rigney

The real question is, Was there information the Republicans knew, but didn't take steps to possibility avert a terrorist strike on the Benghazi Consulate?

Absolutely, it must have been those damned republicans again. None of the democrats in Obama's cabinet seemed to have a clue as to what caused it other than an angry bunch of religious pheasants.

 

The daily briefings. Unlike Bush, Obama goes to most of his.

And you know that for a fact? Prove it!

Are you seriously suggesting that presidents ought to completely disregard their intelligence briefings in favor of just making shit up without any evidence?

What intelligence briefings? I don't believe there has been one since "WE" killed ben Ladin.

Hey rigney, when Mitt loses will you record your crying, wailing and gnashing of teeth for us so we can enjoy listening to it?

Moon, any crying I'll do will be for the poor unenlightened folks who will attempt to put Obama back in office.

quote name='Sergeant Bilko' timestamp='1351259305' post='710441']

But what do you know of what happens overseas? Murdochs Fox news isn't exactly accurate. You even thought the British Queen actually had some power! You seem to have taken a leaf out of Mitts book, insulting more than half of the American voters at the last presidential election. Nice one.

Evidently I rationalized more about the Benghazi F.U. than Obama's "Lap Dogs".

Do you ever read what you have written? Are you suggesting that the Queens financial situation is in some way connected to her influence in politics?

 

If so why does that make it easy to think that the House if Windsor has something to do with Politics?

How else could the Windsor conglomerate have made all of that money other than through a political venue?

Interesting, someone using "intelligence" and George Bush in the same scentence, theres a first time for everything I suppose.

Yes, the comedy of Bush's mistakes is similar to Obama's schemes that captivated a bunch of well meaning but disillusioned people in 2008 that got him elected. I have to say one thing though, Barak is much more intelligent than those who voted for him. When he spoke of his dedication to protect our dignitaries overseas, I nearly passed out laughing.

You mentioned it in the first line of the first post in this thread.

Were you not paying attention to who it was that you accused of lying?

 

Oh, no I see you were not.

 

No Rigney,

I was referring to your allegation that someone had done something wrong.

Specifically, even after Obama's broadcast (Sept 12) you said "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" (my emphasis added).

Obama is part of his own cabinet.

He did say things (in that broadcast)

If you say that he said "nothing that rings of truth" and you know he said something then you are accusing him of lying.

So the answer to your question about when you accused him of lying was that you accused him of lying in the opening post of this thread.

 

Don't try to wriggle out of it.

 

After you have answered the question I have asked a number of times in the past, you might want to explain why it would matter if you had called the Queen a liar. Please don't try to use it as a distraction again. Hopefully you have realised by now that such a ploy won't work.

 

Here's the question again.

OK Rigney, I will try again

 

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 was referring to his lap dogs, not the president. On the other hand though, you might relate it to an "attack by terrorists" rather than a terrorist attack.

Post 95.

=Uncool-

Yes, I did refer to the president as being a liar in post #95:

Watching both FOX and CNN news I do feel a bit dirty at times. Especially when dignataries, especially our president tries to B.S. his way out of a tight spot. If a person can watch the entire video of Obama's address in the Rose Garden on Sept. 12th and not come away knowing that he was telling a damnable lie about the Benghazi attack during the latest debate, I feel sorry for them. If you are going to tell a lie, make it believable for Christ's sake. There is an old saying: If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull shit. This incident was just the latest in four years of his B.S.

And yes, I believe his endeavor to cover up that pile of crap in Benghazi was one of the best pieces of misinformation I've ever heard, as were those of Mrs. Clinton, Mr.Carney and other members of the staff. For shame!

In the quote box of the post you responded to with a request to know where you claimed he lied. That is, both your post #124 and my post #125. So, you've still got nothing?

I don't recall the presidents name being mentioned other than by you. I just said that the Benghazi thing stunk.

'ydoaPs' timestamp='1351180166' post='710265']

rigney, on 25 October 2012 - 10:45 AM, said: Were did I say Obama had lied?

Where I quoted you. That bit.

Ok, Where was that bit?

Still missing: rigney saying what the "stink" is.

 

Please, quote for me where Obama lied about this.

 

Were did I say Obama had lied? But now pray tell, after all of the rhetorical BS from our government, can't you smell that Benghazi stink clean over here?

What part of "that is what he was told at his intelligence briefings" do you not understand? Or is it that you do understand and just would prefer that he actually had lied?

 

 

 

Again, in clear words, what is the "fiasco" apart from FOX lying and spinning at the speed of light?

 

 

 

That seems to be about the gist of it.

 

 

 

Like he did the day after the attack and the day after that?

In all honesty, a rurricane couldn't blow the stink off of this Benghazi thing. And perish the thought that a democrat would lie!

I suppose its just as well that he never accused you of calling the Queen a liar, he merely asked you to justify the statements that you did make.

 

However, you really should know that the Queen has nothing to do with "European" politics, she is purely a ceremonial head of state, and an excellent tourist attraction.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. As rich as the queen is, it's easy to think the House of Windsor might have something to do with politics?

 

If the president would have simple admitted that this was a terrorist attack that got by our vigilant efforts to stop such attacks and then responded against terror camps in Libya, this would have all blown over in a week.

 

Yes, now his political opponents have one "on him" and they will continue to exploit it, and why shouldn't they? The President and his staff continue with their dishonesty.

 

It's important because the American people don't like dishonesty. They also don't like our country projecting weakness. Projecting weakness isn't good foreign policy.

Have you by chance watched the DVD video 2016, by D Souza?

The allegation is that Obama lied.

Rigney's contention is that Romney would have done that better.

It's plausible enough.

Romney has had more practice at lying.

Initially they were only questions John, not allegation as you suggest when I asked who really killed our Ambassador to Libya? And yes, they were questions that should have been answered honestly not glazed over, (lied about) by the entire democratic staff. I just hope this latest fiasco is enough to put Obama in mothballs. And if I may ask, why is a European liberal so interested in our one party American system of politics? And you will never read where I have called your Queen a liar.

I have to ask "Why is it so important to keep beating the president with this one thing?" Mistakes were obviously made, I can't see how any president or his administration or the government or whatever body is responsible for the prevention of these can be expected to never get it wrong.

 

This one thing does not show Obama to be incompetent, it's not even particularly surprising, terrorist attacks are as varied as they are difficult to prevent. I doubt Obama being wrong about this incident, on purpose or by accident, is as earth shattering as you seem to want it to be.

 

In the greater scheme of things how is this any worse than the outright fabrications being asserted by Romney and crew over and over in this campaign...

 

More importantly is there any reason to think Romney would have done better?

Yes!

I'm going to call BS on you here, Mr "You didn't build that". If Obama knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy whose third cousin's friends boss was thinking about buying the machines, more than likely you'd be on here screaming fowl play.

 

Think about it this way. It's illegal to purchase lottery tickets from a place where a person you know or to whom you are related is employed. And the lottery numbers are completely out of control of the employees. Right before the election, the son of one of the candidates starts buying up companies providing the machines for swing states, and you want us to give him the benefit of the doubt? Especially after Romney/Ryan keep setting the records for most lies in the shortest amount of time? Why on God's green Earth should we just give them the benefit of the doubt?

If you are explaining this video, you're right.

Just when I thought I couldn't get any more disheartened about the state of the political process in the US...

Yes, it’s a little scary that we have to worry about such skullduggery, but people of ill intent can do a lot of mischief if allowed to go unfettered. I’m sure many safeguards have been built into these voting machines since they come out some years back, but caution is never wasted when seeking honesty and truth. Maybe I’m gullible but somehow I can’t imagine Mitt wanting to have a single dirty vote to be counted in his behalf. As an entrepreneur, I hope Tagg makes a bundle by buying into this company. Wish I had a few bucks to do likewise. Because? Eventually we will all be using these machines.

Spot on! Protection of voting rights should be safeguarded, absolute and fool proof. Here are a few links to start with.

 

Electronic voting machines

http://www.politicolnews.com/tagg-romney-invested-in-ohio-electronic-voting-machines/#ixzz29lT2TX55

 

Ohio’s use of electronic voting machines

http://www.peoplesdefender.com/main.asp?SectionID=13&SubSectionID=83&ArticleID=122331

 

States that use electronic voting machines

http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/State_by_State_Voting_Equipment

You know what's a bit more interesting? Reviewing the comments... hold on... wait for it... I know this is hard for some of my right-wing friends... reviewing the comments IN CONTEXT:

 

Watch the video where he actually made the comment: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-18-2012/barack-obama-pt--2

 

You should note how it was Jon Stewart who introduced the term "optimal," and the president was quite clearly building on/connecting his point back to Stewart's words when offering his response.

 

The relevant exchange begins about four and a half minutes into the video.

That is a fantastic summation. My ignorance would have likely never let me figured it out. Thanks.

As has been repeatedly (and often) demonstrated to you, this premise is false, yet it remains at the foundation of your entire position. My problem is less with the politicians (and their corporate public relations arms like Fox News) who lie and more with our ignorant populace who keep allowing themselves to be spoon fed those lies unquestioned.

 

Your point is very simply wrong. It is unfounded, and nonsensical upon even remedial scrutiny. Yet... You keep repeating it. Over. And Over. And over and over again. What does that say about you? What does that say about us as a people?

 

Only FOX NEWS LIES! Man, you have gonads the size of an elephant. You may refer to me as being ignorant or even an idiot, but that only tells me that if I disagree with your standards, I'm wrong. Well! The only thiing I can say to that is, "Bless your heart".

What amazes me is rigney's obsession with the truth when his candidate and his party can be shown to be intentionally lying like a rug about very nearly everything. I don't mean "spin" or being misinformed i mean actively lying about everything. It is disgusting, I have to think it's a classic case of projection.

 

And yet rigney, you do your best to ferret out any possibility of lies from Obama and cling to them like they are the breath of life. The supposed lie you keep dwelling on is nothing compared to your boy Mitt, in fact it can be chalked up to the POTUS being misinformed or even needing the truth to be hidden for reasons only known to the POTUS, i see no way he could make any advantage out of lying about this.

 

But even if he is lying about this case, and it's quite possibly he was lying intentionally, how does that compare to Mitt and crew? The best way to see if they are lying is to see if their lips are moving. So many republican lies have been pointed out i honestly wonder if they can tell the truth but let Obama be mistaken about something that happened and you want to hang him for it?

 

How can you justify such a double standard? Why are Mitt's lies ok but Obama can't even be wrong without republicans screaming liar liar pants on fire, Mitt should be charcoal by now...

 

But even if (Obama) he is lying about this case, and it's quite possibly he was lying intentionally, how does that compare to Mitt and crew? The best way to see if they are lying is to see if their lips are moving. So many republican lies have been pointed out i honestly wonder if they can tell the truth but let Obama be mistaken about something that happened and you want to hang him for it?

Politicians are ingrained to lie Moon. Actually it's almost like breathing to them. My problem with Obama is not his political stance but his inability to do anything but brag about the unfulfilled promises of his past four years in office. If Mitt wins and does the same thing, or worse; we kick his ass to the curb come Nov. 2016 and get someone else. You gotta remember, "Success can walk the walk, Bullshit is nothing but trash talk" and at present, Romney is not President.

What happened on 9/11/2012 is that an organized military strike took place on our embassy in Benghazi. This attack took place in the absence of any protest by local Libyans anywhere near our Benghazi embassy. This was known by the State department within 24 hours of the strike as was given in testimony in House hearings. With this knowledge UN ambassador Susan Rice went on weekend talk shows telling the American people that the our embassy was overrun by mob violence resulting from protests stemming from the Mohammad video. John Cuthber provides a video where President Obama links the Benghazi attack to disrespecting the religious beliefs of others and calls it a terrible act. Why make this linkage? On the anniversary of 9/11/2001 a military strike in the absence of protests takes place on our embassy and the President blames this military strike on mob violence? Then on September 25 the President goes before the UN and goes on and on about the Mohammad video and its linkage to the Benghazi embassy attack. But the State Department said they knew with 24 hour that there was no protest that turned to mob violence against our embassy.

 

If you don’t see a lie in the above you have cotton in your ears.

 

Tonight on John Stuarts show you can hear the President of the United States say “When four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal.” Shocking. Not only that, it wasn’t just four Americans. Our ambassador was assassinated in a military strike on our embassy by al Qaeda linked terrorists on the anniversary of 9/11/2001. I think “not optimal” is a bit of an understatement.

It's amazing how the "optimal silence of truth" can be heard above a din of lies and deceit, making this Snipe Hunt just about over.

I think it's highly manipulative to imply something bad without stating it unequivocally. It's a ploy used by the unscrupulous, knowing that people will fill in the details when none are supplied.

 

I really can't say whether rigney is doing this consciously or is just mimicking the tactics of his party and the right-wing pundits, but it leaves me feeling dirty whenever I see it happening. It's highly insidious since the culprits can hide behind the insinuations, claiming they never really made any claims, and knowing that gullible people will imagine the worst.

Watching both FOX and CNN news I do feel a bit dirty at times. Especially when dignataries, especially our president tries to B.S. his way out of a tight spot. If a person can watch the entire video of Obama's address in the Rose Garden on Sept. 12th and not come away knowing that he was telling a damnable lie about the Benghazi attack during the latest debate, I feel sorry for them. If you are going to tell a lie, make it believable for Christ's sake. There is an old saying: If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull shit. This incident was just the latest in four years of his B.S.

In the mean time, you could answer the question.

What question? If you mean by chance that if the pronoun "I" were to be removed from his vocabulary, could this pompous ass make a full sentence? The answer is, no!

 

Heart broken? Riiiight.... Can you handle being pissed on and thanking god for the rain? If Romney wins the republican party will yet again screw us all, I didn't cry when Bush2 won, but the pain of what he allowed to happen will be with me forever... Everyone knows the SOB had those jets flown into the world trade center so he could consolidate his power and destroy the basic freedoms of the american public... right?

There are folks I'd expect to make such a statement Moon, but not a grass roots guy like you.

At this point it is apparent that all that really matters is winning... winning by whatever means necessary, we can all stand here and call the other side pussy communists all we want. Facts talk bullshit walks and so far Mitt Romney has shown himself to be nothing more than a lying sack of steaming monkey shit. His running mate is a tea party activist, i mean seriously, is he trying to lose? It's no better than McCain getting Sarah Palin as his running mate.

 

It's like he is shooting himself in the foot, wailing and gnashing of teeth? have you considered how silly that is going to sound when Mitt Romney loses? More importantly if Mitt wins and he continues the current republican policy of trickle down voodoo economics are you gonna use an umbrella when it starts to rain piss or lift you head up and take it like a real republican who is proud of being pissed on and being told it's rain? ? ?

The difference between us Moon is that I can handle another four years of Obama's preening, prancing and doing nothing should he win. But if he loses, you're gonna be heart broken.