The Great Divider

[beretta304]

If all you have against Rice is what she said about the attack on the consulate in the immediate aftermath, then you have nothing. She was expressing the current belief and policy of the Administration, which means she did her job exactly as she was supposed to.

It is not the job of an underling to publicly contradict the Administration.

If you don't even understand that much, then you know nothing of how government works.


.

Blah, blah, blah, blah. Try talking about the premise of the thread. Want me to write it in crayon so you'll get it?

"You want a Secretary of State who will carry out their instructions to the letter."


No dumbass, I want that and a Secrtary of State who wasn't involved in anything to do with Benghazi. Want to now take the position that Obama can't find anyone like that?

 

[g5000]

The dope continues to divert the conversation to the video.

How did I "divert" to the video when you are the one who started the topic?

From your opening post:

You have Susan Rice who no one can deny went out on the Sunday shows and blamed a video countless times. It doesn't matter whether she did so willingly or was instructed to. Not the point.

.

 

[beretta304]

Perhaps someone will wander in here who might actaully take a shot at answering the question. One can only hope....

 

[g5000]

If all you have against Rice is what she said about the attack on the consulate in the immediate aftermath, then you have nothing. She was expressing the current belief and policy of the Administration, which means she did her job exactly as she was supposed to.

It is not the job of an underling to publicly contradict the Administration.

If you don't even understand that much, then you know nothing of how government works.


.

Blah, blah, blah, blah. Try talking about the premise of the thread. Want me to write it in crayon so you'll get it?

"You want a Secretary of State who will carry out their instructions to the letter."


No dumbass, I want that and a Secrtary of State who wasn't involved in anything to do with Benghazi. Want to now take the position that Obama can't find anyone like that?

As far as I know, Susan Rice did not kill the Ambassador or the other three Americans.

Beyond that, go ahead and fill us in on your conspiracy theory that makes her unqualified to be SecState. What was her involvement beyond the video? I don't know why you mention the video and then get upset at anyone ELSE who talks about it.

.

.

 

[beretta304]

The dope continues to divert the conversation to the video.

How did I "divert" to the video when you are the one who started the topic?

From your opening post:

You have Susan Rice who no one can deny went out on the Sunday shows and blamed a video countless times. It doesn't matter whether she did so willingly or was instructed to. Not the point.

.

Are you stupid? Seriously? Did I not explain twice why I mentioned that in order to frame the premise of the thread? See you're diverting by asking what you already know rather than attempting to reply to the topic.

I'm done. I'll wait until someone who knows how to read posts a reply...Talk to yourself or someone who has patience for idiots. Bye!

 

[beretta304]

If all you have against Rice is what she said about the attack on the consulate in the immediate aftermath, then you have nothing. She was expressing the current belief and policy of the Administration, which means she did her job exactly as she was supposed to.

It is not the job of an underling to publicly contradict the Administration.

If you don't even understand that much, then you know nothing of how government works.


.

Blah, blah, blah, blah. Try talking about the premise of the thread. Want me to write it in crayon so you'll get it?

"You want a Secretary of State who will carry out their instructions to the letter."


No dumbass, I want that and a Secrtary of State who wasn't involved in anything to do with Benghazi. Want to now take the position that Obama can't find anyone like that?

As far as I know, Susan Rice did not kill the Ambassador or the other three Americans.

Beyond that, go ahead and fill us in on your conspiracy theory that makes her unqualified to be SecState. What was her involvement beyond the video? I don't know why you mention the video and then get upset at anyone ELSE who talks about it.

.

.

You think that you're being funny or cute but there's a reson why no one else is talking to you. They see what a jackass you are.

Show me and everyone where I said she killed anyone? Show me where I mentioned a conspircay theory? Show me where I said anything beyond the video had anything to do with the question I posed.


Keep on making it up because as I said, I know you're a moron. Hopefully others see that now as well. Well ...others besides those like you.

 

[g5000]

The only ingredient mentioned in the OP with respect to why Rice is not qualified to be SecState was that she traveled the talk show circuit to blame the video.

This is the sole reason given for her being disqualified. He doesn't even care if she was deliberately lying about the video. Just her saying it was the video's fault is all that is necessary to disqualify her.


Then, when the video is discussed, the topic starter loses it.

This is the fucking Twilight Zone!


I think it does matter if she knew she was lying. Another poster has asserted Rice knew she was lying, but I am waiting on the evidence for this particular conspiracy theory.

If she was not lying, and just doing her job, that makes her eminently qualified for SecState.


This hangup over the video is the most ridiculous benchmark in the history of impossible standards ever.


If Rice was deliberately lying, that's a different story. So let's see the evidence.


.


.

 

[Foxfyre]

A standard that a U.N. ambassador not be sent out to five nationally broadcast television programs to repeat a deliberate lie -- a standard that a U.N. abassador not be willing to participate in such a lie -- is not any sort of demand for perfection. It is one of the most basic and minimal requirements that we should expect of those in high office. And all Americans with any honor, regardless of their political party or ideology, should agree with that.

I'm sure you would not say such a thing unless you had strong evidence Rice knew she was lying.

Link?

.

This was days after 9/11. And we have already heard from top officials in the FBI and CIA that they knew it was a terrorist attack when it was happening as well as immediately after. You can look up the Congressional record as easily as I can.

Again, if the U.N. Ambassador did not know, she is incompetent. If she did know, she was complicent in an intentional lie to mislead the American people. Either way, she should be disqualified from holding high office.

 

[beretta304]

The only ingredient mentioned in the OP with respect to why Rice is not qualified to be SecState was that she traveled the talk show circuit to blame the video.

This is the sole reason given for her being disqualified. He doesn't even care if she was deliberately lying about the video. Just her saying it was the video's fault is all that is necessary to disqualify her.


Then, when the video is discussed, the topic starter loses it.

This is the fucking Twilight Zone!


I think it does matter if she knew she was lying. Another poster has asserted Rice knew she was lying, but I am waiting on the evidence for this particular conspiracy theory.

If she was not lying, and just doing her job, that makes her eminently qualified for SecState.


This hangup over the video is the most ridiculous benchmark in the history of impossible standards ever.


If Rice was deliberately lying, that's a different story. So let's see the evidence.


.


.

There goes the obtuse moron again putting his spin on the premise. The video was used to frame the question. You do know what that means don't you. I'm not so sure that you do.

One last time. I'd write it in crayon for you if I could in the hope that you could relate to it then.

Susan Rice a controversial figure...whether by choice or on the basis of what she was instructed to say or whether she just was thrown into the situation is being considered for a position as Secretary of State.


The video is at the center of that controversy. It is NOT the point of this thread. (Get it moron) It was previously stated by Rice that it was the cause of what happened which.... whether it was the cause or not....is NOT the basis for the following question...merely part of the framework that makes her controversial.


Obama who fancies himself as a uniter steadfastly backs her.

The question was and still is why not chose someone who wasn't the least bit affiliated or involved with the Benghazi issue?


Choosing Rice just further alienates people since some see her as part of the problem and others see her s a pawn in the game so to speak.


Now I know most... if not all of you get it. But it seems we have an obtuse, idiotic moron named g5000 who wants to discuss conspiracy theories and whether the video was the cause and other nonsense that he can dream up to divert and deflect the thread. He's not even sure what he wants to discuss just as long as he can avoid directly answering the question. Others who did get it have already replied so this restatement is just for him.


So again stated differently...why not choose someone who everyone on BOTH sides will be happy with and who will breeze through the confirmation process which Rice will not be able to do...breeze through it.




It would go a long way towards showing that Obama does want to unite and not alienate and divide.

 

[g5000]

A standard that a U.N. ambassador not be sent out to five nationally broadcast television programs to repeat a deliberate lie -- a standard that a U.N. abassador not be willing to participate in such a lie -- is not any sort of demand for perfection. It is one of the most basic and minimal requirements that we should expect of those in high office. And all Americans with any honor, regardless of their political party or ideology, should agree with that.

I'm sure you would not say such a thing unless you had strong evidence Rice knew she was lying.

Link?

.

This was days after 9/11. And we have already heard from top officials in the FBI and CIA that they knew it was a terrorist attack when it was happening as well as immediately after. You can look up the Congressional record as easily as I can.

Again, if the U.N. Ambassador did not know, she is incompetent. If she did know, she was complicent in an intentional lie to mislead the American people. Either way, she should be disqualified from holding high office.

So you have no evidence Rice was willingly participating in a lie then. It was pure conjecture on your part.

You are making the claims, so you need to provide the evidence. I won't help you prove your claims.

Now you say the FBI and CIA knew it was a terrorist attack when it was happening.

Link?

.

 

[g5000]

The only ingredient mentioned in the OP with respect to why Rice is not qualified to be SecState was that she traveled the talk show circuit to blame the video.

This is the sole reason given for her being disqualified. He doesn't even care if she was deliberately lying about the video. Just her saying it was the video's fault is all that is necessary to disqualify her.


Then, when the video is discussed, the topic starter loses it.

This is the fucking Twilight Zone!


I think it does matter if she knew she was lying. Another poster has asserted Rice knew she was lying, but I am waiting on the evidence for this particular conspiracy theory.

If she was not lying, and just doing her job, that makes her eminently qualified for SecState.


This hangup over the video is the most ridiculous benchmark in the history of impossible standards ever.


If Rice was deliberately lying, that's a different story. So let's see the evidence.


.


.

There goes the obtuse moron again putting his spin on the premise. The video was used to frame the question. You do know what that means don't you. I'm not so sure that you do.

One last time. I'd write it in crayon for you if I could in the hope that you could relate to it then.

Susan Rice a controversial figure...whether by choice or on the basis of what she was instructed to say or whether she just was thrown into the situation is being considered for a position as Secretary of State.


The video is at the center of that controversy. It is NOT the point of this thread. (Get it moron) It was previously stated by Rice that it was the cause of what happened which.... whether it was the cause or not....is NOT the basis for the following question...merely part of the framework that makes her controversial.


Obama who fancies himself as a uniter steadfastly backs her.

The question was and still is why not chose someone who wasn't the least bit affiliated or involved with the Benghazi issue?


Choosing Rice just further alienates people since some see her as part of the problem and others see her s a pawn in the game so to speak.


Now I know most... if not all of you get it. But it seems we have an obtuse, idiotic moron named g5000 who wants to discuss conspiracy theories and whether the video was the cause and other nonsense that he can dream up to divert and deflect the thread. He's not even sure what he wants to discuss just as long as he can avoid directly answering the question. Others who did get it have already replied so this restatement is just for him.

Why does having any kind of connection to Benghazi automatically disqualify someone as SecState?

Explain.

.

 

[beretta304]

The only ingredient mentioned in the OP with respect to why Rice is not qualified to be SecState was that she traveled the talk show circuit to blame the video.

This is the sole reason given for her being disqualified. He doesn't even care if she was deliberately lying about the video. Just her saying it was the video's fault is all that is necessary to disqualify her.


Then, when the video is discussed, the topic starter loses it.

This is the fucking Twilight Zone!


I think it does matter if she knew she was lying. Another poster has asserted Rice knew she was lying, but I am waiting on the evidence for this particular conspiracy theory.

If she was not lying, and just doing her job, that makes her eminently qualified for SecState.


This hangup over the video is the most ridiculous benchmark in the history of impossible standards ever.


If Rice was deliberately lying, that's a different story. So let's see the evidence.


.


.

There goes the obtuse moron again putting his spin on the premise. The video was used to frame the question. You do know what that means don't you. I'm not so sure that you do.

One last time. I'd write it in crayon for you if I could in the hope that you could relate to it then.

Susan Rice a controversial figure...whether by choice or on the basis of what she was instructed to say or whether she just was thrown into the situation is being considered for a position as Secretary of State.


The video is at the center of that controversy. It is NOT the point of this thread. (Get it moron) It was previously stated by Rice that it was the cause of what happened which.... whether it was the cause or not....is NOT the basis for the following question...merely part of the framework that makes her controversial.


Obama who fancies himself as a uniter steadfastly backs her.

The question was and still is why not chose someone who wasn't the least bit affiliated or involved with the Benghazi issue?


Choosing Rice just further alienates people since some see her as part of the problem and others see her s a pawn in the game so to speak.


Now I know most... if not all of you get it. But it seems we have an obtuse, idiotic moron named g5000 who wants to discuss conspiracy theories and whether the video was the cause and other nonsense that he can dream up to divert and deflect the thread. He's not even sure what he wants to discuss just as long as he can avoid directly answering the question. Others who did get it have already replied so this restatement is just for him.

Why does having any kind of connection to Benghazi automatically disqualify someone as SecState?

Explain.

.

Did I say that that alone disqualifies her or did I not say 5 fucking times now that why not pick a person who was not involved at all. That way no one will have any complaints or feel uneasy about his choice. It will show hat he doesn't want a show down with McCain and Graham over confirmation.

It would show that he respects the fact that some see her as part of the confusion that ensued and she was the face of that confusion initially.


It would also show that he is receptive to the other side of the aisle's input and that he truly is open to compromise and respects the fact that many would prefer someone else.

Now do you want to take the stance that he can't find anyone else who is qualified or do you just want him to say fuck you I don't care what people want which seems to be the route he is inclined to go?



Beyond that you are a lost cause if you still don't get it. Talk to Foxfyre who obviously has more patience with you. You would make an excellent press secretary since you can't seem to give a straight answer and you have no intention of answering what is asked. Watch out Jay Carney we have your replacement.


g5000...a professional obfuscator

 

[Foxfyre]

There goes the obtuse moron again putting his spin on the premise. The video was used to frame the question. You do know what that means don't you. I'm not so sure that you do.

One last time. I'd write it in crayon for you if I could in the hope that you could relate to it then.

Susan Rice a controversial figure...whether by choice or on the basis of what she was instructed to say or whether she just was thrown into the situation is being considered for a position as Secretary of State.


The video is at the center of that controversy. It is NOT the point of this thread. (Get it moron) It was previously stated by Rice that it was the cause of what happened which.... whether it was the cause or not....is NOT the basis for the following question...merely part of the framework that makes her controversial.


Obama who fancies himself as a uniter steadfastly backs her.

The question was and still is why not chose someone who wasn't the least bit affiliated or involved with the Benghazi issue?


Choosing Rice just further alienates people since some see her as part of the problem and others see her s a pawn in the game so to speak.


Now I know most... if not all of you get it. But it seems we have an obtuse, idiotic moron named g5000 who wants to discuss conspiracy theories and whether the video was the cause and other nonsense that he can dream up to divert and deflect the thread. He's not even sure what he wants to discuss just as long as he can avoid directly answering the question. Others who did get it have already replied so this restatement is just for him.

Why does having any kind of connection to Benghazi automatically disqualify someone as SecState?

Explain.

.

Did I say that that alone disqualifies her or did I not say 5 fucking times now that why not pick a person who was not involved at all. That way no one will have any complaints or feel uneasy about his choice. It will show hat he doesn't want a show down with McCain and Graham over confirmation.

It would show that he respects the fact that some see her as part of the confusion that ensued and she was the face of that confusion initially.


It would also show that he is receptive to the other side of the aisle's input and that he truly is open to compromise and respects the fact that many would prefer someone else.

Now do you want to take the stance that he can't find anyone else who is qualified or do you just want him to say fuck you I don't care what people want which seems to be the route he is inclined to go?



Beyond that you are a lost cause if you still don't get it. Talk to Foxfyre who obviously has more patience with you. You would make an excellent press secretary since you can't seem to give a straight answer and you have no intention of answering what is asked. Watch out Jay Carney we have your replacement.


g5000...a professional obfuscator

Lordy, don't send him back to me. I am finding my patience less reliable these days and I'm leaning more and more on a pledge I made to myself some years ago:

Lord, give me wisdom to not feed the trolls, argue with idiots, and/or engage in exercises of futility.​

I'll admit I am not 100% efficient in sticking with it, but I do think I'm getting some better at it all the time.

 

[beretta304]

Why does having any kind of connection to Benghazi automatically disqualify someone as SecState?

Explain.

.

Did I say that that alone disqualifies her or did I not say 5 fucking times now that why not pick a person who was not involved at all. That way no one will have any complaints or feel uneasy about his choice. It will show hat he doesn't want a show down with McCain and Graham over confirmation.

It would show that he respects the fact that some see her as part of the confusion that ensued and she was the face of that confusion initially.


It would also show that he is receptive to the other side of the aisle's input and that he truly is open to compromise and respects the fact that many would prefer someone else.

Now do you want to take the stance that he can't find anyone else who is qualified or do you just want him to say fuck you I don't care what people want which seems to be the route he is inclined to go?



Beyond that you are a lost cause if you still don't get it. Talk to Foxfyre who obviously has more patience with you. You would make an excellent press secretary since you can't seem to give a straight answer and you have no intention of answering what is asked. Watch out Jay Carney we have your replacement.


g5000...a professional obfuscator

Lordy, don't send him back to me. I am finding my patience less reliable these days and I'm leaning more and more on a pledge I made to myself some years ago:

Lord, give me wisdom to not feed the trolls, argue with idiots, and/or engage in exercises of futility.​

I'll admit I am not 100% efficient in sticking with it, but I do think I'm getting some better at it all the time.

I hear you loud and clear. I did everything but stand on my head for this guy. He likes to pride himself on how much smarter he is than everyone here and he often reflects that by the wording of his posts. Yet for some reason..well not some reason but for "intentional reasons" he refuses to answer a simple question. Instead he's babbling about conspiracy theories and Rice killing people and a probably a few things that I missed.


Frankly he would do me a big favor if he put me on permanent ignore. If you think Lakhota and TM are difficult to get a straight reply from this character has them beat hands down.

 

[g5000]

Lordy, don't send him back to me. I am finding my patience less reliable these days and I'm leaning more and more on a pledge I made to myself some years ago:

Lord, give me wisdom to not feed the trolls, argue with idiots, and/or engage in exercises of futility.​

I'll admit I am not 100% efficient in sticking with it, but I do think I'm getting some better at it all the time.

I understand your dread. You made some extraordinary claims and don't have the evidence to back it up. I guess you didn't expect to get called on your shit!

Let us know when you have evidence the heads of the FBI and CIA knew the attack on the consulate was a terrorist attack while it was happening and that Rice was willfully participating in a lie, won't you?




.

 

[g5000]

Did I say that that alone disqualifies her or did I not say 5 fucking times now that why not pick a person who was not involved at all. That way no one will have any complaints or feel uneasy about his choice. It will show hat he doesn't want a show down with McCain and Graham over confirmation.

I seeeeeee...

So all a political opponent has to do is cast some bullshit about the landscape and then it is the President who is being unreasonable when he nominates someone who has been touched by the shadow of the bullshit. This way, his opponents get to decide who he nominates!

This is fascinating. There are all kinds of interesting petards you are setting to blow yourself up with one day.


.

 

[Oldstyle]

I must admit I have stopped following the conspiracy nutter theories about the embassy attacks since the signal to noise ratio became ridiculous.

However, I am curious to know if the nutters now believe the video is unconnected to ANY of the attacks.

Anyone know?

.

With all respect, G5000? You chose to ignore what happened in Benghazi because it was unflattering to the people that you supported politically...which is your right...but then you turn around and want to be filled in NOW about what really happened? Why curious now and not then? Feeling a bit safer to discuss what a cluster fuck it was now that the election has passed?

 

[g5000]

I must admit I have stopped following the conspiracy nutter theories about the embassy attacks since the signal to noise ratio became ridiculous.

However, I am curious to know if the nutters now believe the video is unconnected to ANY of the attacks.

Anyone know?

.

With all respect, G5000? You chose to ignore what happened in Benghazi because it was unflattering to the people that you supported politically...which is your right...but then you turn around and want to be filled in NOW about what really happened? Why curious now and not then? Feeling a bit safer to discuss what a cluster fuck it was now that the election has passed?

I do not, and have never, supported Obama. So you are making a horrible assumption.

I stopped paying attention to the "Obama watched while they died" conspiracy nutters like I stopped paying attention to the birthers and the 9/11 truther nutjobs. Such people are beyond reach and it just gets stupid to continue to play with them after a point.

There are more than a dozen ways to attack Obama legitimately. Ways that would have completely destroyed him. But instead, he is attacked with lies and conspiracy theories and so much utter bullshit it is no wonder someone even as incompetent as he is still managed to win.

The liars and fabricators handed Obama the election on a silver platter, and the last minute "Obama watched as they died" lie was the most fucking pathetic display of insanity I have seen in all my years in politics.

Obama won because of these assholes who have turned the GOP into a suicide cult.

You don't win by making shit up. You win with the truth and superior ideas.


.

 

[Oldstyle]

Did I say that that alone disqualifies her or did I not say 5 fucking times now that why not pick a person who was not involved at all. That way no one will have any complaints or feel uneasy about his choice. It will show hat he doesn't want a show down with McCain and Graham over confirmation.

I seeeeeee...

So all a political opponent has to do is cast some bullshit about the landscape and then it is the President who is being unreasonable when he nominates someone who has been touched by the shadow of the bullshit. This way, his opponents get to decide who he nominates!

This is fascinating. There are all kinds of interesting petards you are setting to blow yourself up with one day.


.

Susan Rice was hardly "touched by the shadow" of Benghazi, G5000...she was the person this Administration chose to go out and deliberately lie to the American people about the cause of that attack. There should be a price to pay for that. When you allow your good word to be contaminated in such a way then you shouldn't be rewarded for doing so by being promoted. Lying and getting caught doing so should be a career killer...not a career maker. I'm sorry but Susan Rice has made herself unsuited to ANY position of trust.

 

[Oldstyle]

I must admit I have stopped following the conspiracy nutter theories about the embassy attacks since the signal to noise ratio became ridiculous.

However, I am curious to know if the nutters now believe the video is unconnected to ANY of the attacks.

Anyone know?

.

With all respect, G5000? You chose to ignore what happened in Benghazi because it was unflattering to the people that you supported politically...which is your right...but then you turn around and want to be filled in NOW about what really happened? Why curious now and not then? Feeling a bit safer to discuss what a cluster fuck it was now that the election has passed?

I do not, and have never, supported Obama. So you are making a horrible assumption.

I stopped paying attention to the "Obama watched while they died" conspiracy nutters like I stopped paying attention to the birthers and the 9/11 truther nutjobs. Such people are beyond reach and it just gets stupid to continue to play with them after a point.

There are more than a dozen ways to attack Obama legitimately. Ways that would have completely destroyed him. But instead, he is attacked with lies and conspiracy theories and so much utter bullshit it is no wonder someone even as incompetent as he is still managed to win.

The liars and fabricators handed Obama the election on a silver platter, and the last minute "Obama watched as they died" lie was the most fucking pathetic display of insanity I have seen in all my years in politics.

Obama won because of these assholes who have turned the GOP into a suicide cult.

You don't win by making shit up. You win with the truth and superior ideas.


.

Obama won because the main stream media refused to report the story. Benghazi wasn't "made up" nor are the people who are incensed that four Americans died needlessly "nutters. For you to make that accusation is insulting.