rigney

What does that have to do with this thread, or with my post? I can't read your mind, rigney.

 

That false rumor has been refuted a number of times.

 

Uh, no. It was terrorists who killed off all these men.

 

Uh, no. Associating all of those other 9/11 protests elsewhere in the Islam world and the attacks on Benghazi was an obvious connection. After the fact, it turned out to be wrong. It wasn't a lie, it was just poor intelligence. It was the CIA, not liberal mindedness, that originally made this connection, and was the CIA that later refuted this initial intelligence. There was no intelligence failure here. Very often, early intelligence is not quite accurate, sometimes very inaccurate.

 

There is a failure here, but it's on the part of the right wing media and some in the Republican party. The failure is expecting initial intelligence to be perfect. It isn't, it never will be.

 

You are forgetting the House Republicans, who cut 330 million dollars from the administration's request for embassy defense.

 

You are also forgetting those terrorists. The fault for all of this is largely theirs.

$330 million! Chump change. Hasn't the presidents wife spent almost that on vacations these past four years? And terrorists'! How inane to accuse them of doing their job? Are you totally unaware that terrorism is their primary function? Safely here at home and snug as a bug in a bears butt, it's easy to make such an observation. Putting your kahunas on the line without the backing of your government is another thing entirely. Oh Yes! The BSA thing was only to get your undivided attention.

Though I would have to say the Obama administration's actions towards this attack were totally out of line, where they did nothing for at least a month, there is no reason to call out a "Who really killed the ambassador?" card.

 

 

There is a point being that the Obama administration isn't really that good at foreign policy(especially when they entered Pakistan's airspace and territory without due process as required by foreign policy). If they failed to acknowledge the fact that they did this, of course this situation was really likely to happen. People in the Middle East, especially Libya, were angered and are angered by what has been going on, which then leads to the Ambassador's death.

 

In my opinion, Obama already knew that the Ambassador was facing some sort of threat. The commanders of the soldiers that went to Libya were interviewed and they even said that these Navy Seals had to volunteer because Obama refused to give support to the Ambassador. Well done Obama, you just killed off all these men.

 

Now on to the other points. It was even said that the video wasn't EVEN close to the reason why they "outraged." The media even tried to "hide" the information due to their liberal mindedness(no offense to liberals).

 

So, I would say it was the Obama administration's fault for all of this, but if there was a conspiracy behind all of this Obama would be heading towards a different direction. Obama isn't a conspirator, he is just not good at foreign policy as he says he is.

With everything that has been said, thank goodness I've never accused this administration of conspiracy. While it still smells of a coverup, we won't know all the facts until these hearings are over and possibly not even then. Perhaps there was no malfeasance, only a comedy of errors by the entire cabinet?

No, I'm not surprised when political partisans put partisan gains ahead of country.

 

It is completely irrelevant that Democrats too have been guilty of this in the past. Two wrongs don't make a right. Moreover, the ugliest partisanship in the past several years has come from the Republicans. I've been around for a long time, and I haven't seen anything approaching the partisanship coming from today's Republican party. To see something similar, one has to go way, way back to the Democratic machine politics. That was a long time ago.

 

The Republicans lost the Presidency, lost seats in the Senate, lost seats in the House, and lost their hold in several state legislatures. This is despite the fact that the Republicans by all rights should have cleaned clock this last election cycle. The people tend to punish the President's party in extended tough economic times. Compared to what they should have done, the Republicans lost this election big time. This extreme partisanship is one of the many reasons the Republicans lost this last election.

 

That's not going to happen because that isn't what happened. What happened is that prior to the election, the Republicans tried to make a mountain out of this ant hill. It didn't work. They made that mountain by digging themselves in a hole. Sometimes the best thing to do when one is digging oneself into a hole is to stop digging.

 

A proper investigation would focus on determining whether the country's intelligence agencies are pursuing the people who really killed our ambassador to Libya. (Hint: It was terrorists, not Obama.) A proper investigation would focus on how we can improve things for the next time something similar happens, and do so without casting blame or aspersion. This isn't the kind of investigation that the right wing media or the Republicans want. They want a Soviet-style mock trial.

Were you ever in the Boy Scouts?

I've been on both sides of the unionization coin, not an easy choice when dealing with dishonest people on both sides...

Then you must surely know, there is no fence; only a rather broad line of ignorance dividing stupidity from stupidity.

The employees are now unemployed. Unless their true objective was to shut down the company and join the ranks of those seeking work, then they look (in hindsight) silly. The past misdeeds of Hostess doesn't change that.

If we are going to dig into their history before making pronouncements we may want to dig further than just the union's unbiased position on the matter.

Unbiased my as-! Just whose background do you suggest we explore first, the bad guys or the idiots?

 

you using the word "food" rather loosely aren't you?

 

You know me! Whether it's on the table, out'a the "jug" or on a break from doin' the back 40, food is food.

I was wondering the same thing. I cannot yet tell if it was the union reps who misread the situation or if it was the rank and file. And while in hindsight the union seems silly for not heeding the warning from management, I believe management made the threat to liquidate once before and did not follow through.

 

Sad day for everyone.

Unfortunately we will never know exactly what transpired that the outcome ended as it did. And yes, it's a sad day for the workers. Company officials and union organizers will simply go somewhere else and repeat the debacle. I'm not vindictive, pro or con; but somewhere in this life, greed vs greed must be eradicated, but how?

Welcome to the free market.

Beg your pardon?

rigney, there's a Tastykake program that can help you with the Twinkie withdrawals and the Ho-Ho jonesing. You need professional help, man.

Of course you know I was only seeking a bit of frivolous humor, right? But the closing of Hostess.is a very serious matter we all should consider. I don't know the exact income of those workers, but was it worth the pain they will now suffer during the holidays, because union reps demanded more than the company could afford? While these 18,000+ people will be in unemployment lines, those responsible for their folly will still be employeed and at some other location making the same demands on other companies. My Dad, Grandfather and I all fought for unions, fair employment and employee rights, not riches. Is this what equality and protection is coming to? Look at this video. it may say exactly what I have tried to explain.

rigney, there's a Tastykake program that can help you with the Twinkie withdrawals and the Ho-Ho jonesing. You need professional help, man.

Amen Brother! Get us hick kids turned on to a good food while in our forties or fifties and its worse than dope of any kind.

My sentiments exactly.

 

 

Apparently that is not possible.

Been wondering about your problem. Seems you understand cursive quite well, but can't rationalize the printed word.

 

It is a blathering rant, rigney. The title has nothing to do with the post, and the post is so full of hyperbolic excess that it's hard to tell what you are writing about. Why don't you for once try to write clearly and succinctly so that we can read what you wrote rather than having to try to read your mind?

Did you get up on the "right side" of the bed for a change, or are you always this nasty? Nostradamus wrote in quatrain, yet people of character and wisdom, not necessarily intellect; understood him. While I am no Nostradamus, where does that leave you? See if you might find some meaning in the following:

 

Into this life we are let

First only asking, then to our fame

Oh! So quickly do we leave

Taking not, but as we came.

 

It is a blathering rant, rigney. The title has nothing to do with the post, and the post is so full of hyperbolic excess that it's hard to tell what you are writing about. Why don't you for once try to write clearly and succinctly so that we can read what you wrote rather than having to try to read your mind?

I actually tried being succinct once with my wife and she slapped hell out of me. What I'm saying is, never tell a woman that a size 10 would fit her ass much better than a size 8. Actually, I've never known a "ginch" not to feel that way.

Huh?

 

I am not sure I even want to reply to this, but can you just state your point/question instead of going off on some blathering rant?

Well, if it's that far over your head or below your station, then please dont try. But a blathering rant? C'mon! What part of "world stability" do you not understand, or aspire to? Isn't this the modern day philosophy of equal opportunity and equal sharing that we are seeking so hard to attain? By the way, I deliberately left out politicians; for good reasons.

I'm posting this in politics rather than immediately putting it in the trash basket. A day or so ago it was announced that my favorite 2 condiments would no longer be produced. "HO-HOs and TWINKIES"!!! Oh Yes! Both are CONDIMENTS; I eat them with everything. But, My God, am I dreaming? A stupid little disagreement over union wages and Hostess closes its doors to 16-18 thousand workers? What the hell is going on? Who does Hostess think they are to deprive hard working Americans of their livelihood and others not employeed by Hostess? How many will there be involved? Then I ask myself, just how many people out there are guilty of believing unions provide such protection? Let me see now: There's K-12 Teachers, Auto Workers, Construction Workers, Cops, Firemen, Electricians, Welders, Plumbers and??? I'm sure that I've left someone out, but who? I know; Non-Union Workers. But then, they really don't count since they can't afford to get in a union. Anyway Hostess will likely not remain closed for any duration. A modern day Carnagie, Vanderbilt or Ford, who today are considered "Entrepreneurs", will let things settle a months or so, get into the cash box and re-open the doors to new hires. Oh! If you by chance worked there at the closing, perhaps your old job is still available, providing you take a hefty reduction in pay. I've got it!! Let's reduce working hours to 24 per week, put everyone back to work doing something with no pay. That way everyone gets the same respect regardless of their position. Hey! you want to talk about equality?

Ok! now I know who I forgot, Carpenters, Cement Mixers and Brick Layers. Everyone in the deal gets a new home with a 2 car garage.

So, from here forward, when a business closes for lack of funds; we keep everyone on the job at no pay. Of course, since a business must be kept aware of its progress, the "former owners" can be retained as mathematical consultants and controllers, but with no pay. Eventually everyone will have no money problems since there will be no cash flow in any direction. Might this be the beginning of a real Utopia? Anyway, I hate classifying people as Wealthy, Middle Class, Poor and/or Destitute.

The goal posts haven't moved an inch; in fact, this was the same question we've been asking you SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE THREAD.

Dude! My initial questions of this post on Oct.3 began with:

Who murdered our Ambassador in Benghazi, Libya? I know he is dead along with 3 of his comrades, but why? It has been a month now and Obama's cabinet has said nothing that rings of truth. Or are the Republicans still just grasping at straws to hurt this administration during the coming election campaign? i'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion on the issue.

Today is11/16/12 so tell me, just what part of that inquiry do you still not understand?

What specific 'snafu' happened in Bengazi, rigney? I remain unclear on that point. Can you help?

Afraid I can't satisfy your curiousity at the moment iNow since the goal post keep moving and the water is still very muddy. Thought I had a handle on the situation, but now I'm becoming as confused as you. Let's wait a few days to see how these inquiries proceed and maybe we can discuss it more. But the fact that four Americans have been murdered and there seems to be no clear understanding as to why, you and I both know something as such is considered a major debacle and usually referred to as, SNAFU.

Ok, fair enough. While I do feel you are putting words in my mouth, I see no benefit commenting further on your opinion of D H.

 

Which is the whole point in why I pointed out the errors in his post claiming Fox news is spreading a bunch of lies when in fact most were the facts, same as reported by other MSM. I was incorrect about one and Cap'n corrected me. Maybe you can correct me on the others so we can agree on the indisputable facts.

Wish I had your style Guy. Unfortunately the old gray matter doesn't function as it once did. But something as serious as this Benghazi SNAFU has to be continuously keel hauled until all of the barnacles are scraped away. And regardless of the party in office, my concerns would be exactly the same.

While you might understand what you wrote here, I sure don't. What are you saying?

 

It's probably best to start a new thread on Petraeus' sins and misfortunes; they have nothing to do with Benghazi.

 

The only ones out there who think that Benghazi represents an impeachable act are nutcases on the right, and a few congresscritters who have had one sip too many of that nutcase tea. My prediction: These hearings are going to turn up a whole lot of nothing, and finding that there is nothing there will have cost the Republicans a whole lot of political currency. Elections have consequences (something that the Republicans apparently have yet to learn), as do wild goose chases.

I do understand that coming from an uneducated Hill Billy, my remarks as you interpret them do not warrent semantics. But navigator laid out a pretty good framework as to why the whole schlemiel should continue to be investigated.

 

I lurk here from time to time to find what the left wing talking points currently are and I am rarely dissapointed, it is always amazing to see the

alternate reality many posters on this board live in, this post is a good example.

 

1. abc news

 

 

washingtontimes

 

 

 

 

2. Many news outlets have reported the statements made by Mrs. Broadwell that the CIA was holding prisoners, thats what news agencies do.

washingtonpost

usatoday

guardian

 

3. Hard to see anybody, with any military experience, that objectively looks at the details of the attack, come to a different conclusion.

 

4. Are you claiming the attack did'nt take place over seven hour period? There are testimonies and timelines that show it did.

AP

 

5. I guess you were unaware that there was a drone overhead during the attack.

 

 

 

See the AP link in #4

 

6. Not sure about the CIA or DOD, but a quick seach for General Carter Ham and you will find evidence that he was relieved of his duties for preparing a rescue team after ignoring an order told to stand down.

 

7. There is little evidence to support this, but there are some that claimed to know very early.

 

 

 

cbs news

 

8. Two weeks after the attack, Obama went in front of the UN blaming the video, blatanly lieing about the nature of the attack.

No one really knows for sure at this time other than those involved? But any blame game prodders or coverup participants caught lying, shoud be held accountable; regardless.

Dang it, rigney, what sandwich are you talking about? The sandwich made out of lies put out by Fox News? There's an easy solution: Get a better, more truthful news source. Taking a deeper look at my list,

 

• Prior to the attack, the Obama administration repeatedly ignored requests for improved security at the Benghazi consulate.
  False. The administration did bolster security to some extent. Whether they could have done more is grounds for a Congressional hearing. Whether the could have done more is also grounds for a Congressional hearing, but the primary recipient of this line of questioning will be Congress itself, and in particular, House Republicans. They are the ones who responsible for the huge cuts in the administration's budget request. A good portion of the blame for the inadequate security lies with the Republicans.
   
  
• The CIA held prisoners at that nearby CIA annex.
  False. The CIA has denied this Fox News claim repeatedly. In no uncertain terms.
   
  
• The attack was a carefully planned Al Qaeda operation.
  Not quite false, but to claim unequivocally that this was a carefully planned attack is a lie. The truth is that we don't know.
   
  
• The attack was a near-continuous, seven hour long fire fight.
  False. What happened was three separate attacks. The first was a very short duration one in which Stevens was killed. The second occurred about 45 minutes later when help arriving from that nearby CIA annex was partially rebuffed. Then final one occurred a full five hours later at that CIA annex.
   
  
• The administration watched the attack live from the White House situation room.
  False. No matter how many times Hannity et al repeat this, it's a lie. There was no live video feed.
   
  
• The CIA and DoD were told from the highest levels to stand down during the attack.
  False. The State Department, CIA, and Pentagon timelines show this to be false.
   
  
• The administration knew from the onset that this was an Al Qaeda attack.
  False. Yes, an Al Qaeda group did claim responsibility shortly afterwards. That's par for the course. These claims by terrorist groups cannot be taken at face value for the simple reason that terrorist groups lie. They always claim responsibility for all kinds of calamities, and only rarely for stuff that they did.
   
  
• The administration blatantly lied about the nature of the attack for weeks after the attack.
  False. The administration labeled this as a terror incident from the onset. They initially (mistakenly) connected it with all of those other demonstrations and incidents on 9/11 regarding that silly movie. Use your head. This connection was a natural conclusion, not a conspiracy. The administration did say that the incident was an out-and-out terrorist attack once enough intelligence had been gathered.

 

There is perhaps some blame to attach to the administration. Whether they took seriously all the pre-9/11 intelligence that strongly hinted of problems is in question, as is some of what transpired after the fact. Some of the problems are just problems that can't be solved except by pouring huge amounts of money into security or by sticking our heads in the sand. Neither is something that saner parts of both parties are willing to do.

Other than the four men dying in Benghazi, Petraeus is the only concern now. And regardless of if being FOX, Sen. Feinstein ot cabinet personnel who are lying, to lose such a vast amount of military savvy over a little piece of tail is total B.S. Dad always told me: "Son, the more you stir sh-t the worse it stinks, no matter who did it".

Terrorists did. Obviously.

 

That's obviously not the answer you were looking for, rigney. What you appear to want is for all of us to admit that

1. Prior to the attack, the Obama administration repeatedly ignored requests for improved security at the Benghazi consulate.
   
2. The CIA held prisoners at that nearby CIA annex.
   
3. The attack was a carefully planned Al Qaeda operation.
   
4. The attack was a near-continuous, seven hour long fire fight.
   
5. The administration watched the attack live from the White House situation room.
   
6. The CIA and DoD were told from the highest levels to stand down during the attack.
   
7. The administration knew from the onset that this was an Al Qaeda attack.
   
8. The administration blatantly lied about the nature of the attack for weeks after the attack.

Except for #3 (which we don't know yet), these are all lies put out by Fox News.

When I first asked, it was only a question? I suppose that me not caring for Obama's political views gave some of you reason to doubt my sincerity, but it had nothing to do with Obama personally. Then, after all of the see-sawing back and forth as to who was telling the truth from administration officials and none seeming to be match, yes; I became very suspicious. And then since the forum seemed so disinterested, I thought the question should be asked. As much as I dislike our presidents politics, I wish this sh-t sandwich was easier to swallow.

No, actually i do not live in Wilmington, I live in Castle Hayne, and yes the immediate area of Wilmington is a bit more liberal than surrounding areas, believe it or not i have not sat in a house in Wilmington watching the world go by for the last 40 years.

 

I worked for DuPont for 25 years, our plant was in the middle of Brunswick Co. democrat hell... I worked with, fished with, partied with, and lived around the people in this area and yes they are for the most part decent people... as long as you don't do anything overtly liberal in front of them like maybe suggest the world isn't 6000 years old, they tolerate us liberals...

Holy Crap! You mean to tell me it's older than that? And myself, I thought it was only 5,700 or maybe 5.800 hundred years old. "Just shows to go ya'".

Why, however, would I bother to answer any of his questions when he's failed to offer that same courtesy to anyone else in this community despite nearly 350 posts of trying?

Tell you what! Let's close this rag as of today since I am unable to a-- kiss in regard to your inquiries. I could play along with a Yea Massa, No Massa compliance, but since many of us hasn't your intellect, let's close this post. Agreed?

 

I live in the Deep South, I can categorically (more or less) say three things about this Place, The republicans are generally the party of angry old white men... The democrats are generally the party of angry old black men... and having money makes both those things disappear when the two interact on a personal basis...

Don't play games Moon. You don't live in the deep south, but in a refined and intellectual neighborhood of Wilmington, N.C. Perhaps even the Outer Banks? A lad from W.V. with your intelligence and rock star quality shouldn't take on airs of such deportment. Be a little more humble and congenial my friend.

I suggest that everyone put rigney on ignore until he stops being so lose with the truth...

Moon, if things are that bad, I suggest rigney be kicked off in toto!

When did you stop beating your wife?

 

Oh, also... how long have you been having a love affair with an albino dolphin?

 

And why do you keep saying that brunette children should be allowed to be taken as slaves? I can't believe you would support such a thing!

And you a college, (university?) graduate? Thank goodness my formal education ended with High School! But hang on, you will eventually get over your extemporized eloquence.

Rigney - That comment there did not pertain to anger or skin color, so your biographical information about working in fast food at 80 and having no mortgage is irrelevant. My comment pertained to you discussing those who "want something for nothing." I suggested that this group is a rather tiny bunch, yet they have been elevated as the cause of all that ails us by your manufactured reality information sources.

 

Tell us... who "wants something for nothing," rigney... and how many people are we talking about here? I ask because you're dismissing everyone who voted for Obama as being a part of that group.

Honestly, did you actually read what you wrote before posting it?

You don't seem to get that there are only a tiny few in this country who "want something for nothing," yet you assume these folks make up the entire group.

The VAST majority of the rest who fall into that 47% you're implicitly describing here who receive benefits and don't pay federal income taxes are military personnel, elderly people who have paid into the system their entire lives, people who were laid off through no fault of their own and cannot find work despite submitted scores of resumes each day... people who DO pay state and local and retail taxes.

How easy to take a thing out of context giving it a different meaning. You mention a statistical percentage of unfortunate people who somehow seem being denied an invitation into that well heeled supposed 1%. Well, let me tell you; I also fall into that 47% catagory, but rest assured, I am not an angry white, black, asian or any other group of bitter people. I'm an 80 year old and happily work at McDonalds 3 days a week.(evnings) By the grace of Allah and a frugal enterprising hillbilly wife, our home is mortgage free and between the two of us, have enough income to stay afloat. Believe me, I am blessed.

 

IggyPosted Today, 12:03 AM

Rigney is of course just as wrong to imply that educated people don't work hard to get their education.

Where did I make that implication Iggy?

Now! Can we please get back on the topic of who killed our ambassador to Libya.

Any of it, so many different interpretations exist i can't see how any of it can be asserted as true...

Maybe it's because I like Alan Jacksons music!?