Discussion in 'Politics' started by bigrebnc1775, Oct 28, 2012.
Before America as a whole body says it's enough and kicks obama and his administration to the curb?
I don't think there is a limit. It's necessary to have one cover up for each thing that needs to be covered up.
If the liberal media doesn't report on something, it did not happen.
If Obama says he didn't say what he said, he didn't say it.
I just wanted to help you understand a few rules.
So in this case coverup's don't happen if the media doesn't report it. Thank you for clearing that up.
Man, I sure would love if people would wait for the damned investigations to be over instead of jumping at every single bit of ever changing information reported by any form of news that comes from an unnamed source. You just look silly when, a day or two later some new bit of leaked this or that says that thing that came out prior was only half the story, or completely wrong, etc, etc.
Are you suggesting that there is no cover up unless the media says so?
Yep, I kind of had that attitued for about 2 days. Too many conflicting stories, too many that should know acting dumb, people scrambiling for plausable deniability. This stuff smells like crap and they're tracking it all over the place.
I'm suggesting you, anyone really, shouldn't jump to such a brash and outlandish conclusion on only a partial picture of what happened. I understand that there will be people who, even if every person with credibility when speaking on the subject of intelligence; came out tomorrow morning and said that the President hadn't done anything wrong when it came to informing the people. That, like any time before and any time after it took an extended amount of time to filter through all the information. That, all you had to do was look at those emails everyone was saying pointed out that they knew 24 hours in that it was a terrorist attack linked to a specific group- and then you find out that same group maybe didn't even make the post supposedly claiming responsibility, and even if they did- they later said it wasn't them as a group.
You don't throw out words like al-Qaeda and terrorist attack together unless you're sure. I think you do, throw out a soft-ball that, at the time, is just as likely as a terrorist attack while putting up the caveat that it still COULD have been a terrorist attack- which I think is what happened.
Anyway, My point is, there is no cover-up until you can actually prove it- and I mean beyond the shadow of a doubt kind of prove. It's a big fucking deal, it's not a high school yelling match between two students where you can just tell them to shake hands and move on- a lot of shit, important shit, VERY important shit- is effected.
Just my two cents.
You don't keep throwing out words like "video" and "spontaneous mob" unless you're sure.
Uh. Sure you do. It's not going to inspire the same sort of frenzy and fear. If you're equally as sure about both, but not all that sure about either. You throw the soft ball, and give yourself room to confirm that the video was indeed the culprit, or there was a coordinated, and planned terrorist attack. Like I've seen a few reports say, intel was coming in backing up either side of the story, and the people who went out pushed the video story more, but they still left daylight for it being a terrorist attack. There was no way to be sure of ANYTHING that early, if what I read is true, and were still not sure about everything that happened even now. So expecting completely clarity then seems a bit disingenuous to me.
Bullfuckingshit...that is completely irresponsible. Their fucking games whipped up more people into a frenzy by putting a spotlight on that stupid ass video. Nobody forced them to commit to anything...that was their choice, and they'll own it.
Separate names with a comma.