Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Perhaps if you quote it...All I've seen here are "Mitt good - Obama bad" posts; although I have seen more detailed work from you elsewhere on Benghazi... but, sadly, Issa's recent report washed all of that away...You've already had plenty of opportunities to tell what those conclusions are, yet you haven't.
Sorry, but I draw my own conclusions rather than those the hate sites like to pretend are facts.
Sure I have. You just weren't paying attention maybe?
Perhaps if you quote it...All I've seen here are "Mitt good - Obama bad" posts; although I have seen more detailed work from you elsewhere on Benghazi... but, sadly, Issa's recent report washed all of that away...You've already had plenty of opportunities to tell what those conclusions are, yet you haven't.
Sorry, but I draw my own conclusions rather than those the hate sites like to pretend are facts.
Sure I have. You just weren't paying attention maybe?
No, the tactic that you took was calling Obama,"destructive, divisive, racist, and incompetent" without any supportive evidence, while admitting that Mitt would have made errors because "he's human." Are you implying that Obama is not?Perhaps if you quote it...All I've seen here are "Mitt good - Obama bad" posts; although I have seen more detailed work from you elsewhere on Benghazi... but, sadly, Issa's recent report washed all of that away...You've already had plenty of opportunities to tell what those conclusions are, yet you haven't.
Sorry, but I draw my own conclusions rather than those the hate sites like to pretend are facts.
Sure I have. You just weren't paying attention maybe?
Don't want to take the time to hunt it all up. And the OP didn't ask for that. I answered the question posed in the OP. And refered to Mitt's general resume, track record, and integrity as support for my opinion just as I point to Obama's general resume, track record, and integrity as evidence of what I think of him. So if it is important to you to show how Obama's resume, track record, and resume are superior to Mitt's, go for it. But don't expect me to accept a bunch of links from a hate site dedicated to smearing somebody as an argument. I wouldn't use that tactic in my criticism of Obama and his policies, and I won't respect that tactic when it is used to criticize anybody else.
No, the tactic that you took was calling Obama,"destructive, divisive, racist, and incompetent" without any supportive evidence, while admitting that Mitt would have made errors because "he's human." Are you implying that Obama is not?Perhaps if you quote it...All I've seen here are "Mitt good - Obama bad" posts; although I have seen more detailed work from you elsewhere on Benghazi... but, sadly, Issa's recent report washed all of that away...You've already had plenty of opportunities to tell what those conclusions are, yet you haven't.Sorry, but I draw my own conclusions rather than those the hate sites like to pretend are facts.
Sure I have. You just weren't paying attention maybe?
Don't want to take the time to hunt it all up. And the OP didn't ask for that. I answered the question posed in the OP. And refered to Mitt's general resume, track record, and integrity as support for my opinion just as I point to Obama's general resume, track record, and integrity as evidence of what I think of him. So if it is important to you to show how Obama's resume, track record, and resume are superior to Mitt's, go for it. But don't expect me to accept a bunch of links from a hate site dedicated to smearing somebody as an argument. I wouldn't use that tactic in my criticism of Obama and his policies, and I won't respect that tactic when it is used to criticize anybody else.
Since your conclusions were drawn without evidence, they can only be deemed drawn from prejudice. ( I don't mean racial prejudice.)
Given those considerations, (now supported by your admission that "you didn't want to look it up,") I assumed that this was a less than serious thread, which is why I posted a mocking video about Mitt.
I never cited people by name."Leftists in key positions" like -- Tim Geithner? Michael Taylor? Tom Wheeler? Chuck Hagel? Those commies?
Weren't Geithner and Hagel confirmed??
Your argument is with a straw man of your own creation.
It's your phrase, Doodles. I copied it from post 21.
And I wouldn't have cited those who actually were confirmed.
Only a shumb dit would do that.
Exactly what part of "leftists in key positions" implies "cofirmed"?
Aren't you the same wag who tried to bring "Christians" and "LDS" in here?
Aren't you the same wag who has yet to define what "all this s--t" refers to?
All this ..... sleet? sport? salt?
No, the tactic that you took was calling Obama,"destructive, divisive, racist, and incompetent" without any supportive evidence, while admitting that Mitt would have made errors because "he's human." Are you implying that Obama is not?Perhaps if you quote it...All I've seen here are "Mitt good - Obama bad" posts; although I have seen more detailed work from you elsewhere on Benghazi... but, sadly, Issa's recent report washed all of that away...You've already had plenty of opportunities to tell what those conclusions are, yet you haven't.Sorry, but I draw my own conclusions rather than those the hate sites like to pretend are facts.
Sure I have. You just weren't paying attention maybe?
Don't want to take the time to hunt it all up. And the OP didn't ask for that. I answered the question posed in the OP. And refered to Mitt's general resume, track record, and integrity as support for my opinion just as I point to Obama's general resume, track record, and integrity as evidence of what I think of him. So if it is important to you to show how Obama's resume, track record, and resume are superior to Mitt's, go for it. But don't expect me to accept a bunch of links from a hate site dedicated to smearing somebody as an argument. I wouldn't use that tactic in my criticism of Obama and his policies, and I won't respect that tactic when it is used to criticize anybody else.
Since your conclusions were drawn without evidence, they can only be deemed drawn from prejudice. ( I don't mean racial prejudice.)
Given those considerations, (now supported by your admission that "you didn't want to look it up,") I assumed that this was a less than serious thread, which is why I posted a mocking video about Mitt.
Real damage inflicted in response to perceived damage.His patronage appointments are embarrassing - his excesses of which exceeded only by Ronald Reagan, but additionally, this points out another problem, the incredibly slow rate of Senate confirmations. It seems the only ones they want to do are those where they can score political points.its cool Mojo , I see what you mean . Course look at mrobamas advisers , spokespeople , hagel , Dempsey , Hilary , jeh Johnson . holder and all they are are yes men and unserious people with no love for America . He just nominated a producer of some soap opera as the ambassador to Hungary . -------- just a comment !!
And it is much more than an incompetent choice.
It is a crucially sensitive one and he has intentionally put the wrong person in there.
This article splains it nicely.
Yesterday, Barack Obama succeeded in pushing US foreign policy further down the crapper. The Senate voted to confirm two monumentally unqualified party hacks and bag-people as ambassador.
The Senate, rejecting an impassioned plea from Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)52% (R-Ariz.), on Tuesday confirmed two major Obama campaign contributors for ambassadorships to Hungary and Argentina.
The confirmations of Hollywood television producer Colleen Bell to Budapest and Noah Mamet to Buenos Aires had sparked unusual controversy — including a letter in opposition from 15 former presidents of the American Foreign Service Association, the union of career diplomats — after their faltering performances in their confirmation hearings.
Bell stumbled when Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)52% (R-Ariz.) asked her what America’s strategic interests were in Hungary, which has become a difficult posting in recent years as the government cracks down on dissenters.
McCain implored the Senate to vote against the nomination. He said he understood that “rewarding supporters to cushy jobs in the Caribbean is something both parties do.” But “this is a very important country where bad things are going on,” he said. McCain said that Bell’s experience “has been producing the television soap opera ‘The Bold and the Beautiful’” and that she is “totally unqualified for this position and this country.” (She has managed the on-and-off-again romantic tension between Ridge and Brooke for decades though …)
Giving ambassadorial positions to prominent political supporters has a long tradition and it isn’t necessarily a bad thing so long a there is a modicum of competence and the posting isn’t a challenging one. And career foreign service officers are often no better as ambassadors than amateurs. No presidential friend has single-handedly set off a war. The foreign service can’t make that claim. Those are not the facts here.
The critical nominee is Colleen Bell. Bell is a soap opera producer who bundled or donated nearly three million dollars for Obama. She is to be posted to Budapest. Budapest is not only a NATO ally, but one that is being wooed by Russia and seems poised to slip into Putin’s brand of neo-fascism. (reported on at RedState) Not only is Hungary making life increasingly difficult for anyone not getting with the program, Bell could not identify a single US strategic interest in Hungary.
Argentina is also in the throes of economic and social unrest — this is nearly a national pastime in Argentina — and it is a major power in Latin America. Given the unpleasant noises that keep emanating from Buenos Aires on things like the Falklands a prudent person would conclude that this is the job for someone with some ties to, or at least familiarity with, the existing Argentine power structure. But in the Time of Obama you would be wrong. In Obama’s very cloistered and parochial view, one foreign country, full of foreigners who can’t legally give him money or even vote for him unless they come here illegally, is pretty much like another. And if your ambassador can’t find it on a map, no problem, the only map he needs is the one to get him to the airport. The only requirement is that he’s raised boodles of cash for you.
Left in doubt is the fate of the nominee to Norway. hotel magnate George Tsunis. At his confirmation hearing he thought that Norway had a president — it doesn’t, it is a constitutional monarchy — and he labeled one party in the ruling parliamentary coalition as “extremist.”
McCain then turned to George Tsunis, founder and chief executive of Chartwell Hotels, who bundled or contributed more than $1.3 million for Obama in 2012 — and gave $50,000 to McCain in 2008! — and thus is the nominee for ambassador to Norway. His performance, one Norwegian news outlet said, was “faltering, incoherent” and displayed a “total ignorance” of the country.
McCain asked him about the “anti-immigration” Progress Party in Norway.
“You get some fringe elements that have a microphone and spew their hatred,” Tsunis said. “And I will tell you Norway has been very quick to denounce them.”
“The government has denounced them?” McCain said. They are “part of the governing coalition,” he said, so they were hardly being denounced.
“I have no more questions for this incredibly highly qualified group of nominees,” McCain derisively concluded after another minute or so.
His showing was so weak that the Senate didn’t vote on his nomination, putting it off until the new Congress convenes. In fact, Norwegian media has protested Tsunis’s nomination.
Everyone knows that ambassadorial appointments are presidential perquisites. But some level of competence in making these appointments is necessary before the nation and its foreign policy become laughingstocks. The appointments of Bell and Mamet represent the complete triumph of selfishness and greed over the needs of the nation.
Two dangerously ignorant Obama ambassadors confirmed by lame duck Senate RedState
I haven't researched it at all but I was of the impression the GOP was trying to drag their heels on confirming his nominees in order to help slow the damage Obama is causing in every area he can. His leftists in key positions might aid his attempted (whatever) of America.
You're right. You don't catch me in the bubble, much. I'm a little more mainstream.Real damage inflicted in response to perceived damage.His patronage appointments are embarrassing - his excesses of which exceeded only by Ronald Reagan, but additionally, this points out another problem, the incredibly slow rate of Senate confirmations. It seems the only ones they want to do are those where they can score political points.its cool Mojo , I see what you mean . Course look at mrobamas advisers , spokespeople , hagel , Dempsey , Hilary , jeh Johnson . holder and all they are are yes men and unserious people with no love for America . He just nominated a producer of some soap opera as the ambassador to Hungary . -------- just a comment !!
And it is much more than an incompetent choice.
It is a crucially sensitive one and he has intentionally put the wrong person in there.
This article splains it nicely.
Yesterday, Barack Obama succeeded in pushing US foreign policy further down the crapper. The Senate voted to confirm two monumentally unqualified party hacks and bag-people as ambassador.
The Senate, rejecting an impassioned plea from Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)52% (R-Ariz.), on Tuesday confirmed two major Obama campaign contributors for ambassadorships to Hungary and Argentina.
The confirmations of Hollywood television producer Colleen Bell to Budapest and Noah Mamet to Buenos Aires had sparked unusual controversy — including a letter in opposition from 15 former presidents of the American Foreign Service Association, the union of career diplomats — after their faltering performances in their confirmation hearings.
Bell stumbled when Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)52% (R-Ariz.) asked her what America’s strategic interests were in Hungary, which has become a difficult posting in recent years as the government cracks down on dissenters.
McCain implored the Senate to vote against the nomination. He said he understood that “rewarding supporters to cushy jobs in the Caribbean is something both parties do.” But “this is a very important country where bad things are going on,” he said. McCain said that Bell’s experience “has been producing the television soap opera ‘The Bold and the Beautiful’” and that she is “totally unqualified for this position and this country.” (She has managed the on-and-off-again romantic tension between Ridge and Brooke for decades though …)
Giving ambassadorial positions to prominent political supporters has a long tradition and it isn’t necessarily a bad thing so long a there is a modicum of competence and the posting isn’t a challenging one. And career foreign service officers are often no better as ambassadors than amateurs. No presidential friend has single-handedly set off a war. The foreign service can’t make that claim. Those are not the facts here.
The critical nominee is Colleen Bell. Bell is a soap opera producer who bundled or donated nearly three million dollars for Obama. She is to be posted to Budapest. Budapest is not only a NATO ally, but one that is being wooed by Russia and seems poised to slip into Putin’s brand of neo-fascism. (reported on at RedState) Not only is Hungary making life increasingly difficult for anyone not getting with the program, Bell could not identify a single US strategic interest in Hungary.
Argentina is also in the throes of economic and social unrest — this is nearly a national pastime in Argentina — and it is a major power in Latin America. Given the unpleasant noises that keep emanating from Buenos Aires on things like the Falklands a prudent person would conclude that this is the job for someone with some ties to, or at least familiarity with, the existing Argentine power structure. But in the Time of Obama you would be wrong. In Obama’s very cloistered and parochial view, one foreign country, full of foreigners who can’t legally give him money or even vote for him unless they come here illegally, is pretty much like another. And if your ambassador can’t find it on a map, no problem, the only map he needs is the one to get him to the airport. The only requirement is that he’s raised boodles of cash for you.
Left in doubt is the fate of the nominee to Norway. hotel magnate George Tsunis. At his confirmation hearing he thought that Norway had a president — it doesn’t, it is a constitutional monarchy — and he labeled one party in the ruling parliamentary coalition as “extremist.”
McCain then turned to George Tsunis, founder and chief executive of Chartwell Hotels, who bundled or contributed more than $1.3 million for Obama in 2012 — and gave $50,000 to McCain in 2008! — and thus is the nominee for ambassador to Norway. His performance, one Norwegian news outlet said, was “faltering, incoherent” and displayed a “total ignorance” of the country.
McCain asked him about the “anti-immigration” Progress Party in Norway.
“You get some fringe elements that have a microphone and spew their hatred,” Tsunis said. “And I will tell you Norway has been very quick to denounce them.”
“The government has denounced them?” McCain said. They are “part of the governing coalition,” he said, so they were hardly being denounced.
“I have no more questions for this incredibly highly qualified group of nominees,” McCain derisively concluded after another minute or so.
His showing was so weak that the Senate didn’t vote on his nomination, putting it off until the new Congress convenes. In fact, Norwegian media has protested Tsunis’s nomination.
Everyone knows that ambassadorial appointments are presidential perquisites. But some level of competence in making these appointments is necessary before the nation and its foreign policy become laughingstocks. The appointments of Bell and Mamet represent the complete triumph of selfishness and greed over the needs of the nation.
Two dangerously ignorant Obama ambassadors confirmed by lame duck Senate RedState
I haven't researched it at all but I was of the impression the GOP was trying to drag their heels on confirming his nominees in order to help slow the damage Obama is causing in every area he can. His leftists in key positions might aid his attempted (whatever) of America.
You are posting as though you don't really pay attention to the news. Maybe they don't publicize Obama's terrible performance on Gaza TV.
It might make you and your fellows envious.
Well, we do have their debates against each other to go by. This is how I saw it:No, the tactic that you took was calling Obama,"destructive, divisive, racist, and incompetent" without any supportive evidence, while admitting that Mitt would have made errors because "he's human." Are you implying that Obama is not?Perhaps if you quote it...All I've seen here are "Mitt good - Obama bad" posts; although I have seen more detailed work from you elsewhere on Benghazi... but, sadly, Issa's recent report washed all of that away...You've already had plenty of opportunities to tell what those conclusions are, yet you haven't.
Sure I have. You just weren't paying attention maybe?
Don't want to take the time to hunt it all up. And the OP didn't ask for that. I answered the question posed in the OP. And refered to Mitt's general resume, track record, and integrity as support for my opinion just as I point to Obama's general resume, track record, and integrity as evidence of what I think of him. So if it is important to you to show how Obama's resume, track record, and resume are superior to Mitt's, go for it. But don't expect me to accept a bunch of links from a hate site dedicated to smearing somebody as an argument. I wouldn't use that tactic in my criticism of Obama and his policies, and I won't respect that tactic when it is used to criticize anybody else.
Since your conclusions were drawn without evidence, they can only be deemed drawn from prejudice. ( I don't mean racial prejudice.)
Given those considerations, (now supported by your admission that "you didn't want to look it up,") I assumed that this was a less than serious thread, which is why I posted a mocking video about Mitt.
Whatever. I have zero tolerance for those who think they are debating by accusing the other person of not supporting their opinion and at the same time refusing to support their own. Do have a nice day.
W
Well, we do have their debates against each other to go by. This is how I saw it:No, the tactic that you took was calling Obama,"destructive, divisive, racist, and incompetent" without any supportive evidence, while admitting that Mitt would have made errors because "he's human." Are you implying that Obama is not?Perhaps if you quote it...All I've seen here are "Mitt good - Obama bad" posts; although I have seen more detailed work from you elsewhere on Benghazi... but, sadly, Issa's recent report washed all of that away...Sure I have. You just weren't paying attention maybe?
Don't want to take the time to hunt it all up. And the OP didn't ask for that. I answered the question posed in the OP. And refered to Mitt's general resume, track record, and integrity as support for my opinion just as I point to Obama's general resume, track record, and integrity as evidence of what I think of him. So if it is important to you to show how Obama's resume, track record, and resume are superior to Mitt's, go for it. But don't expect me to accept a bunch of links from a hate site dedicated to smearing somebody as an argument. I wouldn't use that tactic in my criticism of Obama and his policies, and I won't respect that tactic when it is used to criticize anybody else.
Since your conclusions were drawn without evidence, they can only be deemed drawn from prejudice. ( I don't mean racial prejudice.)
Given those considerations, (now supported by your admission that "you didn't want to look it up,") I assumed that this was a less than serious thread, which is why I posted a mocking video about Mitt.
Whatever. I have zero tolerance for those who think they are debating by accusing the other person of not supporting their opinion and at the same time refusing to support their own. Do have a nice day.
"Presidential Debate"
Romney:
I could make a merger that devours
Hobnobbing with world powers
Golfing in Bahrain
But to get elected I'll turn the tables
Where would you buy your staples
If I hadn't worked at Bain
Who'd bust unions with efficiency
Reducing cost and deficiency
For a capital gain
Would I look like a robber baron
In this Armani suit I'm wearin'
If I hadn't worked at Bain
I'm looking forward to the general
When my old politics become ephemeral.
And stop causin' so much pain
But I'll still keep you guessin' with
Which entitlements I'd be messin' with
If I hadn't worked at Bain
Obama:
I see you have some apprehension
Totally lacking comprehension
Of other people's pain
Tho your Daddy was a liberal
You're a diff'rant individual
Karl Rove controls your brain
I know what you're athinkin'
They'll never allow another Lincoln
Your party's not the same
Up not down would be sensational
But his pull is gravitational
Karl Rove controls your brain
But no matter whose water I'm afetchin'
It's not me who keeps goose-steppin'
When others are in pain
If schadenfreude makes you merry
Go ahead and stay a dingleberry
Karl Rove controls your brain
Funny.
Think we'd have all this s--t if we'd a voted for Mitt?
America has opened the door to a Palestinian-Israeli divide which will never end.
Tell your Grandkids about our innocence, no, ignorance that allowed it to happen.
