My eyes are bad. It is too small to read.
Could you crop and repost please?
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;433871]WT69, you love polictial cartoons, so how did you miss this gem?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]28774[/ATTACH][/QUOTE]
Printable View
My eyes are bad. It is too small to read.
Could you crop and repost please?
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;433871]WT69, you love polictial cartoons, so how did you miss this gem?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]28774[/ATTACH][/QUOTE]
Esten, Where is it, what's the name, and did you post a report on ISG? Thanks.
"Durbin wanted the conservative group Crossroads targeted by the IRS simply because they were raising too much money and that meant democrat defeat. No, the libtards weren't about to let that happen.
Durbin's own words:
[quote]Hell, yes, I did! I can just tell you flat-out why I did it, because that Crossroads organization was boasting about how much money they were raising as a 501 (c)(4). They were boastful about how much money they were raising to beat Democrats![/quote]Don B.
[URL]http://conservativebyte.com/2013/05/check-out-rand-pauls-hilarious-comic-act-on-obamacare/[/URL]
140,000 diagnostic codes, that should inspire one to go into medicine.
Do you suppose there is one for "penis cut off by wife"?
Don B.
[QUOTE=Esten;433888]I read the earlier posts from Punter and Doppel with amusement. These guys just keep proving my point over and over and over. [/QUOTE]I think Don B. said it best when he said [B]“I crack you up, you disgust me”. [/B].
[QUOTE=Esten;433888]If Punter had applied some critical thinking, it might have occurred to him another conclusion was possible.[/QUOTE]Don't pass that [STRIKE]kool-aid[/STRIKE] fool-aid this way, I'm not drinking it.
[QUOTE=Esten;433888]In fact- I did ignore his posts for several weeks.[/QUOTE]Simply put, I don't believe you, I think you have read all my post.
[QUOTE=Esten;433888]I then changed my mind, and re-instated reviewing them. Only for the purpose of being able to respond to all right-wing propaganda, where appropriate. I believe I responded to his propaganda (not him) twice since then. In light of the facts, Punter's claim of a "lie" doesn't stand up. But it appears he has too much venom to have bothered seeking the facts.[/QUOTE]I think my claim stands tall, you made a big dramatic tear-jerking production out of putting me on "ignore" but said nary a word when you "re-instated". Typical Esten I guess.
BTW I gave you an opportunity to come clean about me not being on "ignore" when I made the post below.
[QUOTE=Punter127;433088]It must have just been a coincidence that Esten had a post about the police survey after I brought the subject up, considering I'm suppose to be on his ignore list. Who do you think you're shitting Esten? [/QUOTE]As usual you chose to continue being deceptive.
[QUOTE=Esten;433888]And Doppel's righteous protest about the "Liberal Elite" is also misleading. He conveniently omits the reason why I ignored Punter in the first place. Not because his opinions weren't worthy, but because he lost his temper and threatened me with violence. Given Doppel's track record, no surprise here either.[/QUOTE]I agree with everything Doppelganger wrote except you are not a "liberal", you are a totalitarian hell bent on having things your way regardless of what may block your path, including the Constitution.
I have never written anything on this forum that was intended to be a threat of violence. Furthermore I am not responsible for the way your queerly twisted mind misinterprets plainly written English. Is English your first language?
Dude they should put your picture next to the definition below.
[QUOTE=TheFreeDictionary]
lie 2 (l)
n.
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
v. lied, ly·ing (lng), lies
v.intr.
1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
2. To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.
v.tr.
To cause to be in a specific condition or affect in a specific way by telling falsehoods:[/QUOTE]Esten honesty and integrity have eluded you, nothing you write should be considered truthful until verified.
Now can we get back to politics?
[QUOTE=Punter127;433916]I think Don B. said it best when he said [B]“I crack you up, you disgust me”. [/B].
Don't pass that [STRIKE]kool-aid[/STRIKE] fool-aid this way, I'm not drinking it.
Simply put, I don't believe you, I think you have read all my post.
I think my claim stands tall, you made a big dramatic tear-jerking production out of putting me on "ignore" but said nary a word when you "re-instated". Typical Esten I guess.
BTW I gave you an opportunity to come clean about me not being on "ignore" when I made the post below.
As usual you chose to continue being deceptive.
I agree with everything Doppelganger wrote except you are not a "liberal", you are a totalitarian hell bent on having things your way regardless of what may block your path, including the Constitution.
I have never written anything on this forum that was intended to be a threat of violence. Furthermore I am not responsible for the way your queerly twisted mind misinterprets plainly written English. Is English your first language?
Dude they should put your picture next to the definition below.
Esten honesty and integrity have eluded you, nothing you write should be considered truthful until verified.
Now can we get back to politics?[/QUOTE]
Actually it should be philosophy, not politics.
Punter I tried to send you a PM but you have no more storage.
Don B.
[QUOTE=DonB;433917]Actually it should be philosophy, not politics.
Punter I tried to send you a PM but you have no more storage.
Don B.[/QUOTE]Oops sorry, looks like I need to do some housekeeping, please try again.
[QUOTE=DonB;433908]"Durbin wanted the conservative group Crossroads targeted by the IRS simply because they were raising too much money and that meant democrat defeat. No, the libtards weren't about to let that happen.
Durbin's own words:
Don B.[/QUOTE]If Crossroads was "boastful" about beating Democrats then it was partisan and did not qualify as a nonprofit under 501 (see)(3) and should have been taxed. From the IRS website:
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501 (see)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.
I liked Barron's editorial page solution, tax every organization. Civil servants should not have to decide whether a group is partisan. Also they should not be under pressure from senators like Durbin to go after certain types of groups.
While Benghazi more or less blew up in Republican's faces, they are still getting some traction on the IRS story. The media needs to do a better job reinforcing the point that these Tea Party groups absolutely warranted close scrutiny. We're supposed to believe they were primarily "social welfare" groups and not political groups?? LOL These applications for tax-exempt status were potentially fraudulent.
Meanwhile, Obama's approval rating has been holding steady and just ticked up to 50%. The Fox News crowd must be going absolutely insane wondering why their fake "scandals" haven't worked.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]28776[/ATTACH]
[QUOTE=Esten;433920] The media needs to do a better job reinforcing the point that these Tea Party groups absolutely warranted close scrutiny. We're supposed to believe they were primarily "social welfare" groups and not political groups?? LOL These applications for tax-exempt status were potentially fraudulent.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]28776[/ATTACH][/QUOTE]You may not realize it, but your comments reek of hypocrisy. If it's an organization that promotes the agenda of the Democrat party then it's a legitimate social welfare group entitled to tax exempt status. But if it's a "Tea Party group" biased towards lower taxes and lower spending then its tax-exempt status is fraudulent and its donors should be audited.
Organizations seeking to qualify as tax exempt file applications with the IRS. The IRS accepts or denies them. After having already approved tax-exempt status, the IRS was PREFERENTIALLY looking at organizations the Obama administration disapproved. And I might add, that the IRS disapproved of too. Lower taxes and lower spending (on government bureaucrats, among other things) aren't in the best interest of the IRS and its employees.
Your attitude would be very different if the IRS were PREFERENTIALLY auditing, say, organizations doing research into economic inequality and coming up with analyses that agreed with your prejudices.
Big Boss Man's solution may be the best, eliminate tax deductions for charitable contributions. Or confine the tax deductions to organizations that really, really do improve social welfare - vaccinating children in third world countries, giving condoms to Africans, etc. But if you're going to have a system and laws and regulations, the way they are now, the executive branch of government shouldn't manipulate them for its own benefit.
[B]“There is overwhelming bipartisan support for a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS,”[/B]
[QUOTE=Esten;433920]While Benghazi more or less blew up in Republican's faces, they are still getting some traction on the IRS story. The media needs to do a better job reinforcing the point that these Tea Party groups absolutely warranted close scrutiny. We're supposed to believe they were primarily "social welfare" groups and not political groups?? LOL These applications for tax-exempt status were potentially fraudulent.
Meanwhile, Obama's approval rating has been holding steady and just ticked up to 50%. The Fox News crowd must be going absolutely insane wondering why their fake "scandals" haven't worked.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]28776[/ATTACH][/QUOTE]"President Barack Obama's approval rating took a hit amid three controversies surrounding his administration, including an investigation into the Internal Revenue Service unfairly targeting conservative groups seeking nonprofit status, a new poll Thursday showed.
Obama has a 45 percent approval rating and a [B]49 percent disapproval rating[/B] — compared with a 48 percent approval, 45 percent disapproval rating from May 1, according to the Quinnipiac University poll.
76 percent of American voters think an independent prosecutor should investigate the IRS controversy, including 63 percent of Democrats, 88 percent of GOPers and 78 percent of independents."
[URL]http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/obama-job-approval-poll-92023.html[/URL]
Obama so loved the poor he made millions more.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]28777[/ATTACH]
Obama and the Amendments.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]28778[/ATTACH]
[QUOTE=Esten;433888]And Doppel's righteous protest about the "Liberal Elite" is also misleading. He conveniently omits the reason why I ignored Punter in the first place. Not because his opinions weren't worthy, but because he lost his temper and threatened me with violence. Given Doppel's track record, no surprise here either.
Deception continues to be a core element of right-wing politics.[/QUOTE]Esten, no "righteous protest" here, just pointing out your typical liberal elite arrogance when it comes to denigrating those with opinions which oppose your own. By the way, I went back through the posts and saw no implicit or implied threats made by Punter. Perhaps you could post a sample if they exist.
If we my revisit the gun control argument. You clearly stated the senators went against the will of "90%" of their constituents and I responded where are the demonstrations if this were true. You stated they would pay at the polls in 2014.
Perhaps you have not noticed but in Colorado the only people who face any consequences for their vote on gun control laws are the Democrats who are now facing recall elections – why wait till 2014 when you can do it now?
[URL]http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/05/30/oregon-woman-raped-after-911-call-goes-unanswered[/URL]
Listen to this! If you still don't see why the right to own a weapon should not be infringed upon, you're just plain stupid.
Pete.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;433923]You may not realize it, but your comments reek of hypocrisy. If it's an organization that promotes the agenda of the Democrat party then it's a legitimate social welfare group entitled to tax exempt status. But if it's a "Tea Party group" biased towards lower taxes and lower spending then its tax-exempt status is fraudulent and its donors should be audited.[/QUOTE]And your comments reek of creative and delusional fantasy, not uncommon among conservatives. I provided absolutely no opinion whatsoever on how liberal groups should be treated. Of course I believe the IRS should not be politically biased. But the underlying legitimacy of the IRS reviews is an important and relevant point. Another relevant point is that liberal groups were also investigated, and in some cases denied tax-exempt status. What appears to have happened is bias or at least bad judgement by low-level staffers in dealing with a surge in tax-exempt applications between 2010-12. Most of the applications were from conservative groups.
[URL]http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/behind-the-i-r-s-mess-a-campaign-finance-scandal/[/URL]
[QUOTE]In the year ended Sept. 30, 2010, the division received 1,741 applications from “social welfare organizations” requesting tax-exempt status. Two years later, the figure was 2,774. Meanwhile, the staff of the division tasked with reviewing these applications was reduced as part of a series of budget reductions imposed on the I.R.S. by anti-tax forces.
A far higher proportion of the new applicants wanted to pursue a conservative agenda than a liberal agenda. So without trying to defend the indefensible profiling, it wouldn’t be that shocking if low-level staff members were simply, but stupidly, trying to find an efficient way to sift through the avalanche of applications. [/QUOTE]It's a far cry from the "Obama scandal" and "The government is out to get you" narratives the right wing is trying to weave. Obama's steady approval ratings at 50% (Gallup) and 52% (Rasmussen) show that Americans aren't buying it.
P.S. Tiny I'll message you the place I went to.
My favorite quote of the week, from Mayor Bloomberg on receiving a ricin-laced letter postmarked in Lousiana.
[QUOTE]“The letter obviously referred to our anti-gun efforts. But there’s 12,000 people who are gonna get killed this year with guns and 19,000 that are gonna commit suicide with guns and we’re not gonna walk away from these efforts.”[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=PeterSideburn;433937][URL]http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/05/30/oregon-woman-raped-after-911-call-goes-unanswered[/URL]
Listen to this! If you still don't see why the right to own a weapon should not be infringed upon, you're just plain stupid.
Pete.[/QUOTE]Who is opposing her right to own a weapon? Just what type of gun & checking if she is a criminal in her own right. Please, please, just slow down & think for a minute before firing away. I mean, your mouth.
Simply stated she should have whatever type gun she feels she could most easily and completely protect herself and she does need some idiot like Joe be telling her what she needs. A shot gun would likely have worked but an AR or a pistol that holds more than 10 rounds would be fine as well. Many on the left who are in support of the recent legislation have made it clear this is just the beginning of their quest. I have thought a lot and I think maybe a few idiots in Denver with their comments on weapons and rape could just be your kin. I suppose you think she would have been fine with a whistle too or by just talking like the 911 operator. I only wish she would have been armed so she could have fired away her weapon and dropped this scum bag at the threshold. If you were armed and there would you have stopped this? If you were armed in London when the soldier was attacked and hacked to death would you have stopped this? Of course, England started by only limiting certain weapons as well and then slid down pathway to disallowing handguns. It will be interesting to see how large the civil suit is but I supect we will never know because they will not allow this to be released in all likelihood.
Pete.
[QUOTE=BlackShirt;433940]Who is opposing her right to own a weapon? Just what type of gun & checking if she is a criminal in her own right. Please, please, just slow down & think for a minute before firing away. I mean, your mouth.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=PeterSideburn;433941]Simply stated she should have whatever type gun she feels she could most easily and completely protect herself and she does need some idiot like Joe be telling her what she needs. A shot gun would likely have worked but an AR or a pistol that holds more than 10 rounds would be fine as well. Many on the left who are in support of the recent legislation have made it clear this is just the beginning of their quest. I have thought a lot and I think maybe a few idiots in Denver with their comments on weapons and rape could just be your kin. I suppose you think she would have been fine with a whistle too or by just talking like the 911 operator. I only wish she would have been armed so she could have fired away her weapon and dropped this scum bag at the threshold. If you were armed and there would you have stopped this? If you were armed in London when the soldier was attacked and hacked to death would you have stopped this? Of course, England started by only limiting certain weapons as well and then slid down pathway to disallowing handguns. It will be interesting to see how large the civil suit is but I supect we will never know because they will not allow this to be released in all likelihood.
Pete.[/QUOTE]Come on!! You actually advocate everyone being able to carry handguns? I don't know how fast that beheading was, but you really think you could have stop it. And we can trust you not to miss and hit somebody's grandmother. Oh, that's friendly fire, you know. Sorry, I had good intentions but poor aim. The fucker move at the last second. If you enjoy guns as a hobby, no problem. But to carry a handgun around? I already have a hard time finding enough room for my dick, handphone, keys, wallet, viagra, cigarettes, lighter, etc.
[QUOTE=BlackShirt;433944]Come on!! You actually advocate everyone being able to carry handguns? [/QUOTE]No, criminals and the mentally ill should not be allowed to carry any type of deadly weapon.
[QUOTE=BlackShirt;433944]I don't know how fast that beheading was, but you really think you could have stop it. And we can trust you not to miss and hit somebody's grandmother. Oh, that's friendly fire, you know. Sorry, I had good intentions but poor aim. The fucker move at the last second.[/QUOTE]If it wasn't for the fact that the victim was run over before being beheaded I indeed think it might have been avoided if he had been armed. If you disagree perhaps you will answer a few question for us.
Why were armed police officers sent to the crime scene after the attack?
Why did the officers shoot the attackers?
Was anybody's grandmother hit by the police?
Do fuckers ever move at the last second when cops are pulling the trigger?
The victim in this case was a soldier, are police officers better marksman than soldiers?
Should we take away an individuals right to defend himself because there's a slim chance a third party might be injured?
The attackers used knives, meat cleavers, and an automobile, should we ban those items?
The human capacity to commit violence is not incumbered by a lack of means to do so.
[QUOTE=BlackShirt;433944]If you enjoy guns as a hobby, no problem. But to carry a handgun around? I already have a hard time finding enough room for my dick, handphone, keys, wallet, viagra, cigarettes, lighter, etc.[/QUOTE]None of the items you listed will be of any importance to you if you're dead. However if they are more important to you than your personal safety then that's your choice, so be it. But please allow me to decide which is most important for me. Guns are used daily for self defense, can you tell use of a case where "somebody's grandmother" was hit?
In the case of the Oregon lady she was in her home. She states on the 911 tape that her ex-boyfriend had broken in and attacked her before. Why was this guy on the street? Before we start penalizing honest people we need to deal with the criminal recidivism rate in this country. Which leads me to my next question, why is it the left has no problem infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens but yet they're completely spineless when it come to prosecuting and appropriately penalizing criminals? It's just absurd.
Esten, Thanks for the link to the New York Times blog, honestly. Now I understand. The tax deductibility of contributions to "Tea Party" organizations isn't the big issue. Contributions to 501(c)(4) groups aren't deductible. The issue is that the IRS wants the names of the donors made public.
Why? So it can fuck them over and stop their contributions to organizations that would hinder the IRS and/or the Democrat Party. Like Frank Vandersloot, whose name was published on the Obama campaign website as a donor to a group that supported Romney. He was harassed by the IRS and Department of Labor afterwards. Or people who donated to Freedom Watch. Five were audited by the IRS, who wanted them to pay GIFT TAX for their contributions to this conservative 501(c)(4) group.
Why is it that you don't read about liberal 501(c)(4) groups being harassed by the IRS? Why weren't the liberal groups asked for the names of their donors? Because contrary to your beliefs they weren't targeted.
You believe low level IRS staffers were the ones responsible, and you're partly right. But how about the Democratic Congressmen like Dick Durbin that wrote letters to the IRS asking them to investigate conservative 501(c)(4) groups? How about the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and some other entity, whose name the IRS refuses to release, that asked the IRS for an audit of Freedom Works? How about Obama himself? From the Wall Street Journal,
"The president derided "tea baggers." Vice President Joe Biden compared them to "terrorists." In more than a dozen speeches Mr. Obama raised the specter that these groups represented nefarious interests that were perverting elections. "Nobody knows who's paying for these ads," he warned. "We don't know where this money is coming from," he intoned.
In case the IRS missed his point, he raised the threat of illegality: "All around this country there are groups with harmless-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity, who are running millions of dollars of ads against Democratic candidates . . . And they don't have to say who exactly the Americans for Prosperity are. You don't know if it's a foreign-controlled corporation."
By the way, I disagree with the work Freedom Works was doing, providing cover for President Bush to escalate the war in Iraq and supporting candidates who believed in that during the 2008 election. However selectively going back and targeting them and their donors is dirty pool.
[QUOTE=Punter127;433948]No, criminals and the mentally ill should not be allowed to carry any type of deadly weapon.
If it wasn't for the fact that the victim was run over before being beheaded I indeed think it might have been avoided if he had been armed. If you disagree perhaps you will answer a few question for us.
Why were armed police officers sent to the crime scene after the attack?
Why did the officers shoot the attackers?
Was anybody's grandmother hit by the police?
Do fuckers ever move at the last second when cops are pulling the trigger?
The victim in this case was a soldier, are police officers better marksman than soldiers?
Should we take away an individuals right to defend himself because there's a slim chance a third party might be injured?
The attackers used knives, meat cleavers, and an automobile, should we ban those items?
The human capacity to commit violence is not incumbered by a lack of means to do so.
None of the items you listed will be of any importance to you if you're dead. However if they are more important to you than your personal safety then that's your choice, so be it. But please allow me to decide which is most important for me. Guns are used daily for self defense, can you tell use of a case where "somebody's grandmother" was hit?
In the case of the Oregon lady she was in her home. She states on the 911 tape that her ex-boyfriend had broken in and attacked her before. Why was this guy on the street? Before we start penalizing honest people we need to deal with the criminal recidivism rate in this country. Which leads me to my next question, why is it the left has no problem infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens but yet they're completely spineless when it come to prosecuting and appropriately penalizing criminals? It's just absurd.[/QUOTE]Recently, I was in Los Angeles. I had no need to be Compton or Watts, nor was I involve in any activity that I felt would put me in danger. Yeah, of course, I could be a victim of a random act of violence, but I also could have been killed when my plane felt into the Pacific Oceon. So I was totally relaxed, somehow, you don't seem to be. In my mongering, I have to been to numerous countries that was more lawless than the USA, and I have exposed myself at times to situations far more conducieve to violence than I would ever be in the USA. Should I be packing a gun in Colombia, Mexico, Cambodia, Philippines, Rumania, in a small town around 1 am?
I respect that you feel that you are as prepared as law enforcement to deal with any violent offender. But I would be as nervous as hell if I knew numerous people other than law enforcement were packing guns in any public setting.
So for now, I would rather be Zorro or Bruce Lee.
All good lawyers know not to ask questions or make assumptions before they know the answers. Others have so trusted so I suspect the woman in the house or a soldier being assaulted would have preferred to trust someone like me rather than just be a victim. Your logic is flawed. There is a small chance of someone innocent being hurt by friendly fire so let someone certainly be chopped to death or raped to prevent this risk. That risk tolerance and skills should be weighed by the person whose finger is on the trigger. I totally support the government training its citizens at government cost to be able to more effectively and safely utilize their weapon of choice. Some countries do this now with good result. It saves ammo when the skills are needed for national defence. In fact, in both the cases discussed it is likely no shot would have been necessary. Putting a laser bead on the forehead of the terrorist would have likely changed his view about the tempo of him reaching his virgins. The same applies to the boyfriend with and anger management problem. If this wasn't the result then they deserved to be dropped in their next step. More law abiding citizens should carry so the criminals never know when the draw that it may be their last act of terror. Why do you think these pussy killers so frequently target places handguns are not allowed? As soon as someone with a gun shows up to oppose them they typically either whine like a baby or shoot themselves.
Pete.
[QUOTE=BlackShirt;433944]Come on!! You actually advocate everyone being able to carry handguns? I don't know how fast that beheading was, but you really think you could have stop it. And we can trust you not to miss and hit somebody's grandmother. Oh, that's friendly fire, you know. Sorry, I had good intentions but poor aim. The fucker move at the last second. If you enjoy guns as a hobby, no problem. But to carry a handgun around? I already have a hard time finding enough room for my dick, handphone, keys, wallet, viagra, cigarettes, lighter, etc.[/QUOTE]
Blackshirt, I respect your choice not to carry. You should respect mine to carry when I feel it is in my and possibly my communities best interest. I am not trying to take away your right to NOT carry or own, but rather only to preserve mine to do so.
Pete.
[QUOTE=BlackShirt;433952]Recently, I was in Los Angeles. I had no need to be Compton or Watts, nor was I involve in any activity that I felt would put me in danger. Yeah, of course, I could be a victim of a random act of violence, but I also could have been killed when my plane felt into the Pacific Oceon. So I was totally relaxed, somehow, you don't seem to be. In my mongering, I have to been to numerous countries that was more lawless than the USA, and I have exposed myself at times to situations far more conducieve to violence than I would ever be in the USA. Should I be packing a gun in Colombia, Mexico, Cambodia, Philippines, Rumania, in a small town around 1 am?
I respect that you feel that you are as prepared as law enforcement to deal with any violent offender. But I would be as nervous as hell if I knew numerous people other than law enforcement were packing guns in any public setting.
So for now, I would rather be Zorro or Bruce Lee.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=PeterSideburn;433954]Blackshirt, I respect your choice not to carry. You should respect mine to carry when I feel it is in my and possibly my communities best interest. I am not trying to take away your right to NOT carry or own, but rather only to preserve mine to do so.
Pete.[/QUOTE]We came from different enviroments & experiences, therefore, our outlooks can be very different. Take care of yourself.
Dick Head:
Am I wrong.
He says he will spend 40 weeks going after Obama on Bull Shit Charges.
[URL]https://news.google.com/news/section?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&csid=ee2a390fe7313ef4&redirect=true[/URL]
WT69, so they are going to investigate for 40 weeks, so what. It took over 2 years of investigation on Watergate before Nixon went down. With IRS clamming up and the administration using the Sgt. Shultz defense. I know nothing, this is going to take some time.
Even the giants of the liberal news media turned down Holder's off the record talk offer. Maybe something is going to happen now.
Between Benghazi, the IRS and the news media scandals, Obama's house of cards is about to fall. If that's not enough wait until you see the new insurance premiums under ObamaCare. Even the unions are against it now that their plans are going to get the ax under ObamaCare.
2014 could be very interesting. Perhaps Obama will become a real lame duck his last two years with no ink in his veto pen.
They are trying to blame Obama for Benghazi,.
How come they did not blame Bush for 9/11?
Because both had nothing to do with either!
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;433976]WT69, so they are going to investigate for 40 weeks, so what. It took over 2 years of investigation on Watergate before Nixon went down. With IRS clamming up and the administration using the Sgt. Shultz defense. I know nothing, this is going to take some time.
Even the giants of the liberal news media turned down Holder's off the record talk offer. Maybe something is going to happen now.
Between Benghazi, the IRS and the news media scandals, Obama's house of cards is about to fall. If that's not enough wait until you see the new insurance premiums under ObamaCare. Even the unions are against it now that their plans are going to get the ax under ObamaCare.
2014 could be very interesting. Perhaps Obama will become a real lame duck his last two years with no ink in his veto pen.[/QUOTE]
No one is blaming Obama for causing the attack on Benghazi. What possible parallel (s) do you see between Obama's response to Benghazi and Bush's response to 9/11. It seems to me, you presume parallels here as the foundation of your comparison that may not exist. It would be like saying oranges are acidic so why aren't pianos? Please explain what you see as parallels so that, if interested, someone can appropriately respond.
I do see that many blamed Bush for taking us to war in Afghanastan as a response to 9/11 which many on the left "blamed him for" and I do see that one could twist the facts as they were known at the time and claim that the whole "video caused the Benghazi attacks" is parallel to the "Iraq has chemical weapons" arguments before the war, but they are very loose parallels at best because everyone believed the intelligence about Iraq but no one in the intelligence committee ever believed or even used the video preamble non-sense.
Pete.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;433977]They are trying to blame Obama for Benghazi,.
How come they did not blame Bush for 9/11?
Because both had nothing to do with either![/QUOTE]
Scandals, Scandals, anything to keep the Country from Growing.
Bridges are are falling apart, roads are full of holes. Congress is stopping all jobs bills that would help rebuild our infrastructure.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;433976]WT69, so they are going to investigate for 40 weeks, so what. It took over 2 years of investigation on Watergate before Nixon went down. With IRS clamming up and the administration using the Sgt. Shultz defense. I know nothing, this is going to take some time.
Even the giants of the liberal news media turned down Holder's off the record talk offer. Maybe something is going to happen now.
Between Benghazi, the IRS and the news media scandals, Obama's house of cards is about to fall. If that's not enough wait until you see the new insurance premiums under ObamaCare. Even the unions are against it now that their plans are going to get the ax under ObamaCare.
2014 could be very interesting. Perhaps Obama will become a real lame duck his last two years with no ink in his veto pen.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;433977]They are trying to blame Obama for Benghazi,.
How come they did not blame Bush for 9/11?
Because both had nothing to do with either![/QUOTE]WT,
No one is blaming Obama for the attack on Benghazi.
What he is being blamed for is...
1. His administration's decision to order the rescue forces stationed in Tripoli to stand down, and...
2. His administration's attempt to deceive the American people by deliberately and falsely claiming that the attack on Benghazi was a spontaneous reaction to a u-tube video and not the planned terrorist attack that it actually was.
Both of these actions were necessary at the time to bolster Obama's ongoing reelection campaign's claim that he had beaten the terrorists and defeated Al Qaeda.
In other words, Obama showed that he would allow our foreign ambassadors, their staff, and apparently any other Americans to die at the hands of terrorists rather than risk loosing his upcoming Presidential election.
Disgusting.
However, to force a comparison with 9/11, imagine if President Bush had told the American people that 9/11 was not a terrorist attack but instead was the result of 4 separate airline captains having spontaneously decided to crash their planes because of a salary dispute.
Thanks,
Jackson
[url]http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/05/06/whistleblower-special-forces-rescue-team-ordered-to-stand-down-during-benghazi-raid-n1588396[/url]
[url]http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/06/18086898-official-us-special-forces-team-wasnt-allowed-to-fly-to-benghazi-during-attack?lite[/url]
[url]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/05/benghazi_hearing_darrell_issa_s_house_committee_s_investigation_of_the_death.html[/url]
[QUOTE=BlackShirt;433952]Recently, I was in Los Angeles. I had no need to be Compton or Watts, nor was I involve in any activity that I felt would put me in danger. Yeah, of course, I could be a victim of a random act of violence, but I also could have been killed when my plane felt into the Pacific Oceon. So I was totally relaxed, somehow, you don't seem to be. In my mongering, I have to been to numerous countries that was more lawless than the USA, and I have exposed myself at times to situations far more conducieve to violence than I would ever be in the USA. Should I be packing a gun in Colombia, Mexico, Cambodia, Philippines, Rumania, in a small town around 1 am?[/QUOTE]Just because you "exposed" yourself and didn't encounter a problem doesn't necessary mean you were safe, perhaps just lucky.
[QUOTE=BlackShirt;433952]I respect that you feel that you are as prepared as law enforcement to deal with any violent offender. [/QUOTE]Nope I don't think that at all, I don't have unlimited taxpayer dollars to support my preparedness. But "Surveys of criminals have verified that they fear armed citizens as much as police. Increasing the number of armed responders on the street make it likely that the multi-decade decrease in violent crime will continue.
Can you guarantee that law enforcement will always be available when needed? Were they available for the lady in Oregon?
[QUOTE=BlackShirt;433952]But I would be as nervous as hell if I knew numerous people other than law enforcement were packing guns in any public setting. [/QUOTE][B]Concealed Carry Permits Numbers are Soaring.[/B] "The last comprehensive survey of states indicated that more than 8 million concealed carry permits were active across the nation. The data from that report was gathered more than a year ago. It would be reasonable to expect the number of people with concealed carry permits to be over 10 million at this time. To put that number in context, there are about 800,000 full time law enforcement personnel in the United States."
We have between eight and ten million American which are already legally allowed to be armed in public. How many do you think are illegally armed? Which of those two groups concern you the most, and which one would be most affected by new gun laws? Forty nine state currently have some type of legal carry. Illinois just passed a veto proof concealed carry law in the last few days, so soon all fifty state will have some type of legal carry.
I have one more question that I truly wish you would answer, if you are so "totally relaxed" walking around unarmed why do we need more gun laws?
The bottom line is we are a Constitutional Republic and we have a Bill of Rights in which the Second Amendment guarantees that the individuals right to bear arms will not be infringed.
Long live the Republic!
Here's what former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said about the decision to "stand down":
[QUOTE] "To send some small number of special forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on on the ground, I think, would have been very dangerous,” said Gates in an interview aired on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “Personally, I would not have approved that because we just don't it's sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces,” he continued. “The one thing that our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm's way. And there just wasn't time to do that.”[/QUOTE]
[URL]http://thehill.com/video/sunday-shows/299213-gates-defends-benghazi-response-says-critics-have-cartoonish-view-of-military[/URL]
Also, people on the ground [I]in Benghazi[/I] were reporting that it initially began as a spontaneous reaction to the video, which was then hijacked. And that's what Susan Rice said. They didn't share all the terrorist information they had right away, because that could have compromised the investigation in the immediate aftermath of the attack.
In both cases we see sound judgement. And these facts aside, the notion that somehow the Obama administration saw the attack as negative for Obama's re-election is absurd. Under Obama we killed Bin Laden and decimated (not eliminated) Al Qaeda leadership. A terrorist attack usually helps rally support around the President. It's a ridiculous premise, which is why it's been viewed (and now confirmed) as little more than a political witchhunt from the beginning.
Take a look at this video, and you will see how utterly desperate and craven Republicans became in their effort to smear Obama and Clinton.
CBS News: Republicans Lied About White House Benghazi E-mails
[URL]http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/cbs-news-calls-out-republicans-lying-about[/URL]
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;433979]Scandals, Scandals, anything to keep the Country from Growing.
Bridges are are falling apart, roads are full of holes. Congress is stopping all jobs bills that would help rebuild our infrastructure.[/QUOTE]Yes. Republicans don't have a positive agenda. So they are left with their negativity. They keep pandering to their base, but do little to expand it.
However there is an underlying intelligent logic in what they do. First, making the government appear disfunctional serves their purpose of creating just this perception (even when the disfunction is largely their own doing). Second, they want to limit the role of government, so what better way to do that (with the limited power they have) than to not pass any meaningful legislation.
Sounds like a great gig they have, but unfortunately Republicans have also become an obstacle to some important and legitimate government functions, investment in infrastructure being one excellent example. They have even become an obstacle to one of their self-professed goals: reducing the deficit. Republican politicians see themselves as defenders of a great country, but many of them are also seeking celebrity, and collectively they have become a cancer in the country. What we need is an aggressive effort to root as many of them out of office as possible in future elections.
[QUOTE=Esten;433986]Yes. Republicans don't have a positive agenda. So they are left with their negativity. They keep pandering to their base, but do little to expand it.[/QUOTE]Getting rid of ObamaCare, stopping the gutless and insane spending, securing the borders, and reforming immigration are all Republican ideas that to me are a positive agenda.
[QUOTE=Esten;433986]First, making the government appear disfunctional serves their purpose of creating just this perception...[/QUOTE]These latest scandals are all manifestations of Obama's general incompetency and appalling lack of executive management experience.
Thanks,
Jackson.
[B]Low-Info Voters Keep Obama Ratings Afloat[/B]
The scandals that have broadsided the Obama administration in recent weeks have the potential for leaving a gaping hole in the president's standing with the American people, according to a new IBD / TIPP poll.
[URL]http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-polls/060313-658586-low-info-voters-keep-obama-ratings-afloat.htm[/URL]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]28788[/ATTACH]
[QUOTE=Punter127;433983]Just because you "exposed" yourself and didn't encounter a problem doesn't necessary mean you were safe, perhaps just lucky.
Nope I don't think that at all, I don't have unlimited taxpayer dollars to support my preparedness. But "Surveys of criminals have verified that they fear armed citizens as much as police. Increasing the number of armed responders on the street make it likely that the multi-decade decrease in violent crime will continue.
Can you guarantee that law enforcement will always be available when needed? Were they available for the lady in Oregon?
[B]Concealed Carry Permits Numbers are Soaring.[/B] "The last comprehensive survey of states indicated that more than 8 million concealed carry permits were active across the nation. The data from that report was gathered more than a year ago. It would be reasonable to expect the number of people with concealed carry permits to be over 10 million at this time. To put that number in context, there are about 800,000 full time law enforcement personnel in the United States.
We have between eight and ten million American which are already legally allowed to be armed in public. How many do you think are illegally armed? Which of those two groups concern you the most, and which one would be most affected by new gun laws? Forty nine state currently have some type of legal carry. Illinois just passed a veto proof concealed carry law in the last few days, so soon all fifty state will have some type of legal carry.
I have one more question that I truly wish you would answer, if you are so "totally relaxed" walking around unarmed why do we need more gun laws?
The bottom line is we are a Constitutional Republic and we have a Bill of Rights in which the Second Amendment guarantees that the individuals right to bear arms will not be infringed.
Long live the Republic![/QUOTE]As all previous great civilizations, kingdoms, dynasties, etc. You and I won't be around, it might take a another hundred years, who knows? A divided house will surely fall. Right now, we are seeing a live replay of the "The Last of the Mohicans", as people struggle to remain relevant in a changing society & world. There is a changing of the guard, and there great deal of shuffling on the totem pole. Perhaps you are unaware, but you are part of a grand soap opera, the silliness & stupidity of which boggles the imagination. Wait, just watch the Jerry Springer reruns, and perhaps, you will understand what I mean.
I always thought the proposed guns laws were about the types of firearms in question. Tell me if I am wrong, instead of talking about conspiracies, and some grand scheme to make us like Cuba. I am totally relaxed because it is mostly about being sensible. Something similar to, "you are what you eat".
Take care. If you are worried, just hang around me.(smile).
[QUOTE=BlackShirt;433989]As all previous great civilizations, kingdoms, dynasties, etc. You and I won't be around, it might take a another hundred years, who knows? A divided house will surely fall. Right now, we are seeing a live replay of the "The Last of the Mohicans", as people struggle to remain relevant in a changing society & world. There is a changing of the guard, and there great deal of shuffling on the totem pole. Perhaps you are unaware, but you are part of a grand soap opera, the silliness & stupidity of which boggles the imagination. Wait, just watch the Jerry Springer reruns, and perhaps, you will understand what I mean.[/QUOTE]I'm so glad we have you God like elitist to save us from our "silliness & stupidity". What would we do without you?
History is full of those who tried the "changing of the guard" thing, Adolf Hitler, Karl Marx, and Joseph Stalin just to name a few.
I didn't watch Jerry Springer the first time around let alone reruns, but I'm pretty sure you've seen every episode multiple times while sucking on a big glass of fool-aid. Do all progressives get their so called "facts" from TV shows and movies?
[QUOTE=BlackShirt;433989]I always thought the proposed guns laws were about the types of firearms in question. Tell me if I am wrong, instead of talking about conspiracies, and some grand scheme to make us like Cuba. I am totally relaxed because it is mostly about being sensible. Something similar to, "you are what you eat".[/QUOTE]OK here you go, [B]You are wrong![/B] Even if it was just about the types of guns, I'm opposed to it, we don't need anymore gun laws. Turn Jerry Springer off, put the fool-aid down and read what people like Feinstein and Bloomberg have openly stated as their goals, dig below the surface and don't be so naive. If nothing else go back and read the forum, I've post tons of statistics, graphs, poll results, and quotes to support my position. You haven't answered any of my questions or offered anything to support your theories (save Jerry Springer). I'm quite surprised that you would lower yourself to old progressive tactic of attacking the messenger. But it's a common move for progressives who don't have any facts to back up their position.
[QUOTE=BlackShirt;433989]If you are worried, just hang around me.(smile).[/QUOTE]Now that you've shown your true colors that's not likely to happen, and I'm not smiling.