rigney

I call horse feathers , you are not lower middle class or uneducated rigney..

 

maybe lower upper class, or higher middle class but never lower middle class, maybe right of left lower upper middle class, or maybe lower higher middle lower upper class....

Perhaps if you had come down to the beach a couple of years back, you would have known for sure?

 

How can you blame him? iNow's post was post #312 in this thread. You've had 311 chances to bring this thread on topic and you have steadfastly refused to do so.

No. 311? " Damn", I can't believe this trash post has gone on so long. Oh I've tried to keep it legitimate , but somehow only a few of you want to stay the course. What are we going to do now that this crap is chin deep and someone is about to make a bigger wave?

 

Actually, I DO think there is something wrong with being uneducated and angry. I guess I'm one of those "educated elitists" Rick Santorum referenced who would love college to be available to everyone in the nation regardless of position in life.

 

All I'm saying, though, is DH was quite correct about the ever shrinking audience to which republicans are trying to appeal, and that almost no matter how yous slice the data this conclusion gets reinforced.

 

Even republican senator Lindsey Graham acknowledges this.

 

~Linsey Graham, Republican Senator from South Carolina (November 5, 2012)

 

~Linsey Graham, Republican Senator from South Carolina (August 2012)

 

 

I will, however, stipulate that my post above was sloppy and my point not well conveyed. I submitted it quickly between meetings at work.

 

---

 

 

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.

I have never denied anyone who is in need! My problem is with those who cry poor mouth and lie their sorry asses off.

I don't "want something for nothing." I want benefits that I've paid for. Big difference.

 

To address another point you've introduced... Returning the levels of taxation on the upper 1% of our country back to the levels that we had in place in the 1990s under Bill Clinton is not equal to "trying to rob the pockets of the rich." That's just hyperbole from the manufactured reality of your bullshit mountain news and information sources. It also ignores the obvious economic benefit of ensuring a minimum baseline and avoiding an austerity crisis.

 

Btw - You've also missed the point of the data. I specifically said the uneducated lower middle class, not the uneducated rich. Most rich are quite well educated since they can afford it, so there's always that.

Mmmm, and you are quite sure? Can you actually make the distinction between a rich educated man and an uneducated one who has busted his hump bringing his life to fruition? If so I'm impressed. Otherwise you are terribly mistaken about the uneducated hard working lower middle class of which I am proud to be one. But those who want something for nothing, are as offal.

Said another way, they've become the party of the lower middle class uneducated angry white men.

 

Determined to go off topic iNow? But if what you say is true, then why are you and those who want something for nothing trying to rob the pockets of the uneducated rich, regardless of party?

Strawman. I didn't swear anything of the sort.

John Cuthber, on 13 November 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:I can swear categorically that he's dead because someone killed him.

I did say that the guy was dead.

On this matter I'm prepared to take your word for it. it was, after all, you who asked who killed them.

Have you ever witnessed me categorically swearing to anything?

We can't refute your suspicions until you tell us what they are.

 

I can swear categorically that he's dead because someone killed him.

 

Now, why don't you tell us what it is that you suspect so we can look into whether it's plausible or not.

Who do you think did what and when do you think they did it?

And you are absolutely sure without any proof other than what you have read and heard provide you proof of these men being dead? My thoughts and suppositions are only theory, yet; you can swear without equivocation that our government wasn't involved in this atrocity. That takes a lot of faith.

Another point missed completely, another knee-jerk retort with no substance, another red herring thrown out to avoid the real issue.

With you having no facts to refute my suspicions, isn't your satement nothing more than innuendo and supposition?

 

He's dead because someone killed him. It's not clear who did that but it wasn't Mr Obama: he wasn't there at the time.

 

rigney: Not to mince words, but can you unequivocally swear to your statement?

 

"Obama's cabinet has said nothing that rings of truth."

What leads you to believe that what was said isn't true?

Is it just innuendo from Fox news or do you actually have credible evidence of dishonesty?

I remind you that I asked this a lot and you were not able to answer. You just evaded the question.

"Or are the Republicans still just grasping at straws to hurt this administration during the coming election campaign?"

Clearly.

 

" I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion on the issue."

If there was a discussion you wouldn't have seen it because it wouldn't have been on Fox.

 

Are you beginning to realise that there's a pattern here?

Consider this perspective. It had nothing to do with what "party" people are affiliated with. It has to do with facts vs assumptions on a science forum. You had questions, but they were all FOX News "loaded" questions, the type that imply something is wrong without actually stating that something is wrong. The type that makes viewers want to click the link to find out if there really is something wrong.

 

I've done this thousands of times, and not just with FOX News. It's classic profit-based hype masquerading as journalism. "Is our drinking water as safe as officials are telling us?" "The real reason why this German manufacturer won't sell to the US." "Invisibility cloak now a reality, scientists say." And when you frantically click to see "the truth", you find out that yes, our drinking water is indeed as safe as officials are telling us, and that the German manufacturer has discontinued a certain model and won't be selling it to any country anymore, and finally that this "cloak" that you thought made people invisible when you wear it isn't a really piece of clothing at all.

 

And that's exactly what your posts seem to do, rigney. They seemed to interject some kind of inference that President Obama pulled the security detail from Ambassador Stevens or secretly gave the order for the CIA to have him killed under the guise of a false attack on the embassy. When we asked for facts and clicked your links, we got nothing of substance, just suppositions being inserted like suppositories. Even your title sounded like some hokey tabloid sensationalism. So I hope you can see that it wasn't partisan politics that prompted the reactions here, it was your "nothing to do with being factual, only supposition" approach that raised the hackles of the science-minded.

 

rigney says: Perhaps then we should do away with all scientific research and religious thought since probably 90% of either is still little more than supposition and theory?

The answer to that question is exceedingly obviously "yes".

Do you actually believe the Democratic Party is more special than the Republican Party?

Fox New Sunday is one of the few reliable programs from Fox News. Chris Wallace is one of the few Fox News personalities who does not countenance the excrement normally promulgated on that network. So, what does this article say?

 

Feinstein said she sees “absolutely” no connection between the director’s resignations and the unanswered questions about the Sept. 11 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, in which Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed.

 

She said other major questions the committee will investigate include whether the United States adequately processed previous threats and attacks to increase security around the U.S. Consulate and nearby CIA annex in Benghazi.

 

So rather than look at the nonsense questions being raised by Fox News, let's ask some saner questions.

 

Should there be congressional hearings regarding Benghazi? Absolutely. US soil was breached and an ambassador was killed. That's serious stuff.

 

Was there any kind of conspiracy on the part of the Obama administration regarding what happened in Benghazi? That's nonsense. Almost all conspiracy theories are nonsense, and this fits into the nonsense category. There's nothing here, despite what Fox News says.

 

Was there confusion over what transpired in Benghazi? Of course. That's par for the course. The nonsense at Fox News over the claim that the administration knew within hours exactly which group was responsible is just that -- nonsense. Terrorist groups claiming responsibility for acts of terror that they did not commit is SOP. For example, a rather large number of terrorists groups claimed responsibility for the first 9/11 attack on the twin towers, some within hours of the attack. The intelligence community has to discount those claims, at least initially.

 

Should there be congressional hearings regarding the Petraeus affair? Maybe, maybe not. This is verging more on the "inquiring minds need to know" problem that plagues some lesser news print outlets, but also plagues Fox News.

 

Was there any kind of conspiracy on the part of the Obama administration regarding what happened with Petraeus? This too is nonsense. On the other hand, why the investigation proceeded after it became clear that there were no breaches of security, and why Eric Cantor apparently knew about this beforehand are worthy of investigation.

 

One last question, this one aimed at you, rigney: What do you think happened in Benghazi, and in the aftermath here in the US? I've asked this umpteen times and you have yet to give any clue as to why you think this event has any political significance.

 

To answer your last question aimed at me. Yes! I believe terrorist were responsible for using the date 9/11 to set in motion an attack on this outpost in Benghazi because they knew it was poorly defended. Having probed it earlier and bombing its walls with little or no consequence probably led them to believe it was an easy mark. But I would like to know how many bodies of their fellow terrorist were dragged away during and following the attack because of those two Navy Seals? "SEMPER FI". And yes! Dribs and drags of the information now coming to light suggests that there was a high level of government culpibility that perhaps made this attack much worse than it should have been. Will the outcome effect Obama? As president, I hope not. But as Harry Truman used to say "The Buck Stops Here". Will we ever know exactly what happened? Likely not, but perhaps Feinstein's group and the inquiry will give us a better understanding.

#1 3 October 2012 - 06:16 PM rigney Baryon

The questions I first asked to begin this thread were:

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.

Yes! After those questions, and the crap started to flow; I was pissed. I had done nothing more than post an inquiry asking for possible answers. but after a couple of months of stonewalling loaded with BS, I did question the present administrations involvement. After the first few replies on the forum to these questions I realized it was only a matter of which party you were affiliated with. After 2 months and having come up with your own opinions, you now demand answers from me when yours are only well thought out supposition and no closer to the facts than mine. Cheers

He was asphyxiated while destroying equipment, the CIA was in control of the Libyan embassy at the time and the head of the CIA has recently resigned.

I know it's a FOX NEWS guy doing the interview of Sen. Feinstein, but it is good information on the matter.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/11/feinstein-hill-inquiry-into-libya-attack-will-include-questions-on-petraeus-fbi/

It's been 15 pages; I doubt we'll ever get an answer from him. He'll give plenty of vague, vacuous innuendo, though.

ydoaPs, since you value my input as total ignorance; please direct me in the right direction. As I understand it you are now one of the moderators? Please conduct yourself accordingly rather than trashing me as an incompetent.

Rigney you old hillbilly, you need to come down out of the hills, the flatlanders have some pretty good ideas from time to time, you've been up a holler way too long, time to pipe in a little sunshine and pipe out some of that moonshine, listen to someone other than other holler dwellers...

 

Haven't you wondered why the Conservatives on here haven't exactly fallen all over themselves to support you? Intelligence isn't limited to Liberals but you won't find it on Fox News...

 

Come on over to the middle of the road, easier to see both sides from here...

 

Yeah, go ahead and claim there are no Conservatives on here...

you say that there actually conservatives on this forum? Believe me Moon, I wish it were that easy. But when Ruther's backs up practically everything I have attested to confirm my suspicions; I'm at a loss trying to convince you further. You guys on the left just keep on carrying the ball, but there's likely to soon be a huge brick wall in your path.

 

Evidence supports the concept that plain ignorance is better than FOX News-enhanced ignorance.

 

The above ^^^^ is a link to a study. Click it (with your mouse pointer) and it will take you to the article that mentions the study. Read the article. Look at the graphs.

 

Then, I guess, just blow it off like you do the rest of the substance we've presented that doesn't confirm your bias.

Substance, Mouse pointer! what's are those? Graphs to me are like pigeon droppings, where the biggest pile is formed, it will usually get the most attention.

Your ignorance is enhanced by not having any facts. You rely on supposition, innuendo and hazy recollection, while everyone else posting to your thread is providing links to actual testimony and articles that provide insight. The only links you've given support the fact that our embassy was at risk, like every embassy we have in areas where violence is a threat. Where you really fail is trying to pin this on the Obama administration when there are at least four other sources that are more culpable, including the Republican House and Ambassador Stevens himself.

 

 

Evidence supports the concept that plain ignorance is better than FOX News-enhanced ignorance.

Of what evidence do you speak?

Um, guess what? Obama and his crew, like Bush, the CIA, FBI or his cabinet with regard to 9/11/2001, didn't know the embassy had been attacked until it happened. And Bush, the CIA, FBI and his cabinet knew of the possibility of an attack by bin Laden, knew of the possibility of the use of airplanes in that attack, and knew that bin Laden was determined to strike the US, most likely in NYC. In fact, Bush got that intelligence in a memo a month before the attack, and then proceeded to take one of the longest vacations in presidential history.

Yes, Obama's vacation was much shorter and "possibly" regarded as a fund raiser, but it happened immediately after the fact; not before and is absolutely the truth.

 

Your FOX is showing. Most of us don't want our ignorance to be as enhanced as yours is.

I would rather my ignorance be enhanced by FOX NEWS than just being plain ignorant as some of you seem to be.

Again, innuendo, if you have a specific source of specific information please tell us... People all over the world have that capability, people down the street from me have that capability, hell I do given a few basic ingredients I can get from my local hardware store, I just lack motivation and like minded friends.

 

If they had specific information about an immanent attack how about showing us they did or at least who is making the claim they did. And yes, Fox News has shown it's self to be suspect in nearly everything they say, even truth is spun so far out of reality is is difficult to recognize... especially telling in the self touted so called No Spin Zone...

 

What do you consider specific information, someone kicking you in the gonads before you get the message that they are pi-s-d at you? You and your group can't accept proof of any kind unless it it is written in blood which most of you seems to have shed very little. Even the Feinstein gal from California wants answers to this dammned facade and she is a staunch democrat.. Enough crap is coming from this administration to overfill an outhouse. Your kind of folks seem to be those who would hold onto a hot horseshoe for minutes and not realizing they were being burned. And why did you not include this link? http://www.thedailyb...nniversary.html

Innuendo, and piles and piles of it, is all that you and Fox have put forth in this issue. You yourself earlier admitted that it is pure innuendo:

 

rigney, you have yet to answer any of the questions put forth to you in this thread.

• What, exactly, is the Obama administration guilty of?
  (Correct answer: They're guilty of not being able to foresee the future, and of initially incorrectly reading things due to the fog of war.)
  
• How, exactly, does the Obama administration benefit from Petraeus's resignation?
  (Correct answer: They don't.)

My my, the fog of war! And who really gives a damned about Petraeus retiring. Should the gal in question, and perhaps others he seems to have had liaisons with, should be considered foreign agents just because he admits having an affair with this particular one?

 

Here's a new question:

Why weren't you and Fox News calling for Bush's ouster after the 12 post-9/11 attacks on US embassies and consulates during the Bush administration?

Trying to add apples and orange won't do it! But since you seem to have all of the answers friend, from where do you get your unquestionable information?

So you are saying they knew of a specific threat at a specific time (higher than the general threat that is always present in parts of the world where the US is not particularly liked) and ignored it on purpose to the end of those men dying? So far you have not supported that assertion with anything other than innuendo...

Innuendo my a--. Do you believe everything coming from FOX is B.S.? When someone, no matter who; has the ability of blowing a big hole in the perimeter of your compound months before the actual attack, you damned well should be aware of an eminent danger instead of diminishing your defenses. In your defense, I can only assume this article was released by a bunch of right wing idiots?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/02/u-s-consulate-in-benghazi-bombed-twice-in-run-up-to-9-11-anniversary.html

Are you willing to say this F- Up wasn't quite the big whoop you say it was? Yes a man died but I don't see any big conspiracy to cover up or lie, to me it looks more like a black comedy of errors, just stupid bad luck and bad judgments after the fact, if a man hadn't died it would have been tragically humorous... Nothing but a series of tragic errors before during and after the fact.

 

To me it seems very much like the people who tried to make Bush look like an idiot because he didn't run screaming out of that children's class room on 9-11 when he learned of the attack, no matter what he did it wasn't right and it wasn't under his control...

But that is the big difference! Neither Bush, the CIA , FBI, or his cabinet were aware of the Trade Towers or the Pentagon been struck until it happened. Obama and his crew "did know" of the possibility of an attack on that embassay-(ette) months before the coup d'état was completed. By the way, like me; some of you misinformed lefties should also use Fox News as a means of enhancing your ignorance.

Are you willing to say this F- Up wasn't quite the big whoop you say it was? Yes a man died but I don't see any big conspiracy to cover up or lie, to me it looks more like a black comedy of errors, just stupid bad luck and bad judgments after the fact, if a man hadn't died it would have been tragically humorous... Nothing but a series of tragic errors before during and after the fact.

 

To me it seems very much like the people who tried to make Bush look like an idiot because he didn't run screaming out of that children's class room on 9-11 when he learned of the attack, no matter what he did it wasn't right and it wasn't under his control...

[]"Yes a man died" Moon, also 3 other brave men. That you would seem so superfluous to the event is beyond me.[/i]

But I don't see any big conspiracy to cover up or lie, to me it looks more like a black comedy of errors, just stupid bad luck and bad judgments after the fact, if a man hadn't died it would have been tragically humorous... Nothing but a series of tragic errors before during and after the fact.

Tsk-Tsk, Tell me Moon, have you ever been associated or even involved with the military?

 

The whole Bangazi thing is to cover up the failure media propaganda campaign they did on Libya from 2010 to 2011.

 

Death of low ranking ambasadars in warzone is extremely common and they only select the ones that are useful to report everywhere across the whole nation.

 

The guy who died is neither a great important asset to the Dominion nor was he a traitor.

How shallow! Put yourself in his position young man and think again on your statement.

Inow: timestamp='1352580798' post='712694']

Were you looking in the mirror when you typed that, perhaps?

The "sensible reply," rigney, is that there were certainly mistakes made in the Bengazi situation, but it was not some massive conspiracy or abuse of power. Despite this, the right cannot seem to accept that mistakes happened and are being investigated, and instead focus heavily on manufacturing an unfounded hysteria among low information voters like you.

But you are unwilling to say they were total F- Ups by this administration?

Emphasis mine.

In other words, a pack of lies.

 

You really should broaden your sources beyond Fox News. Fox News and their lyin' cohorts played a big role in the utter spanking the Republican party received last Tuesday. Romney lost Ohio in part because of the Jeep lie, Florida in part because of the $710 billion Medicare lie, Virginia in part because of the military lies. Those lies motivated people to vote against Romney, even though some might not have preferred to vote for Obama. Those lies also dispirited the Republican base, keeping some at home.

Are you trying to shy away from the issue or is it just your way of saying, "Daah!?"

 

We've noticed. That part was never unclear.

None of your gibberish has a thing to do with Libya. But then, why not give me a sensible reply. Enlighten me! I'm learning.

It doesn't really matter when you're making vague, debunked accusations. Implicating the government is implicating the Obama administration. And it's simply not true that the government blamed it "on an angry mob pissed off at a rovocative [sic] film about Mohammed for almost 2 months". You're repeating a lie.

 

 

In a large region where "impending volatility" is a day-to-day concern. To borrow from American football, we don't have the forces for a man-to-man defense. When you play a zone defense, you try to react as quickly as possible to threats as they happen, knowing that you risk giving up a little to prevent giving up a lot. In this case, it's tragic that the little involved a secondary embassy and four people's lives, but this is the real world and Ambassador Stevens was a big boy and knew the consequences. He chose to stay where he was.

 

 

Again, if allowing him to resign gives him the ability to uncover this deep secret you've been hinting at for 13 pages, why would Obama do it? And where does that fit into your latest squawk about there being something wrong with the story of Petraeus' resignation? You're making less sense than usual.

What can I say? Everything I've enumerated on this topic has nothing to do with being factual, only supposition. What do you propose that will prove otherwise? And believe me, only a dumb ass would believe we are playing sports of any kind.

I agree completely, so I'm wondering why you (and FOX News) keep saying the Obama administration did that? When something is debunked as untrue so many times, the fact that you keep repeating the untruth makes your stance vacuous at best.

Why do you assume that it's just me and Fox News? And I didn't say the "Obama Administration", but our government.

His only part was that his quick-reaction force wasn't configured in a way that would have let him respond to this threat. I blame this part of the problem the least since the Libyan government, the February 17 Brigade and the CIA team were supposed to have been in a much better position to offer support.

Wow! This wasn't the surprise attack of Dec.11, 1941 at Pearl Harbor or the Trade Towers in 2001. We were aware of the impending volatility in Benghazi months before it happened.

I don't get why you think Petraeus' resignation is some kind of cover-up by the Obama administration. Wouldn't he be more valuable as a scapegoat, openly blaming him for falling down on the job instead of this embarrassing admission? Where's the benefit, the motivation?

At the moment who is to say? But now that Petraeus is no longer a part of government, I believe he will testify. I actually pray that his testimony will not be detrimental to the inaction I visualize our government culpable of.

 

This is the kind of fatuous, slanted, manipulative propaganja that FOX News worshippers love to get high on. It has no substance, no motivation and plays on vague doubts and fears held by poorly informed and dimly educated mob-mentalists. What it fails to actually say gets gleefully filled in by the masses who then fail to question why this situation is supposed to be anything more than what it looks like.

Yes! That is exactly the reason for two sides of a coin. Half of the population are educated intellectuals, while the rest of us are depraved and unsophisticated boobs. But for us boobs, please stay on topic.

Yep. Nonsense.

 

 

That's exactly what I think. Now why don't you answer some questions, for once.

 

What do you think happened in Bengazi?

Why do you think Petraeus's is in the least bit relevant to this thread?

(1). From what i've read, all indications are that no one was at the throttle when this train jumped track on 9/11/2012. Either that or no one wants to be responsible for the wreck. To blame it on an angry mob pissed over a provocative film about Mohammed while damned near everyone but the lowest peon in Libya without an FM, and our government knew within hours it was a terrorist attack is ludicrous at best. (2) I don't blame Petraeus for the carnage, but irregardless, he was a part of it. As the debachle proceeded, people all over the world was aware of what was going on, over the internet. I can't prove this stink that I smell is real, but I higly suspect it has grown into a friginn' "Who Shot John" thing by many others. Do you think the Republicans are actually going to stop probing so long as the truth is still in question?

What in the world does Petraeus's going "All In" with his embedded biographer have to do with this thread?

 

Rather than piling on ever more right wing nonsense that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, why don't you try, just once, to answer questions put forward to you?

Nonsense? You thank my inquiry into Petraeus's resignation has nothing to do with the topic? Get real! Do you consider Moons question a matter of consequence in understanding the Benghazi incident? And do you think it has anything to do with what happened in Libya? You figure out what either has to do with this thread.

Moontanman, on 8 November 2012 - 09:52 PM, said: Rigney, were you conscious during the last Bush administration?

Rigney, were you conscious during the last Bush administration?

Let's get back to the original topic at hand Moon. Don't you find the odor of sanctiety just a bit strong in this latest story of General Petraeus's resigning because of his debaucherous infidelity? Face it moon, Bill Clinton was in the oval office right under the nose of our next Secratary of state having an affair, was inpeached but didn't feel it necessary to resign. And we're told that some nookie on a plane was the cause of this great general falling on his sword? I believe there's a 'Squatch in these woods Moon.