rigney

My honest answer is yes! Most of the crap I read and hear in any press release makes me want to barf. But on the forum, for some reason, probably 90% of the rhetoric is left leaning, no matter how well defined, thought out or written. To disagree with a post leaning in a liberal direction makes the objector or questioner out to be a crazy right wing loony. This Benghazi thing is a perfect example. Yes, let's get off of the snow job of trying to erase the bad taste of four dead Americans and get back to something that makes even less sense at the moment. Other than the promise of mythical job creations, improved infrastructure, school loans, new schools, furthered education and $16 trillion dollars of debt, of which only one, (debt), has come to fruition after four years, what's next? Please, let's get on with this grand scheme of things.

Sorry about the delay in answering. But yes! Both!

Refresh me! What question did I refuse to answer? It has never been my intent to evade or subvert a question, but to answer one of which I have little or no knowledge is hard for me. I'm certainly not witty ot sharp enough to parse words with many of you but taking something out of context to make another look bad, isn't my game.

This is no witch hunt, just trying to get to the bottom of a bad situation. I thought it was amusing how Solidad Obrien tried to turn the congressmans words on himself to justify her position. The senator was only making the case that a counselet in Berlin or Paris doesn't require nearly the protection of one in a potential war zone. Let's face it, that embassy-ette was definitely undermanned. Other than false accusations the congressman quickly refuted that embassy funding had been cut by $300,000,000.00 and knowing there was the possiblity of an attack, what else can be said? And 20 dead as compared to four? There isn't a serviceman alive worth his salt who would have had the slightest qualms of defending that hovel in Benghazi, regardless of cost.

How much clearer can I be? I posted a link and commented on it as was done in the previous post. This was my reply. With all of the thousands of articles having been written on the Benghazi mess, the old adage "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with B.S." comes into play. Well, this congressman was definitely outgunned, coming up against a well known CNN newscaster with an even better line of B.S. (Turn my world) oops! I mean my words around. http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/10/rep-chaffetz-says-he-absolutely-cut-funding-for-embassy-security/ What is there not to be understood?

Where did you learn "bafflement-generation"? or did you borrow the statement from Mr. T ? Ah! I see, you're wanting to play musical chairs again?

You evidently have me mixed up with some left wing nut. I am definitely a "right wing nut". I'm not taking sides for or against the workers, hell; I've been one all of my life. Other than pre-arranged distribution settlements, should such a dilemma as this occur, everything else should be sold at auction to prove that two wrongs don't make a right. Then give the proceeds to the really needy not the greedy.

Perhaps I should have added verbal communication; like those of Carney, Rice and media lap dogs. Even Romney, Obama, Hillary and Biden had a few choice comments.

With all of the thousands of articles having been written on the Benghazi mess, the old adage "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with B.S." comes into play. Well, this congressman was definitely outgunned, coming up against a well known CNN newscaster with an even better line of B.S. (Turn my world) oops! I mean my words around.http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/10/rep-chaffetz-says-he-absolutely-cut-funding-for-embassy-security/

I really don't know if your statements are factual or not, but I would like to interject this thought.Other than those with a deep and abiding faith in a supreme entity none of us have a clue as to whom or what GOD is. Many scientists, unlike their religious counterparts have physical evidence that can be looked at as shiny beacons leading away from a creator. But is it that easy to differentiate between the two without a wealth of further and future knowledge? A diehard atheist simply believes there is no GOD, while the agnostic is hoping the atheist is wrong. Religious sects laugh, knowing that through their faith and prayer; GOD is supreme. So, where are we with this dichotomy? Floundering in a sea of doubt? I’m an agnostic lost somewhere in the middle. In other words, I’m damned if I do and damned if I don’t. Of course I believe in science since it covers fields involving many brilliant people. But what if GOD is that unfathomable Intermediary joining both sides of the coin?

Call it whatever you like, but the video was of concern to me, not something to play "gotcha" with. I'm no theologian as you seem to be and able to turn Pauls' words into questions you expect me to answer. I'm looking for those answers, not more questions. If I understood his litany/discourse, this post wouldn't be necessary. As I told you earlier, I'm an agnostic; not an idiot.

I thoughy it quite apropos considering your demands for an answer. Are you, "Ahem"! Ok?

Neither, none and all! Pardon my ignorance but I had no idea of asking you a question. Pauls' verbal explination was strictly his own, not mine. As an agnostic I was just wondering how others in my position, or yours might interpret his message. I'm skeptical, but not an idiot. Then scientifically, conclusions had better be beyond question.

I didn't try making a point John boy, just presented a video. Others may buy into your questioning, just not me. The post was started to perhaps help some narrow minded lame brain with no direction. But then, maybe I was wrong?

rigney will answer questions John, but yours made no sense. It was Paul Harveys' comment and you posed your analagy as a question. Why would you think I have the answer? Go back to the original post, read and listen.

I'm always open to suggestions if they can be related in the normal sense. You make unfounded assertions and consider them gospel. Me! I'm not trying to beat on or snooker anyone, just looking for things that makes sense. And silly? As forrest Gump said: "Stupid is as Stupid Does". All I'm looking for are possible answers, not a fight.

Not if they are actually solutions I suppose. By the way, do you by chance have a book out on: Human Analysis? If not, you should give it a shot.

I'm not quite sure, but was just trying to find some answerable solutions in your initial statement.

Interesting! But can you tell me, other than the satisfaction of your own convictions and quotes; do you have any proof to substantiate the information offered?

Being an agnostic I can say pretty much say as I please in the religious portion of this forum so long as it is within reason, right? I'm wishy washy at best, but I came across this short video a day or so ago and it intrigued me. I remember "The Paul Harvey Show" from years past but never saw this version on any of his programs. It's interesting! And reading so much hyperbole here on the forum concerning religious and non-religious platforms, I thought it might be worth your time. It's onlyone mans opinion of his devil, but not necessarily mine. Chime in so that we might discuss it rationally. http://stg.do/9LDc

Before we strangle each other over a game of semantics, have any of you seen this laughable piece of crap that somehow supposedly propagated those four murders in Benghazi? Sicko's make fun of our religious freedoms here in America almost on a daily basis with Christians being largely the brunt of most jokes. But what are we becoming when our own rights can't be defended, yet we kiss up to another countries religious beliefs that this movie presumedly provided the boiling point for killing our envoys? Astonishing! It wasn't very well done, and only cute; in a sick way. [/url]

Only during the past couple of years have I noticed that some have a particular knack for it, or am I just being presumptive?

I really like the way your democratic mind seems to function. Using unbelievable superfluous B.S. to gain the upper hand in an arguement and having no one buying it, you turn to hyperbole; it works wonders on the feeble minded. Your last statement speaks volumes of such absurdity. Quote: They can blame Obama for downsizing one of the busiest embassies in the world if something goes wrong? What a cop-out! We leave an embassy in Benghazi without a shred of protection and you quivel about pearing down a luxury staff in Paris or Berlin? Shame on you! But then I'm sure, the Folies Bergere and Moulin Rouge still have their attraction?

What budget? Perhaps Social Security? The fact people like me didn't get an increase these past two years may explain where their vacation and coke funds came from? Maybe the Paris or Berlin embassies should have been downsized? I don't recall either of them being threatened lately.