FCP Bob 1,320 Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 That is so good. Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,320 Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 I Would Vote For Governor Romney If He Was A Democrat Mark Cuban, Blog Maverick Read more: http://blogmaverick.com/2012/10/25/i-would-vote-for-gov-romney-if-he-was-a-democrat/#ixzz2APdBDKXk Link to post Share on other sites
SAM_Hard8 50 Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 You should ask Candy Crowley Why so she can be wrong again? you said "Well, they said 24 hours later it was a terrorist attack." That's complete BS especially since every WH spokespersons and Barry all continued to blame it on the video and the supposed riot it created and made zero mention of it being a terrorism attack Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Why so she can be wrong again? you said "Well, they said 24 hours later it was a terrorist attack." That's complete BS especially since every WH spokespersons and Barry all continued to blame it on the video and the supposed riot it created and made zero mention of it being a terrorism attack ...but... he did call it a terrorist act, that was the whole point of that interaction in the debate... The real issue is that you're assuming that several things are mutually exclusive, but they don't have to be. There are several issues at hand: - Was there a protest or not - Was the attack spontaneous or long planned - Was the attack a result of a video (and the opportunistic environment surrounding the video) or not - Was it ordered by Al Quaeda or not One can pick and choose several permutations of the above and still have a logically consistent narrative. As of now, it appears that the one which best describes the situation is: - No - Not sure, probably spontaneous - Probably facilitated by general fervor in the region surrounding the video - Not sure, hard to even say what that means anymore The assault on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi last month appears to have been an opportunistic attack rather than a long-planned operation, and intelligence agencies have found no evidence that it was ordered by Al Qaeda, according to U.S. officials and witnesses interviewed in Libya. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/19/world/la-fg-libya-attack-20121020 Link to post Share on other sites
JustDoIt 10 Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 ...but... he did call it a terrorist act, that was the whole point of that interaction in the debate... The real issue is that you're assuming that several things are mutually exclusive, but they don't have to be. There are several issues at hand: - Was there a protest or not - Was the attack spontaneous or long planned - Was the attack a result of a video (and the opportunistic environment surrounding the video) or not - Was it ordered by Al Quaeda or not One can pick and choose several permutations of the above and still have a logically consistent narrative. As of now, it appears that the one which best describes the situation is: - No - Not sure, probably spontaneous - Probably facilitated by general fervor in the region surrounding the video - Not sure, hard to even say what that means anymore The assault on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi last month appears to have been an opportunistic attack rather than a long-planned operation, and intelligence agencies have found no evidence that it was ordered by Al Qaeda, according to U.S. officials and witnesses interviewed in Libya. http://articles.lati...attack-20121020 Bottom line Sam.............which shell is the pea under. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Looks like in fact the administration knew about everything in real time and refused to send help multiple times. ###Warning#### Link is to a Fox News story, I wouldn't want some of you liberals to get your panties in a bunch for daring to read propaganda that is sourced... Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11. Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to "stand down," according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to "stand down." Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight. At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,320 Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Nate Silver@fivethirtyeight Obama inches up in forecast after solid day in tipping-point state polls. Win chances up to 74.4%. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/ Link to post Share on other sites
custom36 4 Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 Looks like in fact the administration knew about everything in real time and refused to send help multiple times. ###Warning#### Link is to a Fox News story, I wouldn't want some of you liberals to get your panties in a bunch for daring to read propaganda that is sourced... Yeah, sorry, Fox News has zero credibility these days. This is a decrease from "only a little" credibility before Obama took office. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 Yeah, sorry, Fox News has zero credibility these days. This is a decrease from "only a little" credibility before Obama took office. Your decision to assume everything said on Fox must be false is a flawless plan that cannot ever be found wanting in logic. Link to post Share on other sites
JustDoIt 10 Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 Stephen Colbert offers to put his balls in Donald Trump's mouth for charity ($1 million): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlvQW7tI4aE Talking about balls 'Did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?' Biden's bizarre question angers father of Navy SEAL who died in Benghazi attack http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2223554/Did-son-balls-size-cue-balls-Bidens-bizarre-question-father-Navy-SEAL-died-Benghazi-attack.html Link to post Share on other sites
SilentSnow 1 Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 Your decision to assume everything said on Fox must be false is a flawless plan that cannot ever be found wanting in logic. Fox news(and the other neocon writers) is incredibly biased, routinely lies and has a huge interest in lying about this story as well. It doesn't help that their sources are anonymous. The only reason to even consider their perspective is that the official story to date has a lot of missing details. Filtering out the random crap, these seem to be the main objections(and my speculative first guess)- Why weren't there more people there in the first place? Because it was on 9/11 and there were lots of other places that might need reinforcing. Also, despite spending a truly absurd amount on the military, it is impossible to cover every remote possibility. Attacks this large against embassies are very rare. Why didn't they send more than the 22 fighters they did send? Because there weren't many more available and they thought that would be enough. Why weren't they ordered to rescue the diplomats in the consulate? For all we know this story is false and they were ordered to since the diplomats did get rescued. "Another email arriving about one-half hour later reported that shooting had stopped and that the response team was attempting to locate COM personnel"- this line seems to contradict the fox news story that they were ordered not to rescue the diplomats. Why didn't they call in an airstrike to support those fighting at the annex? Maybe they felt that it would have risked killing too many innocent bystanders and the risk to the personnel in the annex was not high enough. I think there are some legitimate questions that could be raised, but the apparent situation is not even remotely as bad as the psychopathic internet lynch mob is making it out to be. Another thing to consider is that Romney has started receiving intelligence reports and is no longer willing to talk about Libya. Since his election basically depends on Libya turning into a major scandal this is a really weird thing to do unless he has read the reports and genuinely thinks there is no scandal. I guess we will see if any of the rabid speculation on the neocon sites is correct, but that isn't going to happen until the hearings after the election. Link to post Share on other sites
custom36 4 Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 Your decision to assume everything said on Fox must be false is a flawless plan that cannot ever be found wanting in logic. I didn't say that. I said they have no credibility. Plenty of true stuff on Fox, it just happens to be everywhere else as well Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 Oh they'll report it..right around Nov 7th Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 Boy if I'm right I'm going to look good...if not, well, let's hope I'm right! Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,320 Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 This guy talks fast Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 Nate Silver predicted Obama would win 349 electoral votes in 2008. He won 353. I find it hard to believe Rasmussen was much more accurate than that. Link to post Share on other sites
colonel Feathers 5 Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Find it ironic that the people who will most likely be destroyed by another obama admin are his most likely supporters. Link to post Share on other sites
akoff 0 Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Find it ironic that the people who will most likely be destroyed by another obama admin are his most likely supporters. ironic, funny, sad, mind blowing, stupid...so many ways to think about it. Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 not true, is my favorite way. The poor and middle class have been getting hammered for 30 years, lotta GOP presidents and congressi in that stretch. Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Find it ironic that the people who will most likely be destroyed by another obama admin are his most likely supporters. And which people, exactly, are you talking about? Link to post Share on other sites
Ron_Mexico 4,219 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 I was curious of that myself. Do tell. And if I see this stupid thing going around FB about the soldiers guarding the unknown soldier one more time, I'm going to poop. Don't get me wrong, a noble gesture indeed. But why is it mostly right wingers posting it with some commentary about our "coward president" not having the balls...blah blah blah". There is NOTHING that guy can do to please the right. If those soldiers die in the hurricane, it will be Obama's fault. If he called in marines to Libya and it turned into a Blackhawk Down situation and they died, he would have been careless with the soldiers lives. If he does nothing, he doesn't care and he never served. It's like he makes every, single, minute decision. Food poisoning in the White House cafeteria? Obama should've had tighter control over the walk in cooler temps. So sick of it. Call it what it is. Half of me hope Useless Romney gets elected. They almost deserve what they'd get, sadly, the rest of us would have to suffer along. /minirant 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 I feel the same way about Obama getting elected. The good news is that one of us will win this year and get what they want..... If that could be considered good news. Link to post Share on other sites
InternetExplorer 2,609 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 looked at Gallup, 538, and intrade this morning to see who the world thinks is going to win. I had only looked at the popular vote previously and assumed the electoral picture was coin flippy as well. really surprised to see how bad it looks for Romney. intrade is pretty great. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Intrade had the mandate provision in the healthcare bill being shot down by the SC at 77% It wasn't. Link to post Share on other sites
InternetExplorer 2,609 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 they also had Ron Paul above a few percent to win the R nomination one year. so you bought shares in the opposite and became richer, right? right? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now