have been granted by the pugs, but we may have bought a aircraft carrier with it cos china is making noises ... and this could still have happened ... Numbers webster ... numbers. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Benghazi Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/24/12 at 06:36:47 Bull,, IF the Bubs said NO, No $$$ for this,, The pres would be screamin from every media outlet that our people died because the bubs wouldnt spend the $$. AND, the Commander in Chief Has th authority to respond to Imminent Threats. Lameness abounds here. |
|
Title: Re: Benghazi Post by WebsterMark on 10/24/12 at 08:07:37 your question is foolish ... it's not foolish; puts you in a tough spot perhaps, but not foolish. so what you are saying is the President of the United States said no to request for security because he didn't have the money? that's complete BS. i don't believe even Obama is that lame..... no, money had nothing to do with it. the guy spends millions like he's taking a crap or something. it was something else, far worse. |
|
Title: Re: Benghazi Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/24/12 at 09:42:44 I guess I missed something, What was the question you wanted me to answer. |
|
Title: Re: Benghazi Post by WebsterMark on 10/24/12 at 11:40:54 that wasn't for you JOG. so what is your theory for why he lied about the video? Like Trump; you were going to release something today. |
|
Title: Re: Benghazi Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/24/12 at 11:43:10 I done did it..Mita been in another thread,, |
|
Title: Re: Benghazi Post by srinath on 10/24/12 at 17:11:14 Yea webster, I think you should apologize for me being such an Idiot, much like the Idiot who said god intends you women to get pregnant when raped, then so it is. Its numbers ... when your resources are limited, you need to pick what you're gonna fix ... maybe you're so rich you dont have to worry. Last week I had to decide whether I was gonna fix something on my truck or my wife's car ... I opted to do it on my wife's car cos inspection was due ... I got lucky. The truck I got to as well before its steering was all shot to hell ... maybe I'd not have ... or maybe I would have ... Once again ... numbers fool ... Maybe he did spend the extra 1/2 bill on that embassy, then the embassy didn't get attacked ... wouldn't you have pounced on his stupidity for spending $$$ for no reason and adding to the debt ... dont even deny it ... you would have. Ergo ... screwed if you do, screwed if you dont. Make any facetious argument you want Webster, there are more than 2 sides to any of these BS arguments. Direct enough for you ? Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Benghazi Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/24/12 at 17:26:05 The pres has the power to send troops wherever,, to handle Imminent Threat, REad the Big C. |
|
Title: Re: Benghazi Post by WebsterMark on 10/24/12 at 18:10:26 Srinath if you think he didn't respond because he didn't have the money, well then i owe Starlifter an apology.... |
|
Title: Re: Benghazi Post by Starlifter on 10/24/12 at 18:19:20 Amen Bro!!! 8-)...apology accepted Webster. |
|
Title: Re: Benghazi Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/24/12 at 18:19:31 $$$$ exists for whatever They WANT $$$ for, |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |