rigney

We should check many sources, but most of us can't be bothered.

If you are going to just use one news source, don't pick the one which research has shown leaves you knowing less than you would if you didn't follow the news at all.

I know! This will probably be considered trolling since it comes from FOX NEWS, but to me the link is just a way of trying to get at the facts, regardless from where they come.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/29/early-briefing-on-libya-strike-focused-on-al-qaeda-before-story-changed/

So you are sarcasm impaired? It is a parody...

Heck! And I thought your intent was for me to take it literally By the way, how's the weather down there?

50 ways to hate Obama....

 

Personally, I didn't think it was very funny. If you hate a man because of his politics, you are no better for your convictions. If you hate his politics and pity the man, that's another story.

How is that not the case? Every single concrete allegation has been shown to be a lie. Which is probably why you're avoiding them like the plague.

I don't avoid either view of an issue as some seem to do, yet I usually wind up being biased even while trying to be open minded. Your quote above tells me that you only want to see one side of the story. Look and listen to the following video. Do you honestly believe all of these men are idiots, political hacks and republicans? When the news was released about taking ben Laden out it was almost immediately released. But was it democrats or republicans who made that announcement? Yet, in the second month of trying to get at the bottom of this boondoggled massacre in Benghazi, we are no closer to truth than when we first started. Murdered American envoys?! Yes we seem able to live with that pretty well. But will we ever truly get to the bottom of what actually happend, and why? Tell me, at present; is this administration trying to hide some sort of culpability?

 

THERE's your problem.

I said primarily, not exclusively.

Shouldn't the media be neutral instead of positive or negative?

 

And just so you know, "liberal media" is another bit of spin you've swallowed whole. The media, even FOX News, isn't liberal OR conservative. It's not even real journalism, it's a for-profit business, interested in keeping you from switching channels or turning it off. They aren't there to inform you, they're there to keep you there so you'll watch the stuff their advertisers pay them for. Period.

 

That's why you should NEVER have just a single source for your news. You can piece together what's really happening if you look at multiple sources. A really good source is the one outlet that doesn't have commercials so it doesn't have to please advertisers. It's called National Public Radio. Now you know why Mitt wants to cut its funding. He'd much rather have everyone listen to Clear Channel radio.

Actually I like to use my own method of sorting out the differences of news media bias. At present I find a deep liberal as well as concervative slant to everything being propagandized concerning the happening in Benghazi. From the negativity input of the liberal left it seems the right is fabricating a bunch of lies to harm the presidents chance of reelection. From a concervatives view it hints of a coverup. As of now, I say take your pick. Eventually we will get to the bottom of something rezemblng truth.

In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.

No!Ignorance is not a choice if you use the functional logic of your brain. But stupidity is the brutish and blind denial of not wanting to differentiate truth from lies, even though you are totally aware of an issue.

THERE's your problem.

Really! What do you suggest?

This whole thread is all over the place.

A rather mundane way of expressing your view point, so how do you figure? What doesn't meet with your approval? The question is: What happened to cause this terrible massacre in Benghazi? I primarily follow FOX News for what I believe to be the best explinatrions, since the liberal media will say nothing in a negative way. With your help we may get at the truth.

I really am looking for answers, in particular I'd like an answer to the question I have kept on asking

Here it is again so you can answer it or admit that you can't.

 

 

Unless you are accusing someone of handing it out, there's no way I could smell the crap is there?

That's my point.

You are contradicting yourself.

 

So, lets get this straight

Exactly what crap are you saying is being handed out?

Who is doing it?

What evidence is there to back up your accusation (even if you insist that it's not an accusation)?

Since I seem unable too satisfy your questions, perhaps you might answer one for me. Why did the UK close its embassy in Libya prior to this massacre in Benghazi? Since the Brits I know certainly aren't cowards, they surely must have had a good reason.

Rather than adding to the red herrings about Obamacare, perhaps you should answer the question that you have been ignoring.

 

Unless you are accusing someone of handing it out, there's no way I could smell the crap is there?

That's my point.

You are contradicting yourself.

 

So, lets get this straight

Exactly what crap are you saying is being handed out?

Who is doing it?

What evidence is there to back up your accusation (even if you insist that it's not an accusation)?

 

I predict a non-answer- go on- be a devil- prove me wrong and actually answer the questions.

I'm not ignoring your question, but yes! my inquiry has now become a full blown accusation. I simply thought that with the truth syrum "only FOX" has delivered, you may have figured out the whole mess better than the president's staff has done. But then, you're really not looking for truth; are you?

More accurately, the CIA spokesman who presumably somehow somewhere reports under a division that Petraeus is ultimately in charge of:

 

 

 

Did anybody EVEN CLAIM that the CIA told others "not to help those in need?" Erm, no.

Does our government even remotely know what actually happened over there? Perhaps it's like Obamacare. Information only comes after the election has been verify and you read the results.

It may well be that, in the US, Romany is leading the polls, but in the rest of the world (where Fox isn't viewed as a news organisation), Obama is a clear first choice.

Unless he is leading in the US, it really dosn't matter, does it?

John CuthberPosted Today, 05:40 AM

It doesn't count if you generate jobs in China (unless, of course, you are in China.)

Romney hasn't created jobs in China, but as I understand it, Obama has.

 

Did you really just assume women will vote for Romney because they think they will be able to buy 'oodles of goodies'? Do you know how dumb that is?

No Ringer I didn't say that and take umbrage with your assumption! My point was: "WOMEN can and will be able to hold jobs once Romney is elected" and buy their own birth conyrol pills, if they want. The government doesn't buy my condoms or viagra.

Did you really just assume women will vote for Romney because they think they will be able to buy 'oodles of goodies'? Do you know how dumb that is?

Can't you see how dumb it was for the three million women now unemployed, who voted for Obama the first time around?

Even Romney winning in a landslide of all voters would not make an obviously and consistently rightwing politician like Obama a "socialist". Only actual socialist policies and proposals would do that.

 

The overlooked factor is how bizarrely fantasy-driven and unreal Romney's meager hints of definable policy would be in practice. They boil down to one thing and one thing only: tax cuts for rich people. Since when do tax cuts favoring the already cash-heavy rich create jobs? That's never happened and never will - it goes against even rudimentary, basic economic theory. You might as well sacrifice chickens under a full moon, and bury their innards under the local employment agancy's front steps.

 

As with any potential President: ever mind what he says, look at what he does. Romney has, all his life, used power granted him by others to move in on troubled, confused, debt-ridden organizations and sell them on his ability to turn them around if given control; whereupon he breaks them up to increase his cadre's profits, sells the pieces for more money yet, moves remnant operations to low cost areas and takes a cut of the savings, saddles the remains with heavy debt while pocketing the equity, and decamps.

 

I think he will continue to do as he has done. There's not reason for him to do any different.

You may be right! But If he does no better than what I've seen these past four years, we kick his ass to thr curb and try

again. Who knows, we may get another Bill Clinton?

This is a science website , not a theological one.

So you should believe what the evidence shows.

So, for example, you should believe that Obama is not a socialist.

BTW, in any other Western country he would be viewed as a fairly right wing Conservative.

Don't confuse fact with fantasy John. At present Romney leads in all categories except women voters, and once they realize a decent paying job will buy them oodles of goodies, Obama hasn't a chance. And if you are referring to political science 101, i'm not really into that stuff at all.

 

I almost wish the republicans would win this thing, a continuation of republican policies would result in the total destruction any credibility the republicans have, sadly it would also hurt our country in the extreme as well...

I hate to break your train of thought Moon, but I hope you're on your way to Sissonville and out from under that torrential rain storm coming your way.

Nothing in your post relates to mine, nor even begins to address the question I posed to you. It's as if you asked me if I was willing to come over to your house on Thursday and my reply to you was, "I like helicopters!"

 

Try to stop believing the biased propaganda that's out there, rigney. There are far greater bits of information available to you than the ones you so regularly reference.

 

Perhaps you should try that logo on for size. Better yet, believe what you think to be factual, and I will do the same. And you're right; ignorance is only relevent in the eyes, ears and mind of the beholder. Think about it. By the way, what was that question again. I would really like to give you an understandable answer, if I can.

Except Obama's policies have shown him to be slightly to the right of Ronald Reagan. Are you implying that Reagan was a socialist?

How do you rationalize that Romney was left leaning? The following to me is left leaning, and I do mean far left.

This DVD 2016 is not an Anti-Political film, but a thumbnail sketch of an iceberg lurking just below the waterline containing an ideology capable of sinking our nation as we know it. Is it part of a wish list for future generations of Americans?

http://2016themovie.com/media/

I truly hope you realize that "the Germans" are not some monolithic group that all have the same opinion, and that having criticisms of a candidate does not mean that you do not prefer that candidate over his (or her) opponent. I have criticisms of Obama, but I prefer him to Romney.

Absolutely! The German people are not monolythic today and haven't been since the very early forties when we and our allies bombed and battered them into submission. While I am not personally enamored with Romney's politics, I trust them far more than I do those being laid out by Obama. Does something have to be done to correct this nations problems? Yes! But not as I believe to be happening, our quick transition into a socialistic state. And yes, I am one of the poorest republican/democrats.

Aside from Pakistan, the rest of the world is overwhelmingly supporting Obama.

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20008687

 

You were saying?

 

 

 

Good. Look at the poll the BBC did with far more than 3 respondents.

Is that why the Germans came out with this some time back?

http://blog.beliefnet.com/watchwomanonthewall/2011/09/hum%E2%98%BAr-from-german-parades-floats-and-balloons-in-carnival-parade.html

I think its pretty safe to say that one should trust government officials over an online poll where n=3 and the question was worded as a very leading question heavily biased to one side.

 

I think it's also safe to say you are not a fan of valid statistical methods.

Valid statisticians and their methods, yes. B.S.experts, No!

You've got me! I've have to admit that it's about as reliable as listening to our government officials explaining Benghazi.

Good points. Actually, I think the main reason the GOP is so desperate to get Romney elected is because the cycle is swinging back, and the work Obama has done thus far will have a positive effect for at least another 18 months even if he isn't re-elected. This will make it seem like Romney jumps into office and the economy improves further. He may be able to capitalize on this for a while, but inevitably his policies will turn the cycle back downwards, imo.

 

That's why it's do or die for the GOP. If Obama gets another four years and takes us back closer to a pre-Bush economy, coupled with the international respect Obama has engendered and the prospects that focus on innovation in science and technology will mean for us in the long run, I don't think the Republicans will be able to hold on to the splintered and conflicted base they have.

You mention international respect as if it were some "Holy Grail" has in hand. Read the truth as to what the civilized world is thinking about him.

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/does-the-world-hate-obama-or-just-have-no-respect-for-him/question-290786/

It seems to be a matter of nomenclature but the premier is generally viewed as being part of the cabinet here.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1280554/The-coalition-millionaires-23-29-member-new-cabinet-worth-1m--Lib-Dems-just-wealthy-Tories.html

 

Anyway, it's a red herring until you answer the question.

 

Unless you are accusing someone of handing it out, there's no way I could smell the crap is there?

That's my point.

You are contradicting yourself.

 

So, lets get this straight

Exactly what crap are you saying is being handed out?

Who is doing it?

What evidence is there to back up your accusation (even if you insist that it's not an accusation)?

 

I predict a non-answer- go on- be a devil- prove me wrong and actually answer the questions.

Perhaps being so far across the pond our news reaches you later than we get it here. But for over a month and a half now, Obama and his staff are the only ones who seem unable to face up to the truth of what happened on 9/11/12 in Libya."HECK"! My Sanitary Engineer, (Bless his Heart); informed me the following morning "in detail", that our Ambassador and three other Americans had been murdered in Benghazi by terrorist the pevious night. Am I to take the governments word when I already have my own garbage collectors reputation to rely on? I think not!

Ahh Rigneys understanding of the world outside the US of A shows itself again.

 

Although it is deeply sad to have to witness such vile atrocities committed by religiously motivated, and misguided individuals, their actions in no way represent the views and attitudes of the greater population in their countries. I suppose the same could be said of David Koresh.

You're right Sarge. Condemnation of such madness must be addressed to those who demand change at any cost. My sadness is for those who must pay the ultimate price for such despicable actions.

 

Actually, Obama mostly READS the briefings, like Clinton did and Bush I before him. Bush II didn't like to read so he took up everyone's time with oral briefs.

Are you saying that reading the printed word (if he in fact does), is better than open discussion with his cabinet?

But aren't they cuter than the peasants yelling: "Allah Akbar", before blowing themselves and dozens of others to pieces?

 

John Cuthbar: Obama is part of his own cabinet.

No John! He is the boss of his cabinet, not a part of it.

 

Bless you Rigney, you have a woeful grasp of the facts. May I suggest that in the absence of more detailed information you take a look at the house of windsor using Wikipedia, it may not be 100% accurate but you really neeed to stop shouting about and drawing attention to your ignorance on here.

 

You know if this is the best the US has to offer George Washington must be spinning in his grave.

I know you mean well Sarge, but being rather dense and illiterate at times, on ocasionally I find it difficult for things to sink in. But information wise I thought google's explination of the entirety of "British Royalty" was rather interesting. Very long narratively speaking? Yes! But how much of it is true, one can only surmise. But politically accurate? Just as accurate as Obama's schemes are for his next tenure, should you vote him in again.