Jump to content

rigney

Senior Members
  • Posts

    2124
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by rigney

  1. Oh FFS, I reposted it in the last post, and you still ingnored it!

     

    Are you seriously claiming that the "thosands of articles" written by the media are an attempt to confuse, and further, that this is done at the direction of themgovernment?

    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.

     

    We spend so much time going around and around rebutting clear bullshit like this that nut jobs simply refuse to drop that we never get to focus on the things that matter and could actually improve our world.

     

    Why bother with the economy, or jobs, or climate, or infrastructure, or education, or healthcare, or ad infinitum when we could instead spend 3 months arguing with idiots about non-issues and manufactured hysterias?

    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.
  2. I was kind of hoping that you'd actually answer a question put to you. A longshot, I realize, but 'tis the season for hope. It wasn't rhetorical — are you seriously saying that the media writing/saying lots of things about a world event is both an attempt to confuse people, and that it's at the behest of the government?

    Sorry about the delay in answering. But yes! Both!
  3. I was kind of hoping that you'd actually answer a question put to you. A longshot, I realize, but 'tis the season for hope. It wasn't rhetorical — are you seriously saying that the media writing/saying lots of things about a world event is both an attempt to confuse people, and that it's at the behest of the government?

    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.
  4. So how do you think that link refutes my point? I gave you a transcript of the whole interview in MY link. How does your link support your position better than it supports mine? The Republican House cut embassy security budgets, and when that results in the loss of American lives, that's something they would want to keep from their ultra-conservative supporters. That's a much clearer reason for coverup than anything you've implied.

     

    It should seem quite obvious to anyone who's been following this story objectively that this is one of those scenarios where many things went wrong, giving a chance for a larger misfortune to happen. Take out any single item and it may not have happened, or it may have been worse. Give them the special team support that they requested and they still would have been outnumbered 8 to 1. Maybe we'd have 20 deaths to mourn instead of four.

     

    How much more security would you, in hindsight, have allocated to defend against 150 organized and well-trained terrorists? Now think about how, with tight budgets and all the rest of the mitigating circumstances, you would have justified such an allocation of resources based solely on the intelligence we had prior to the attack. Perhaps there is no witch for you to hunt here.

    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.
  5. How much clearer can I be? I posted a link and commented on it as was done in the previous post.

     

    Phi for All, on 22 November 2012 - 12:15 PM, said:

    "Not appropriated very wisely"? Seriously, you're playing the hindsight card on how the funding was allocated? Republican Jason Chaffetz, congressman from UT, member of both the Budget Committee and the committee on Oversight and Government Reform, when asked if he voted to reduce funding for embassy security, had this to say:http://transcripts.c...0/10/sp.01.html

     

    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?

  6. Perhaps you could, just for once, write clearly and succinctly instead of using bafflement-generation.

    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?
  7. Quoted from The Wall Street Journal

     

     

    " Hostess Brands Inc., in which the government this week challenged roughly $1.8 million in bonuses proposed for senior managers under a liquidation plan the baker submitted Friday. That challenge will likely be heard by a judge soon after a last-minute mediation failed late Tuesday between Hostess management and its bakers union."

     

    Yeah thats right Rigny, its all the unions doing, the management have no interest in the $1.8 million bonus they awarded themselves for liquidationg a company in Chapter 11.

     

    The management were probably advised by Bain Capital.

    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.
  8. Ironic, given your level of bafflement-generation.

     

    Thousands of articles by whom? The press? Isn't that their job? And how is that under the control of the government?

    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.
  9. "Not appropriated very wisely"? Seriously, you're playing the hindsight card on how the funding was allocated? Republican Jason Chaffetz, congressman from UT, member of both the Budget Committee and the committee on Oversight and Government Reform, when asked if he voted to reduce funding for embassy security, had this to say:

     

    http://transcripts.c...0/10/sp.01.html

     

    Since there is only supposition and "maybes" and arguments from incredulity to support some kind of coverup on the part of the Obama administration, I think it's equally likely that House Republicans are using this blame-game to take the heat from their austerity measures and budget cutting. Why aren't Republicans outraged that their control of the House led to cutting security budgets that resulted in the deaths of four Americans? None of the coverup scenarios smeared on the Obama administration pass the stink test as well as covering up underfunding of security that leads to American deaths.

    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/

  10. To refute the existence of God, I must first define what I mean by God. It seems to me that God, defined in the broadest terms, is simply: the origin of all that exists. I think most theists could agree with this basic definition (with the exception of Mormons, who believe God to have evolved from a human being). It presupposes nothing of God's alleged qualities such as omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience. Neither do we presume any attributes to God such as personality, gender, emotions.

     

    Having defined God as that which is the origin of existence, we naturally move to our second definition: what is existence? Again, we will go for the broadest definition possible and say that existence is anything within space-time (including space-time itself). This definition covers not only what exists at present, but all that has or ever will exist. It includes not only the physical realm of sensible phenomena, but all that is metaphysical as well; since even something as impalpable as a thought must take place within a period of time and must arise from a brain which occupies space.

     

    Having defined our terms, we will proceed with the following arguments:

    1. God is the origin of all that exists.
    2. All that exists, exists within space-time.
    3. If 1 & 2 are true, then God is the origin of space-time.
    4. If 3 is true, God cannot be within space-time.
    5. If 2 & 4 are true, God cannot exist.
    6. Therefore, God does not exist. God transcends existence.

    So there you have it. God is a self-refuting concept.

    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?

  11. Looks like trolling to me.

    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.
  12. So, you didn't have any idea that I was asking a question.

    Were the following not hints?

    The ? mark at the end of the sentence

    The bit where I said "Would it help me get you to answer the question I asked a few posts ago?

    This one: Are you questioning that what the supposed Devil wanted has happened or are you questioning the fact that we live longer?

    "

    or where I said

    "So, it's going to be another thread in which Rigney fails to answer any questions. "

    or where you said "rigney will answer questions John"

     

    or where I asked "I asked this

    Are you questioning that what the supposed Devil wanted has happened or are you questioning the fact that we live longer?

    about your post."

     

    or

    "I didn't pose my question as an analogy: I asked it to find out what you were on about.

    It should have been easy enough to answer."

     

    or where you said " Others may buy into your questioning, just not me. "

     

    or where I said "don't let that distract you from answering my question

     

    Are you questioning that what the supposed Devil wanted has happened or are you questioning the fact that we live longer? "

     

    OK, what does it take to get you to realise that something is a question, and to answer it?

     

    (BTW, "Neither, none and all! " isn't really an answer.

    I thoughy it quite apropos considering your demands for an answer. Are you, "Ahem"! Ok?
  13. Oops! Sloppy use of language on my part. I should have said that I asked you to clarify your question rather than point. Sorry about that.

     

    Please do so.

     

    BTW, you were the one who started the questioning that people might or might not buy into, but don't let that distract you from answering my question

     

    Are you questioning that what the supposed Devil wanted has happened or are you questioning the fact that we live longer?

    The reason I ask is that the video you posted tells you that the first is true and the increasing lifespan of most countries is well documented and widely discussed in things like this

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100324142121.htm

     

    So, in essence, I'd like to know which one you seem mistaken about.

    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.

     

    Sorry, what did you think that meant?

    Solutions don't need answers.

    Then scientifically, conclusions had better be beyond question.
  14. I asked this

    Are you questioning that what the supposed Devil wanted has happened or are you questioning the fact that we live longer?

    about your post.

    I'm sure that others will understand why I asked you to clarify your point.

    Paul has nothing to do with it.

    I didn't pose my question as an analogy: I asked it to find out what you were on about.

    It should have been easy enough to answer.

    Why not do so now rather than making up stuff about Paul and analogies?

    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?
  15. So, it's going to be another thread in which Rigney fails to answer any questions.

    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.
  16. Well, you introduced the word solutions: if they are solutions that are not actually solutions I guess that's your problem.

     

    Re human analysis:

    Would it help me get you to answer the question I asked a few posts ago?

    This one: Are you questioning that what the supposed Devil wanted has happened or are you questioning the fact that we live longer?

     

    Would human analysis help me to understand that you have realised that I won't have any serious difficulty evincing those points and that would make your question look silly?

    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.
  17. Sorry, what did you think that meant?

    Solutions don't need answers.

    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.
  18. Are you questioning that what the supposed Devil wanted has happened or are you questioning the fact that we live longer?

    I'm not quite sure, but was just trying to find some answerable solutions in your initial statement.
  19. And, when this devil had done all that, most people would still be better off, better informed and live longer happier lives than ever before. They would know more about the world and be less susceptible to superstition.

    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?
  20. 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

  21. !

    Moderator Note

    Rigney I have hidden your post with the video whilst the staff discuss whether we want to have it as content on our forum.

     

     

    rigney:This morning was my first look at the trailer and I was only mildly amused at best. I hope this is not censurship of a know fact to begin appeasing the feelings of other nations, while religious expression here in our own country is thrown to the curb and grossly defiled daily. And that, right here on the forum? While I will abide by your decision, there is no happiness in Mudville.

  22. 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]
  23. Has any one else ever noticed how frequently propagandists and morons use the ploy of accusing others of doing the exact things they're doing in order to distract attention from themselves?

    Only during the past couple of years have I noticed that some have a particular knack for it, or am I just being presumptive?
  24. Really? That's the way you think it works?

     

    Is this to give Republicans something else to test out their new mountain-making equipment on? So that when something happens they can blame Obama for downsizing one of the busiest embassies in the world?

     

    At this point, you're just playing a nice game of hindsight.

    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?
  25. It doesn't matter that it's not a lot of money. They cut it.

    It also doesn't matter if Obama spent that much on holidays, or even coke because that alleged holiday would have come from a different budget.

    Stop wasting time with irrelevant unevinced allegations of bad judgement.

    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?

     

    The administration's FY2012 budget request for the Department of State included "$1.5 billion in security for diplomatic personnel, information and facilities in the face of terrorist and other threats." That $330 million represents a 22% cut. A 22% cut is not "chump change." What the government spends on other items doesn't matter one bit. The administration cannot move monies from one pot to another.

    Maybe the Paris or Berlin embassies should have been downsized? I don't recall either of them being threatened lately.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.