|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: By Golly, Benghazi | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
quote: Personally, this 'coverup' is not even close to the many more horrific things critics of Obama can present. Am I missing something?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
WIKI writes: it interferes with the depiction that the administration is trying to convey that al Qaeda is on the wane Uhhh, . . . that was a quote from Wiki, not me. Did you not notice the quote was between quote lines?
Panda writes: Just more hate-filled and ignorant hyperbole. Uhhh, . . . thanks for your continued support.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
It seems the administration is admitting this now. I presume you are perturbed because it took a while before this truth was fully admitted?
I think we are in agreement, it was certainly naughty of the Obama administration, but is there something more to this? Can you expand please?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
DA writes: Damn you, Obama, for telling the truth! You misled the public by describing the attacks using the exact same words that G.W.B. used to describe 9/11! Well, let's be straight here. Obama ALSO used the false excuse of the anti-muslim movie to redirect anger. Big wippeedoo. But, I keep asking, is this all there is to it? Is this is the ONLY thing about this 'coverup' that has Coyote/Republicans annoyed?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
DA writes: And he knew it was false because ... ? And we know this because ... ? And he wanted to "redirect anger" because ... ? And we know this because ... ? Oh, right, because loonies made stuff up. I seem to be arguing for both Coyote and Obama at the same time. Roles I am not very comfortable with. I am guessing that republicans would have prefered that the Obama administration not expressed it was the anti-muslim movie until facts were known? Coyote, am I in the ballpark? Can someone from the right throw me a bone? Edited by dronester, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
Panda writes: You will continue to get what you deserve. Sayth the man who says I am hate-filled.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
whoaaa, calm down cowboy.
Yeeehowww!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
It's a shame one of the forum's Fox News viewers couldn't step up and clarify it for us.
Maybe tomorrow, eh?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
Oni writes: It's probably because Panda's don't have much sex. Panda is an enigma to me. One second, he'll scorn my hyperbolic-ass to hell. The next second he will cheer one of my posts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0
|
Drone writes: Personally, this 'coverup' is not even close to the many more horrific things critics of Obama can present. Am I missing something? DA writes: Yeah, you've got to wonder how the Republicans choose the things they're going to pretend to be outraged about. Well, Dr A, I am still wondering how the Republicans choose the things they are outraged about. Why do they pick minor items while letting big whoppers pass: 1. Although Obama (a supposed professor of Constitutional Law) has sworn to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution, he has continually attacked the Constitution; 4th Amendment against search and seizure (NSA domestic spying); 5th Amendment guaranteeing due process; 8th Amendment barring cruel and unusual punishment (Manning Episode), 6th Amendment, assuring trial by jury (drone assassination program). [sheesh, I thought Bush Jr. was bad] 2. The latest Obama secrecy initiative, The Insider Threat Program: it warns employees of non-defense Social Security Amin, Agriculture Dept, etc) that leaks to the media will be treated like espionage. 3. The Obama Administration has aggressively gone after more whistle-blowers than all administrations before it. But in actuality, the whistle-blowers ARE American and humanity's heroes, not traitors. If the republicans are really for a smaller, leaner government, less intrusive government, the above items would seem like easy choices to attack the president. Why not? Coyote? Faith? Bueller? Ghost of Buzzsaw?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0
|
Hi Xongsmith,
I liked and cheered Rhavins brief message in your thread. Message 5:
Rahvin writes: And I would agree that those who reveal secret wrongdoing are in fact patriots of the highest order, and we need brave people of that ilk to keep our societies honest. Neither Bradley Manning nor Snowden appear to be even remotely guilty of "treason" despite what several authorities say. So why don't the Repubs label Obama an enemy of the constitution? Spoiler alert, here's a doozy that may cause you to vomit:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0
|
1.61803 writes: The repubs are not for smaller, leaner government, less intrusive govt. They are for Drill baby drill, kill unions, kill abortion, disenfranchise minority votes, spy baby spy, wage war on terror, build a wall on the border and round up all immigrants. Did I miss anything? The Repubs (along with the democrats) CAN continue to be for those things and keep getting defeated in future elections when the minority voters become ever bigger. But if they REALLY want to stay in power, it would seem championing for the amendments and attacking Obama on his anti-constitutional playbook would play well to ALL voters. (Not just the gun-nut crowd.) I know I am somehow wrong with this kind of thinking. It seems to make too much sense. Still hoping a republican voter can spell it out for me . . . Coyote? Faith? Bueller? Ghost of Buzzsaw? Bueller? Bueller?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
Coyote writes: I'm libertarian. Not the same thing at all. quote: I'm not in the ball park? . . . So you wouldn't be inclined to vote for a political party that strives for a lesser intrusive government? Thus . . . If the republican party attacked Obama because Obama has demonstrated that he hates the constitution and especially the 4th amendment search and seizure laws, then you still wouldn't be more inclined to vote for the Republicans? Please clarify.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0
|
Coyote writes: Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free")[1] is a set of related political philosophies that uphold liberty as the highest political end.[2][3] This includes emphasis on the primacy of individual liberty,[4][5] political freedom, and voluntary association. It is the antonym to authoritarianism.[6] Libertarians advocate a society with a greatly reduced state or no state at all.[7] C'mon Coyote, stop being so paranoid. I am not trying to trick you via "quote mines." I used that part (Libertarians advocate a society with a greatly reduced state or no state at all) because that was germane to my asking the following question: So you wouldn't be inclined to vote for a political party that strives for a lesser intrusive government? Thus . . . If the republican party attacked Obama because Obama has demonstrated that he hates the constitution and especially the 4th amendment search and seizure laws, then you still wouldn't be more inclined to vote for the Republicans? Can you comment on your answer?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0
|
Rahvin writes: The general definition Coyote describes himself under could easily describe both individuals who vote Republican and those who vote otherwise Thanks for responding Rahvin, good job, but my specific query to Coyote remains unanswered. I am unsure why Coyote furiously ran away from it. It is like I was asking for his PIN number to his credit card.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024