Who really cares?

[Billy000]

You know if you have such strong convictions about these scandals, why don't you supply some sources with actual facts to back up your claims? Right now you have no sources provided and you make these accusations with such black and white reasoning. It shows you are under informed. Acknowledging any sort of gray area gives your rant credibility.

Oh and make sure your sources are non partisan. Citing Fox News is worse than citing nothing at all.

Too funny!

Yup, only state approved sources are acceptable.

So, why provide them then?

Um what sources are "state approved"?

 

[mudwhistle]

Too funny!

Yup, only state approved sources are acceptable.

So, why provide them then?

Um what sources are "state approved"?

MSNBC, CNN, Media Matters, Mother Jones, Center For American Progress, ThinkProgress, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, and Comedy Central (The Daily Show).

I'm sure I've left some out, but you knew what I was talking about before you asked the question.

 

[kaz]

i did, Americans were killed!

duh, dar, you don't get it, drool, got it.

oh i do....you dont get it.

You get it and you're just not addressing the actual point because you're being the typical Partisan hack that you always are.

No one is attacking Obama because people got killed, it's about that they asked for help and they didn't get it then the ongoing obstruction and cover up by the White House. None of you liberals will address it. Because you're Partisan hacks.

Republicans are frequently pathetic, but they would care if a Republican administration did this. But for Obama, it's about being a Muslim apologist, he didn't want to face the situation. And he can rely on his army of sycophants to rally to his side. That's you, Homey.

 

[kaz]

1) Bush had 52 Attacks, where is your thread on that?

Liberals keep making this statement and I get crickets when I point out the issue is not that the embassy was attacked, it was that they asked for help and didn't get it then the White House covered it up.

Your statement there were "52" attacks under W is meaningless because that isn't anyone's issue. The question is, which of those attack(s) are you comparing to what the Obama administration did to Benghazi specifically, and why?

qft

Thank you maam, and the crickets are still chirping. None of them will address the point. And of course they won't. Even they know they have such a bad hand in this that just overt denial is a better play.

 

[flacaltenn]

You know if you have such strong convictions about these scandals, why don't you supply some sources with actual facts to back up your claims? Right now you have no sources provided and you make these accusations with such black and white reasoning. It shows you are under informed. Acknowledging any sort of gray area gives your rant credibility.

Oh and make sure your sources are non partisan. Citing Fox News is worse than citing nothing at all.

Too funny!

Yup, only state approved sources are acceptable.

So, why provide them then?

I dont ever remember seeing the USMB list of certified non--biased sources.. Could someone tell me where that is?? Leftists want diversity in everything except thought annd the media...

 

[candycorn]

CC is a blithering moron.

The Obama Campaign Organization has politicized policy to an extent we have never before seen...and abused power to punish enemies in ways that make Nixon look like a Missionary of Charity.

Yeah, next they may out the wife of a political opponent who is a CIA agent...Oh wait, been there done that under he who shall not be named.

 

[healthmyths]

Giving the poor money doesn't elevate them from poverty, it ensures that most of them stay there. For most it seems without pain there is no DRIVE & AMBITION to do better.

Give them a job and their potential increases dramatically.
A safety net is a must but democrats have turned it into a hammock.

If the CEO of Walmart can rise from the ranks of a minimum wage position or an ex-convict can create a successful business you got no excuses.

Most Medicaid recipients are either children, disabled, or elderly.

FACTS rather then GUESSES...
Medicaid Eligibles:
21 years to 44 years old 25% of the 61.7 million Americans on Medicaid!
6 to 12 years 17.3%
1 to 5 years 16.9%
45 to 64 years 10.9%
15 to 18 years 8.8%
13 to 14 4.2%
65 to 74 4.2%
19 -20 3.8%
under 1 3.7%
75 to 84 3.2%
over 85 2.0%

almost 49% are age 15 to age 64
74 to over 85 equal 9.4%
1 to age 12 equal 37.8%
children and over 74 add up to 47%
so you are totally wrong when you say "Most Medicaid recipients are either children, disabled, or elderly"!

SO where did YOU come up with that statement???

CMS1254739 - Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

 

[candycorn]

Post a link before we try to do the math.

You said 52 attacks although, not surprisingly, you were wrong on details; Benghazi didn't have an embassy.

As for 500 threads

The actual search for Benghazi in the title of threads on USMB is 441
Easily there are 60 more where you guys didn't put the term "benghazi" in the title during this pointless witch hunt.

What are you talking about?

I asked for a link to 52 attacks. You start parsing words. I checked the record. There were 12 attacks on embassies during the Bush administration.

I quoted you saying 52 attacks.

No ambassador was killed in any of those attacks.

Are you saying no Americans were killed?

The media has been closer to the truth than the Obama Administration, who still maintains that they were correct to say that a video was the cause of the attacks. Their defense was that was the best information they had on hand. Anyone with any sense knows you don't blurt out an excuse when you don't have all of the facts. You tell everyone that an investigation is underway and there is no comment.

I read an in-depth report last week and it pretty much confirmed it was a video in part at least.

 

[Statistikhengst]

1) Bush had 52 Attacks, where is your thread on that?

Here is the biggest lie of all from the far left and yet the far left believes it without question of hesitation.

Are you denying that there were 52 attacks on diplomatic facilities on Bush's watch?

Not to mention the thousands of soldiers who died in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Do you ever have anything substantive to add to a debate?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's not really supposed to be an 'us -vs- them' kind of a thing... One participates.

You start with taking as much of an interest in the primaries as you can and you follow it through to the general.

Like I said, given the circumstances and the choice between Romney and Obama, I wouldn't change my mind. Obviously Obama is not the Fair & Simple Taxes and Balanced Public Budgets hero that I'm hoping to see before I die, but Romney, with his adherence to Trickle-Down Economics, was simply not an option.


I don't give a shit about the past.... victories or mistakes, the past doesn't matter... I want to know "What's next?"

If you limit yourself to choosing one of two candidates you aren't participating, you are sustaining the system.

Bullshit. It's participating as a realist.

Is realism another word for partisan douchebag?

 

[Vox]

Giving the poor money doesn't elevate them from poverty, it ensures that most of them stay there. For most it seems without pain there is no DRIVE & AMBITION to do better.

Give them a job and their potential increases dramatically.
A safety net is a must but democrats have turned it into a hammock.

If the CEO of Walmart can rise from the ranks of a minimum wage position or an ex-convict can create a successful business you got no excuses.

Most Medicaid recipients are either children, disabled, or elderly.

FACTS rather then GUESSES...
Medicaid Eligibles:
21 years to 44 years old 25% of the 61.7 million Americans on Medicaid!
6 to 12 years 17.3%
1 to 5 years 16.9%
45 to 64 years 10.9%
15 to 18 years 8.8%
13 to 14 4.2%
65 to 74 4.2%
19 -20 3.8%
under 1 3.7%
75 to 84 3.2%
over 85 2.0%

almost 49% are age 15 to age 64
74 to over 85 equal 9.4%
1 to age 12 equal 37.8%
children and over 74 add up to 47%
so you are totally wrong when you say "Most Medicaid recipients are either children, disabled, or elderly"!

SO where did YOU come up with that statement???

CMS1254739 - Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

from his ass.

even their own graph which they produced shows it is NOT true ( the statement, I mean).

 

[Antares]

CC is a blithering moron.

The Obama Campaign Organization has politicized policy to an extent we have never before seen...and abused power to punish enemies in ways that make Nixon look like a Missionary of Charity.

Yeah, next they may out the wife of a political opponent who is a CIA agent...Oh wait, been there done that under he who shall not be named.

Stupid **** you are.....

On July 14, 2003, Washington Post journalist Robert Novak, using information obtained from Richard Armitage at the US State Department, effectively ended Valerie Plame's career with the CIA (from which she later resigned in December 2005) by revealing in his column her identity as a CIA operative.

Valerie Plame - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Richard Lee Armitage KCMG, CNZM, AC (born April 26, 1945) is an American former naval officer and a Republican politician who was appointed the 13th United States Deputy Secretary of State at the State Department, serving from 2001 to 2005 under George W. Bush.[1] He has acknowledged that he publicly released the classified information that Valerie Plame Wilson was a secret agent for the CIA, triggering the Plame Affair,[2] though he has said it was inadvertent.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage_(politician)

On September 7, 2006, Armitage admitted to being the source in the CIA leak.[2] Armitage claims that Fitzgerald had originally asked him not to discuss publicly his role in the matter, but that on September 5 Armitage asked Fitzgerald if he could reveal his role to the public, and Fitzgerald consented.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage_(politician)

[MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION]

Never mind the real facts *****.

 

[Dot Com]

I judge the choice of your words. And find it that either you are not being truthful with your choice of labeling your emotions while voting dimocrap or you vote dimocrap because you WANT to and therefore your naming it" hate" is lying.

trickle down economics is perfectly fine, btw. much better than redistribution fascist crap we have for the last 5 years.
but you seem to like the latter - otherwise you won't vote for it.

Read my lips: I didn't vote FOR anything. I voted AGAINST Trickle-Down Economic Theory. That shit was tried in earnest and it failed miserably.

As I said, I hate voting democrat, but the republican reluctance to jettison Trickle-Down leaves me no choice.

WYGD? ​

What you voted Against wasnt trickling anything.. you voted AGAINST a proven administrator that understand economics and innovation and voted FOR guy who doesnt have a prayer of understanding how to run a bagel shop and spouts a mean populist class war speech.

What you didnt consider, was that 2 term governor with a better record than Romneys who would GUARANTEE finding $$$BILLS in corporate welfare cuts and cuts in building up Afghan, so that we'd actually HAVE some dicretion in spending ON AMERICA...

you saying you voted for Mitt?

 

[Billy000]

Yup, only state approved sources are acceptable.

So, why provide them then?

Um what sources are "state approved"?

MSNBC, CNN, Media Matters, Mother Jones, Center For American Progress, ThinkProgress, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, and Comedy Central (The Daily Show).

I'm sure I've left some out, but you knew what I was talking about before you asked the question.

So you're saying the government controls these media outlets? Are you completely mental? So any other source is fine? All those conservative biased outlets like Fox News are not?

Tell me, during the Bush administration, what outlets were "state controlled"? The same ones?

 

[gallantwarrior]

1) Bush had 52 Attacks, where is your thread on that?

Liberals keep making this statement and I get crickets when I point out the issue is not that the embassy was attacked, it was that they asked for help and didn't get it then the White House covered it up.

Your statement there were "52" attacks under W is meaningless because that isn't anyone's issue. The question is, which of those attack(s) are you comparing to what the Obama administration did to Benghazi specifically, and why?

What's the big deal about 4 lives? I'm trying to figure out conservative mindsets because we have 44 thousand people a year dying from lack of health insurance and conservatives don't think that those people are worth saving.

You have a cite that explains the bolded statement above? I'd be interested in knowing what maladies, conditions, etc, that are taking so many.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Most Medicaid recipients are either children, disabled, or elderly.

What the **** does that have to do with my post?

Not a damn thing

I'd like to know how taking Medicaid away from children, disabled, and the elderly will inspire them to get jobs.

And whose administration chopped the Medicaid/Medicare budget in order to shunt that money into his "legacy" legislation?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Republican corruption in New Jersey isn't a scandal to the same people who thought Gov. Christie being civil with President Obama was scandalous.

Go figure. Or, I'll save you the time. There are no sane conservatives.

Why do you assume that a Republican in Jersey is even remotely a conservative?

^^ That's a valid point.​

 

[mudwhistle]

Um what sources are "state approved"?

MSNBC, CNN, Media Matters, Mother Jones, Center For American Progress, ThinkProgress, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, and Comedy Central (The Daily Show).

I'm sure I've left some out, but you knew what I was talking about before you asked the question.

So you're saying the government controls these media outlets? Are you completely mental? So any other source is fine? All those conservative biased outlets like Fox News are not?

Tell me, during the Bush administration, what outlets were "state controlled"? The same ones?

Hardly. It's clear that the media was trying to destroy Bush, but they spend most of their time trying to help Obama. Anyone who doesn't gets their access revoked or doesn't get interviews.

Truth be told, most of the media doesn't need to be told what to do, but whenever they get out of line representatives of the Obama Administration are quick to come down on them.

Early in his first term Obama ether met with or held conference calls with key media members.

He doesn't send Brownshirters with guns to intimidate them, but the effect is pretty much the same. They ether cover what the WhiteHouse wants or they get frozen out.

 

[flacaltenn]

Read my lips: I didn't vote FOR anything. I voted AGAINST Trickle-Down Economic Theory. That shit was tried in earnest and it failed miserably.

As I said, I hate voting democrat, but the republican reluctance to jettison Trickle-Down leaves me no choice.

WYGD? ​

What you voted Against wasnt trickling anything.. you voted AGAINST a proven administrator that understand economics and innovation and voted FOR guy who doesnt have a prayer of understanding how to run a bagel shop and spouts a mean populist class war speech.

What you didnt consider, was that 2 term governor with a better record than Romneys who would GUARANTEE finding $$$BILLS in corporate welfare cuts and cuts in building up Afghan, so that we'd actually HAVE some dicretion in spending ON AMERICA...

you saying you voted for Mitt?

Don't know if you're asking me. The 2 term governor I was talking about was Gary Johnson. An experienced administrator with a good record. About as qualified as Carter or Bush Jr and BETTER qualified than BHO was when he first ran or even arguably the Mittster.

It's AVG-JOE that said he voted against Romney for some dam reason. Rather than voting FOR someone who would have been fixing a bunch of stuff by now like Johnson..

There's no excuse for the rolling clusterfucks like this thread.. Not when folks work hard to GIVE people choices on the ballot. So that NEITHER side in this childish foodfight is rewarded.

Just take a look at this thread. Think America is gonna RISE from this level with the political infrastructure we have being abused???????

Y'all are totally nuts.. That's not just my opinion.. What was Einstein's definition of insanity?

 

[Billy000]

MSNBC, CNN, Media Matters, Mother Jones, Center For American Progress, ThinkProgress, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, and Comedy Central (The Daily Show).

I'm sure I've left some out, but you knew what I was talking about before you asked the question.

So you're saying the government controls these media outlets? Are you completely mental? So any other source is fine? All those conservative biased outlets like Fox News are not?

Tell me, during the Bush administration, what outlets were "state controlled"? The same ones?

Hardly. It's clear that the media was trying to destroy Bush, but they spend most of their time trying to help Obama. Anyone who doesn't gets their access revoked or doesn't get interviews.

Truth be told, most of the media doesn't need to be told what to do, but whenever they get out of line representatives of the Obama Administration are quick to come down on them.

Early in his first term Obama ether met with or held conference calls with key media members.

He doesn't send Brownshirters with guns to intimidate them, but the effect is pretty much the same. They ether cover what the WhiteHouse wants or they get frozen out.

Hmm so does the Republican Party control Fox News then?