Supsalemgr wrote:I take full responsibility for my posts. I am not really concerned that Vrede does not like them.
so, if you actually believe that the MSM got on the benghazis, why won't you tell us why?
are they comfortable to sit on, or ride-able or offer a view of the surroundings
we want the hole story
Here's the story:
The MSM creature is a deceitful animal. It constantly looks out for its own fairy tale views and rarely if ever tells the full truth without mixing in pixie dust to make reality seem more like what it wants the world to see.
The Benghazi is a train leading away from the truth that out leader has been working feverishly to hide. The MSM joined our leader on The Benghazi for a ride to NeverNever Land.
The End (of our leader's term).
Wow. I bet you think you said some really clever, intelligent, and possibly even true.
Supsalemgr wrote:I take full responsibility for my posts. I am not really concerned that Vrede does not like them.
so, if you actually believe that the MSM got on the benghazis, why won't you tell us why?
are they comfortable to sit on, or ride-able or offer a view of the surroundings
we want the hole story
Here's the story:
The MSM creature is a deceitful animal. It constantly looks out for its own fairy tale views and rarely if ever tells the full truth without mixing in pixie dust to make reality seem more like what it wants the world to see.
The Benghazi is a train leading away from the truth that out leader has been working feverishly to hide. The MSM joined our leader on The Benghazi for a ride to NeverNever Land.
The End (of our leader's term).
Wow. I bet you think you said some really clever, intelligent, and possibly even true.
Funny as hell.
But in a sad way.
Glad you enjoyed the story. Its time for you to go to bed now, kiddo.
The MSM creature is a deceitful animal. It constantly looks out for its own fairy tale views and rarely if ever tells the full truth without mixing in pixie dust to make reality seem more like what it wants the world to see.
The Benghazi is a train leading away from the truth that out leader has been working feverishly to hide. The MSM joined our leader on The Benghazi for a ride to NeverNever Land.
The End (of our leader's term).
Wow. I bet you think you said some really clever, intelligent, and possibly even true.
Funny as hell.
But in a sad way.
Glad you enjoyed the story. Its time for you to go to bed now, kiddo.
Yeah, after dealing with you, I need a good night's rest so I can up my game tomorrow.
I'm going to go talk to a kindergarten class.
Perhaps I'll read them your little story. They should get a kick out of it. Especially after I tell them an "adult" wrote it.
If one of them drools and craps his pants, I'll think of you.
It's funny. The right fringe harps on the "incompetence" of the Obama administration, yet when somebody does something they think is handled poorly, it's not "incompetence," but some complicated and convoluted conspiracy that nobody could pull off without being some kind of mastermind wizard. I don't know what happened in Benghazi, but does it not make more sense that - possibly - somebody screwed up than that Obama set up some gay guy to be offed by an international crime syndicate? Effin loons.
O Really wrote:It's funny. The right fringe harps on the "incompetence" of the Obama administration, yet when somebody does something they think is handled poorly, it's not "incompetence," but some complicated and convoluted conspiracy that nobody could pull off without being some kind of mastermind wizard. I don't know what happened in Benghazi, but does it not make more sense that - possibly - somebody screwed up than that Obama set up some gay guy to be offed by an international crime syndicate? Effin loons.
I don't know about the 'gay' thing - that sounds farfetched, but it came out today that the White House had evidence that it was an organized attack yet continued to blame a YouTube video. Perhaps the organized militant attack didn't fit Obama's, "I got bin Laden and the terrorists are on the run" narrative.
Stinger wrote:
There are presidential responsibilities, and there are responsibilities that aren't the presidents'. this wasn't the presidents', and no amount of lies, distortions, spin, or wishful delusions by the cons can make it his decision.
Are you saying it is not a plant managers job to give his employees a safe place to work?
Or is it just not the job of this one particular President's to secure the place his employees work?
O Really wrote:It's funny. The right fringe harps on the "incompetence" of the Obama administration, yet when somebody does something they think is handled poorly, it's not "incompetence," but some complicated and convoluted conspiracy that nobody could pull off without being some kind of mastermind wizard. I don't know what happened in Benghazi, but does it not make more sense that - possibly - somebody screwed up than that Obama set up some gay guy to be offed by an international crime syndicate? Effin loons.
I don't know about the 'gay' thing - that sounds farfetched, but it came out today that the White House had evidence that it was an organized attack yet continued to blame a YouTube video. Perhaps the organized militant attack didn't fit Obama's, "I got bin Laden and the terrorists are on the run" narrative.
If you think it is far fetched, I trust you will not say others are gay you know less about.
O Really wrote:It's funny. The right fringe harps on the "incompetence" of the Obama administration, yet when somebody does something they think is handled poorly, it's not "incompetence," but some complicated and convoluted conspiracy that nobody could pull off without being some kind of mastermind wizard. I don't know what happened in Benghazi, but does it not make more sense that - possibly - somebody screwed up than that Obama set up some gay guy to be offed by an international crime syndicate? Effin loons.
I don't know about the 'gay' thing - that sounds farfetched, but it came out today that the White House had evidence that it was an organized attack yet continued to blame a YouTube video. Perhaps the organized militant attack didn't fit Obama's, "I got bin Laden and the terrorists are on the run" narrative.
I'm not the expert on these events that you are, but the terrorist part and the YouTube part are not mutually exclusive. It wouldn't be the first time terrorists of some variety took advantage of people's willingness to get fired up over nothing - particularly in some of the countries whose names end in "an" where you can get a crowd out in the street throwing rocks and waving "we hate USA" signs just by telling them some idiot in Florida might burn a Quran.
O Really wrote:It's funny. The right fringe harps on the "incompetence" of the Obama administration, yet when somebody does something they think is handled poorly, it's not "incompetence," but some complicated and convoluted conspiracy that nobody could pull off without being some kind of mastermind wizard. I don't know what happened in Benghazi, but does it not make more sense that - possibly - somebody screwed up than that Obama set up some gay guy to be offed by an international crime syndicate? Effin loons.
I don't know about the 'gay' thing - that sounds farfetched, but it came out today that the White House had evidence that it was an organized attack yet continued to blame a YouTube video. Perhaps the organized militant attack didn't fit Obama's, "I got bin Laden and the terrorists are on the run" narrative.
Or perhaps it was a militia that got pissed off over the YouTube video. That's what they said at the attack, that's what they posted, that's what all credible info from Libya says.
O Really wrote:It's funny. The right fringe harps on the "incompetence" of the Obama administration, yet when somebody does something they think is handled poorly, it's not "incompetence," but some complicated and convoluted conspiracy that nobody could pull off without being some kind of mastermind wizard. I don't know what happened in Benghazi, but does it not make more sense that - possibly - somebody screwed up than that Obama set up some gay guy to be offed by an international crime syndicate? Effin loons.
I don't know about the 'gay' thing - that sounds farfetched, but it came out today that the White House had evidence that it was an organized attack yet continued to blame a YouTube video. Perhaps the organized militant attack didn't fit Obama's, "I got bin Laden and the terrorists are on the run" narrative.
If you think it is far fetched, I trust you will not say others are gay you know less about.
Gay, schmay. If Ambassador Stevens, Obama, Biden, and the whole Sixth Fleet are all gay, it still doesn't matter.
You have not one shred of evidence that Obama sent Stevens to Libya to be killed. Bush sent him there first. Maybe Bush is gay, too, and the Libya militia failed the first two times.
Logic doesn't go like this: Ambassador Stevens is gay; therefore, he was set up to be killed.
At least you didn't bring up the Marines this time. Maybe they're all gay, too.
Your obsessions with the Marines and all things gay are duly noted.
Stinger wrote:
There are presidential responsibilities, and there are responsibilities that aren't the presidents'. this wasn't the presidents', and no amount of lies, distortions, spin, or wishful delusions by the cons can make it his decision.
Are you saying it is not a plant managers job to give his employees a safe place to work?
Or is it just not the job of this one particular President's to secure the place his employees work?
The Safety Director is responsible for a safe work environment, along with the OSHA organization. The plant manager isn't involved in plant safety. So, yes, I'm saying a plant manager is not responsible for plant safety. He does get upset, tight lipped, and red faced (sort of like Romney when he's being bested) when safety becomes an issue he is forced to deal with due to events not under his direct control or because of the incompetence of others. Be safe....
PBO, who gets fired if there is a safety violation that causes the company to lose big bucks or someone gets hurt or killed? The safety director for sure and depending on whether the plant manager is the owner's off spring in training or non family, the plant manager gets the axe also.
The issue is not whether Obama was directing air strikes against the terrorist from Air force 1 while in orbit over the Med. The issue is the cover up that was allowed to continue after the real attackers were revealed. Hillary can say the "buck stops here" but it doesn't and Obama knows it doesn't.
Reality wrote:Does anyone know which branch of Government the State Department Works for? If you do, tell Vrede.
Could someone tell Regurgitate the neither the president nor the Secretary of the Air Force is in on the thousands of daily decisions that go on in the Air Force -- i.e. neither has anything to do with the number of guards on the gate at Edwards.
His poor little brain cell seems to think that the president and the SECAF are intimately involved with the perimeter security at Vandenberg, too.
Stinger wrote:
There are presidential responsibilities, and there are responsibilities that aren't the presidents'. this wasn't the presidents', and no amount of lies, distortions, spin, or wishful delusions by the cons can make it his decision.
Are you saying it is not a plant managers job to give his employees a safe place to work?
Or is it just not the job of this one particular President's to secure the place his employees work?
Are you saying you still have no proof to support any part of your delusion?
Why, yes. That's exactly what you're saying.
Are you seriously suggesting that it's a general's responsibility to decide who has latrine duty at the hundreds of bases around the world?
Anyone who claims to be military should be able to grasp the simplest details and responsibilities of chain of command. Anyone who's ever been in the Marines knows that the Commander of the Marine Corps does not involve himself in security at every single base where Marines are stationed. He delegates, and those he delegates to delegate, and so on down the line.
The continued inability to grasp the chain-of-command concept sort of puts the lie to any claim of having been in the military, doesn't it?
Reality wrote:Does anyone know which branch of Government the State Department Works for? If you do, tell Vrede.
Could someone tell Regurgitate the neither the president nor the Secretary of the Air Force is in on the thousands of daily decisions that go on in the Air Force -- i.e. neither has anything to do with the number of guards on the gate at Edwards.
Well, the president wasn't since he skipped so many intelligence briefings
Reality wrote:PBO, who gets fired if there is a safety violation that causes the company to lose big bucks or someone gets hurt or killed?
Let's see. If a one of over a thousand plants has an accident, does the big CEO back at corporate headquarters get fired?
No.
See how simple that was.
The safety director for sure and depending on whether the plant manager is the owner's off spring in training or non family, the plant manager gets the axe also.
The issue is not whether Obama was directing air strikes against the terrorist from Air force 1 while in orbit over the Med. The issue is the cover up that was allowed to continue after the real attackers were revealed.
And what coverup was that? The one where he talked about acts of terror the very next day in the Rose Garden? Please be specific.
Hillary can say the "buck stops here" but it doesn't and Obama knows it doesn't.
Not with the UOHLM (Unhinged Obama-Hating Loon Militia), it doesn't. They're going to blame Obama no matter what the facts are.
Reality wrote:PBO, who gets fired if there is a safety violation that causes the company to lose big bucks or someone gets hurt or killed? The safety director for sure and depending on whether the plant manager is the owner's off spring in training or non family, the plant manager gets the axe also.
The issue is not whether Obama was directing air strikes against the terrorist from Air force 1 while in orbit over the Med. The issue is the cover up that was allowed to continue after the real attackers were revealed. Hillary can say the "buck stops here" but it doesn't and Obama knows it doesn't.
See, that's part of your problem; there's no cover up. There's just confusion, conflicting information, and uncertainty regarding an event that happened farily quickly and was over fairly quickly as well. Suppose the attackers achieved their (reported) original intent, which was to capture the Ambassador. Do you think there would be a cover up or do you think we would be going after his captors? Do you think the administration would deny what happened and try to cover it up or do you think they would make an annoucnement (as soon as they knew for certain what was transipring) about how the American ambassador was kidnapped? So, that means that there's no "issue" at all other than the one you want to create. I heard on the news last night that gasoline prices are heading down pretty fast.....is this some conspiracy and cover up cooked up by Obama and his henchmen?
Reality wrote:Does anyone know which branch of Government the State Department Works for? If you do, tell Vrede.
Could someone tell Regurgitate the neither the president nor the Secretary of the Air Force is in on the thousands of daily decisions that go on in the Air Force -- i.e. neither has anything to do with the number of guards on the gate at Edwards.
Well, the president wasn't since he skipped so many intelligence briefings
neoplacebo wrote: I heard on the news last night that gasoline prices are heading down pretty fast.....is this some conspiracy and cover up cooked up by Obama and his henchmen?
A socialist, Kenyan, Muslim, communist plot to fundamentally change America.
