Benghazi "Scandal"

[kjeopardy]

at how long these posts are getting...we need to stop quoting each other :P

[[m'kay]]

It might be because i'm really tired, but holy [poo] MD you just made my day with that and I don't understand why

[Duel of Fates]

I think in the final analysis, the original question of cover up is the least of our worries. Politics has derailed this line of thought to the point that the real problem is never going to get looked at, let alone resolved so that it does not occur again. The problem is that we left our ambassador woefully understaffed and under-secured to the point that any attack would cause casualties. That is unnacceptable. Instead of thinking logically, tactically, and with common sense, we have politicians, people appointed by politicians, and morons who never stepped into Libya, making decisions that cost us an ambassador and three men assigned to keep him safe. I don't give a flying [m'kay] what side of the aisle you claim is "yours", four people had the ultimate bad day.

Look folks, you can go back and forth all day about which side is "better" and which side screwed the pooch. One thing remains. Terrorism is still here, no er how much our President and crew want you to believe they are on the way out like the dodo bird. It is still killing, destroying, shooting little school kids, blowing up busses, . . . etc. Hiding our heads in the sand of politics is not going to get the job done.

[Dad]

I think in the final analysis, the original question of cover up is the least of our worries. Politics has derailed this line of thought to the point that the real problem is never going to get looked at, let alone resolved so that it does not occur again. The problem is that we left our ambassador woefully understaffed and under-secured to the point that any attack would cause casualties. That is unnacceptable. Instead of thinking logically, tactically, and with common sense, we have politicians, people appointed by politicians, and morons who never stepped into Libya, making decisions that cost us an ambassador and three men assigned to keep him safe. I don't give a flying [m'kay] what side of the aisle you claim is "yours", four people had the ultimate bad day.

Look folks, you can go back and forth all day about which side is "better" and which side screwed the pooch. One thing remains. Terrorism is still here, no er how much our President and crew want you to believe they are on the way out like the dodo bird. It is still killing, destroying, shooting little school kids, blowing up busses, . . . etc. Hiding our heads in the sand of politics is not going to get the job done.

Gaddam right.

[(SWGO)Minas_Thirith]

Guess everyone skipped my post about politics
Obama blaims Bush, if rodney gets elected he'll blaim Obama.

Just in case

All i can say is, different continents same bull-[poo].
It doesn't Mather who's voted at this point, one person makes a debt, the next will have to pay it.
The government is just pumping money into dying project, or stupid ideas, they created a gigantic debt during the good times, and now in this crisis they want the people to pay for their mistakes.

It's fairly pointless at this stage, even if Obama loses, i can bet the next person won't be any better, he'll just make up some dumb excuses about why he can't get things done.
And he'll keep making up excuses for the next 4 years, and after that he'll start making new promises in the hope the people give him another 4 years to actually do them.

How many politicians have said they will make the pay for woman's equal to men? and how many countries have this?
All BS just to get up the big chair and start hoarding money in.

MT

MT

[Duel of Fates]

Who the hell is Rodney?

[BurzaP]

you ask.. about this Rodney?
This candidate?

mckay.jpg (21.54 KiB) Viewed 1345 times

[kjeopardy]

First, could we not quote entire pages filled with images and nested quotes?

About Romney we say he doesn't give specifics. Ask yourself this question: What specifics has Obama given about his second term agenda?

This may come to mind:
1)Hire more teachers
2)Raise taxes
3)Invest in the middle east= give money to people that want to kill us.

That's daring, that's going to create jobs

Romney's agenda:
1)Reform the tax code
2)Become energy independent
3)Make foreign aide conditional on the basis they do not attack us and protect our embassies and consulates.

I know this is simplified but this post has to end somewhere. Ask the question has Obama given anymore specifics then Romney?

See, even amid the absurd connotations you posted up there, you still gave Obama a concrete plan (income increase from taxes, matching increased spending on education and foreign aid). Even you can't make Romney's plan sound plausible - you just say "reform" as though that's going to suddenly cause the entire plan to make sense.

Aside from that, as said previously, if they were exactly the same on economics I would vote for the party that isn't living in the 1800's on social issues.

EDIT: also, "hire more teachers" by definition creates jobs, in a much less sarcastic sense than you intended...

Crater I think you are missing the point whenever Obama is asked about his 2nd term agenda, the answers he gives are not solutions to our current economic situation. Hiring teachers in a literal sense creates jobs, my pint was improving education should be much lees of a priority than fixing the economy.

Hobo, in my opinion we are not recovering, my proof average income has been down by almost $3,000(inflation adjusted). My proof:



Here is the raw data:
Year No. of Households Nominal $ Inflation Adjusted $
2011 121,084,000 $49,103 $50,054
2010 119,927,000 $48,340 $50,831
2009 117,538,000 $48,855 $52,195
2008 117,181,000 $49,341 $52,546
2007 116,783,000 $49,258 $54,489
2006 116,011,000 $47,262 $53,768
2005 114,384,000 $45,472 $53,371
2004 113,343,000 $43,497 $52,788
2003 112,000,000 $42,484 $52,973
2002 111,278,000 $41,620 $53,019
2001 109,297,000 $41,415 $53,646
2000 108,209,000 $41,186 $54,841
1999 106,434,000 $39,936 $54,932
1998 103,874,000 $38,097 $53,582
1997 102,528,000 $36,193 $51,704
1996 101,018,000 $34,652 $50,661
1995 99,627,000 $33,207 $49,935
1994 98,990,000 $31,278 $48,418
1993 97,107,000 $30,167 $47,884
1992 96,426,000 $29,448 $48,117
1991 95,669,000 $28,819 $48,516
1990 94,312,000 $28,471 $49,950
1989 93,347,000 $27,388 $50,624
1988 92,830,000 $25,664 $49,737
1987 91,124,000 $24,432 $49,358
1986 89,479,000 $23,301 $48,746
1985 88,458,000 $22,080 $47,079
1984 86,789,000 $20,935 $46,215
1983 85,407,000 $19,453 $44,823
1982 83,918,000 $19,004 $45,139
1981 83,527,000 $17,923 $45,260
1980 82,368,000 $16,523 $46,024
1979 80,776,000 $15,066 $47,527
1978 77,330,000 $13,535 $47,659
1977 76,030,000 $12,113 $45,884
1976 74,142,000 $11,308 $45,595
1975 72,867,000 $10,540 $44,851
1974 71,163,000 $9,902 $46,057
1973 69,859,000 $9,227 $47,563
1972 68,251,000 $8,485 $46,622
1971 66,676,000 $7,913 $44,707
1970 64,778,000 $7,630 $45,146
1969 63,401,000 $7,280 $45,499
1968 62,214,000 $6,668 $43,868
1967 60,813,000 $6,140 $42,056

So we may differ in opinion, but in the age of rising inflation income should at least hold steady, but certainly not decrease, plus the reason the unemployment rate is down is because the workforce is shrinking and less people are actively pursuing work. The data:



Sincerely,
kjep

[MATTHEW'S_DAD]

Ok, you're not 12 dude.

[Nik]

Ok, you're not 12 dude.