#1 2012-10-26 12:06:00
Read this and tell me Obama deserves to be our commander-in-chief. The self-obsessed asshole knew this was happening and let these men die because he wanted to pretend that terrorism was on the run. Fucking son of a bitch.
And don't give me any bullshit about the source being Fox. They happen to be the only network actually reporting on this. The others are so far in the bag for Obama that they are ignoring a major fuck up by the president.
Offline
#2 2012-10-26 12:15:50
http://www.librarygrape.com/2009/06/cou … dment.html
I would check sources away from the US Phreddski. Just Sayin'.
Offline
#3 2012-10-26 12:17:41
Dmtdust wrote:
http://www.librarygrape.com/2009/06/court-fox-news-has-first-amendment.html
I would check sources away from the US Phreddski. Just Sayin'.
Once again, attack the source and ignore the facts. This is disappointing Dusty.
Offline
#4 2012-10-26 12:25:29
phreddy wrote:
They happen to be the only network actually reporting on this. The others are so far in the bag for Obama that they are ignoring a major fuck up by the president.
Unnamed sources, allegedly active intelligence operatives, maligning a sitting president 2 weeks before an election? Does not add up, Pheddsky.
Offline
#5 2012-10-26 12:37:27
I don't see how suggesting that you find sources to corroborate the Fox allegations is a fail on any level. Calm down Sunshine, I am interested if this is real or not. Fox, with the info I posted does not have an obligation to tell the truth, therefore, I do not feel that it is a credible source. So, with that stated, perhaps there is info elsewhere.
Offline
#6 2012-10-26 12:39:25
Phreddy - I realize that you are, to say the least, zealous in your contempt for the President. I read through the article twice and still don't know how you come up with your conclusions. Nothing in the story ties to the President, yet you take it as a jumping off point to blame him. Your need to condemn in the harshest terms possible is always on display. Why not wait for the facts to get sorted out before leaping? I think we know why.
Offline
#7 2012-10-26 12:40:51
choad wrote:
phreddy wrote:
They happen to be the only network actually reporting on this. The others are so far in the bag for Obama that they are ignoring a major fuck up by the president.
Unnamed sources, allegedly active intelligence operatives, maligning a sitting president 2 weeks before an election? Does not add up, Pheddsky.
We have dead Americans, lies about the attack from the White House, the UN Ambassador, the Sec of State, confirmation of requests for security from the ambassador and the others on the ground which were ignored, and an obvious cover up by the White House. And you think this doesn't deserve attention? I'm really sorry it gets in the way of Obama's reelection efforts, but it happened and someone needs to tell us why.
Offline
#8 2012-10-26 12:57:50
Dusty and Fled, Here is an email sent directly to the White House situation room (and throughout the chain of command). It confirms that the President and his military command knew the mission was under attack. Don't tell me he was not involved in the decision to withhold military support.
Panetta claims they just didn't know enough about the situation on the ground. Well, they knew the place was under attack. And, according to the first story I posted, they knew there were personnel on the ground requesting help and lighting targets with lasers. All these guys needed was a gunship. But, sending in reinforcements would have meant admitting there was a major security breach. And, that just couldn't stand when Obama is running for reelection.
Offline
#9 2012-10-26 13:09:36
Phreddy, Fox is the only one reporting on it because Fox's sole purpose in life is to tear down Obama and this, alas for them, is the only thing they've got and it's not much.
Offline
#10 2012-10-26 13:14:07
"Boehner insisted in the letter that the national debate over the incident shows that Americans are concerned and frustrated about the administration’s response to the attack."
I'm and American and I'm not and I don't know any that are. Just right wing crap, desparetly trying to fan any flame they can conjure.
Offline
#11 2012-10-26 13:34:14
Taint wrote:
Phreddy, Fox is the only one reporting on it because Fox's sole purpose in life is to tear down Obama and this, alas for them, is the only thing they've got and it's not much.
The whole affair stinks; beginning with the failure to provide our embassies with security on 9/11. That's a no-brainer. I don't give a shit about Fox's intentions. When troops in the field are sacrificed for political purposes, I call it what it is - treason. And, I guarantee that if Bush would have done this, you would be calling it treason too. And so would I.
Last edited by phreddy (2012-10-26 13:37:08)
Offline
#12 2012-10-26 13:39:12
phreddy wrote:
Once again, attack the source and ignore the facts. This is disappointing Dusty.
I can find you a source that will say just about any fucking thing. The "facts" are only as good as their "source."
Offline
#13 2012-10-26 13:58:30
feisty wrote:
phreddy wrote:
Once again, attack the source and ignore the facts. This is disappointing Dusty.
I can find you a source that will say just about any fucking thing. The "facts" are only as good as their "source."
Although I agree with your statement Feisty, I believe the facts in this case are solid and they come from multiple sources. I doubt anyone on this board has followed this as closely as I have. Just step back and look at the lies and deceit by this president. Deduce his motives for trying to sell this as a response to a youtube movie. Watch him and his stooges try to sell this lie to the public. And, now we begin to discover that not only did he trump up a story, he purposefully withheld military support for our personnel on the ground in an attempt to sustain the lie that Al Queda was "on the run". Anyone who cares even a little for our troops has to come away pissed off.
Offline
#14 2012-10-26 14:44:29
Offline
#15 2012-10-26 15:02:16
XregnaR wrote:
Yeah, they have a hard-on for BHO. Doesn't make their points any less valid.
Great film. I just wish more people would watch it and understand why these people made it. Although, I did notice there were over 4.7 million views. So, some are getting it.
Offline
#16 2012-10-26 15:08:21
I am sure there are points to be made. But if the messengers are like Phreddy and Fox, which tend to either misconstrue or misrepresent the facts, the points get lost in the noise. They get lost in a bunch of hyperbolic assertions.
For example, the most you can make of Phreddy's lead story, which he uses to paint the President in the worst possible light, is that there were reports available, out there amidst all of the reports that were coming in at the time (spanning all of a few hours), that could have prompted a different response, assuming they were known to him. Much more likely, he relied on his intelligence and military advisors. The motivation that Phreddy ascribes to the President just doesn't make sense, i.e., that he preferred letting the ambassador and others die to risking exposure that terrorists were still out there.
There is a story to be told, no doubt. It's just unlikely that those with so much venom in their veins, like Phreddy and Fox, are likely to tell it.
Offline
#17 2012-10-26 15:11:32
phreddy wrote:
Taint wrote:
Phreddy, Fox is the only one reporting on it because Fox's sole purpose in life is to tear down Obama and this, alas for them, is the only thing they've got and it's not much.
The whole affair stinks; beginning with the failure to provide our embassies with security on 9/11. That's a no-brainer. I don't give a shit about Fox's intentions. When troops in the field are sacrificed for political purposes, I call it what it is - treason. And, I guarantee that if Bush would have done this, you would be calling it treason too. And so would I.
Any troop who has ever died in the field was for a political purpose.
Aaaannd. It IS FOX reporting.
Offline
#18 2012-10-26 15:56:28
Dmtdust wrote:
Fox, with the info I posted does not have an obligation to tell the truth, therefore, I do not feel that it is a credible source. So, with that stated, perhaps there is info elsewhere.
Dusty - this is the most relevant post in this thread. You have proved beyond doubt that FOX is a cynical and tainted news source, equal in reliability to Chick Tracts and National Enquirer. I'm too busy to find the link you posted previously, but you should keep it in your back pocket and flash it every time Phreddy coughs up a FOX furball.
Offline
#19 2012-10-26 16:07:12
Hard to imagine a less credible news source. The Weekly World News and the Onion don't even come close.
Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs
Offline
#20 2012-10-26 16:09:05
phreddy wrote:
The whole affair stinks; beginning with the failure to provide our embassies with security on 9/11. That's a no-brainer.
Yeah, um about that...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/1 … 54912.html
Offline
#21 2012-10-26 16:16:23
Fortunately for all of us, and especially our children, the Marxist-in-Chief is going down in about 8 days. He can go back to bullshitting those who are happy to pay to listen. The economy will expand from pent up economic activity. Romney will receive the accolades, but we all know the credit should go to Obama. Simply lifting the yoke of his policies will make a hero of Romney.
Offline
#22 2012-10-26 16:58:21
opsec wrote:
phreddy wrote:
The whole affair stinks; beginning with the failure to provide our embassies with security on 9/11. That's a no-brainer.
Yeah, um about that...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/1 … 54912.html
Ouch Phred - this one really stings. It's obvious from this article that Romney organized and executed the attack that took Ambassador Steven's life. Well that's what it would say if we used your logic.
And by the way - it appears that the House GOP are guilty of TREASON!!! for intentionally making the consulate in Benghazi susceptible to surprise attack.
**Edited to correct the spelling of the late ambassador's name
Last edited by Emmeran (2012-10-26 18:29:56)
Offline
#23 2012-10-26 17:42:10
Emmeran wrote:
opsec wrote:
phreddy wrote:
The whole affair stinks; beginning with the failure to provide our embassies with security on 9/11. That's a no-brainer.
Yeah, um about that...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/1 … 54912.htmlOuch Phred - this one really stings. It's obvious from this article that Romney organized and executed the attack that took Ambassador Stephen's life. Well that's what it would say if we used your logic.
And by the way - it appears that the House GOP are guilty of TREASON!!! for intentionally making the consulate in Benghazi susceptible to surprise attack.
The whole article is a total lie. It was reported on the Huff & Puff Post, which we all know is out to get Romney. Therefore, using the logic of Dusty, Choad, Fled, Wilber, and so on, it can't be trusted and I therefore reject it.
Offline
#24 2012-10-26 17:44:11
Emmeran wrote:
Well that's what it would say if we used your logic.
lol u said logic
Offline
#25 2012-10-26 17:59:21
phreddy wrote:
The whole article is a total lie. It was reported on the Huff & Puff Post, which we all know is out to get Romney. Therefore, using the logic of Dusty, Choad, Fled, Wilber, and so on, it can't be trusted and I therefore reject it.
Phreddy - I'm an ex-journalist. Never in my life have I seen any "news agency" so definitively "outted" as FOX. They have absolutely no more credibility than an advertising agency, and have stood up in court to proclaim their legal right to tell untruths. If you can prove to the same degree that Huff&Puff is in the same league as FOX, then they should also be refiled to the garbage can. In the meantime, don't shame yourself by quoting from them - you might as well paint the word "SUCKER" on your forehead.
Offline
#26 2012-10-26 20:05:55
22 January 2002 Calcutta Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami gunmen attack Consulate, 5 DEAD
14 June 2002 Karachi al-Qaeda truck bomb detonates outside Consulate, 12 DEAD
12 October 2002 Denpasar Consular Office bombed by Jemaah Islamiyah as part of the Bali bombings, (Thankfully)0 DEAD
28 February 2003 Islamabad Unknown gunmen attack Embassy 2 DEAD
30 June 2004 Tashkent Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan suicide bomber attacks Embassy, 2 DEAD
6 December 2004 Jeddah al-Qaeda gunmen raid diplomatic compound, 9 DEAD
2 March 2006 Karachi Car bomb explodes outside Embassy Assailants unknown, 2 DEAD
12 September 2006 Damascus Gunmen raid US Embassy 4 DEAD
12 January 2007 Athens RPG Fired at Embassy by Revolutionary Struggle (again, thankfully ) 0 DEAD
~~
Oh, and the Twin Towers, The Pentagon, etc on 9/11/2001 which if we go by what sources say Mr. Bush had the intelligence reports and did what? Where was your outrage then Phwedd? Turn something credible up, from a source that is neutral, and I will gladly talk with you and probably come to your view point if you butter me up a bit. Until then, this Faux fueled rage is not up to measure.
Offline
#27 2012-10-26 20:23:34
phreddy wrote:
I don't give a shit about Fox's intentions. When troops in the field are sacrificed for political purposes, I call it what it is - treason.
Not giving a shit about the intentions of those you take as credible sources of critical information is ill-advised at best. Fox has a political ax to grind and is spinning the wheel as fast as they can, and there is no denying that. I think Fox's take on this story is just an exercise in using the worst possible terms to describe the worst possible interpretation of events to rile otherwise well-meaning people. Who would eat bacon if it was advertised as moldy old rancid strips off a pig's ass? That and ground-up grass seed fungus cakes and something that fell out of a birds ass makes breakfast, doesn't it? If you're going to wave the word 'treason' around, why not waft some of it towards the fine patriots who voted to defund embassy security? By an odd coincidence they are the ones Fox is openly supporting.
Offline
#28 2012-10-26 20:44:26
Bacon doesn't come from a pig's ass, Paulie. Do you?
Offline
#29 2012-10-26 20:57:25
Bigcat wrote:
Bacon doesn't come from a pig's ass, Paulie. Do you?
You're quite the ham, aren't you?
Offline
#30 2012-10-26 21:32:11
Tall Paul wrote:
Bigcat wrote:
Bacon doesn't come from a pig's ass, Paulie. Do you?
You're quite the ham, aren't you?
Bhaaaa! I hate to admit it but, that was a pretty good one.
Offline
#31 2012-10-26 22:12:16
Can you guys take your man-flirting to a hotel somewhere - this is getting old.
Offline
#32 2012-10-26 22:33:06
Emmeran wrote:
Can you guys take your man-flirting to a hotel somewhere - this is getting old.
Piss off, Em. Avert your eyes if you don't like it.
Offline
#33 2012-10-26 23:08:56
Bigcat wrote:
Emmeran wrote:
Can you guys take your man-flirting to a hotel somewhere - this is getting old.
Piss off, Em. Avert your eyes if you don't like it.
No worries Emm.... seems like the kitty is in heat lately, and as such she's hissing a lot.
Offline
#34 2012-10-26 23:19:06
whosasailorthen wrote:
Bigcat wrote:
Emmeran wrote:
Can you guys take your man-flirting to a hotel somewhere - this is getting old.
Piss off, Em. Avert your eyes if you don't like it.
No worries Emm.... seems like the kitty is in heat lately, and as such she's hissing a lot.
You are such big tough men. I really admire you both. How long have you been going down on each other?
Offline
#35 2012-10-26 23:26:25
Bigcat wrote:
whosasailorthen wrote:
Bigcat wrote:
Piss off, Em. Avert your eyes if you don't like it.No worries Emm.... seems like the kitty is in heat lately, and as such she's hissing a lot.
You are such big tough men. I really admire you both. How long have you been going down on each other?
I rest my case.
Offline
#36 2012-10-26 23:31:25
whosasailorthen wrote:
Bigcat wrote:
whosasailorthen wrote:
No worries Emm.... seems like the kitty is in heat lately, and as such she's hissing a lot.You are such big tough men. I really admire you both. How long have you been going down on each other?
I rest my case.
For a macho man, you sure are easy to troll.
Offline
#37 2012-10-26 23:36:48
Bigcat wrote:
whosasailorthen wrote:
Bigcat wrote:
You are such big tough men. I really admire you both. How long have you been going down on each other?I rest my case.
For a macho man, you sure are easy to troll.
Wow. Such intense focus on macho and big tough men.
Yep, definitely in heat.
Offline
