Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
John McCain is not making his case very well
120 views
Skip to first unread message
Michael
Nov 15, 2012, 8:45:47 PM11/15/12
to
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Nov 15, 2012, 9:49:26 PM11/15/12
to
On 2012-11-16, Michael <michael...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://gawker.com/5961030/john-mccain-explodes-after-cnn-reporter-asks-him-why-he-didnt-attend-benghazi-briefing-who-the-hell-are-you
As well he should explode. It's the President, not him, who
should be held accountable. It's dereliction of duty all
the way around -- the press, the President, SecState, all
the way down the line. And the reporter tries to make it
about McCain.
Dereliction of duty is a crime. And this administration
is guilty of it.
--
An amateur practices until he gets it right. A pro
practices until he can't get it wrong. -- unknown
> http://gawker.com/5961030/john-mccain-explodes-after-cnn-reporter-asks-him-why-he-didnt-attend-benghazi-briefing-who-the-hell-are-you
As well he should explode. It's the President, not him, who
should be held accountable. It's dereliction of duty all
the way around -- the press, the President, SecState, all
the way down the line. And the reporter tries to make it
about McCain.
Dereliction of duty is a crime. And this administration
is guilty of it.
--
An amateur practices until he gets it right. A pro
practices until he can't get it wrong. -- unknown
Bradley K. Sherman
Nov 15, 2012, 9:54:16 PM11/15/12
to
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American <con...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>On 2012-11-16, Michael <michael...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>http://gawker.com/5961030/john-mccain-explodes-after-cnn-reporter-asks-him-why-he-didnt-attend-benghazi-briefing-who-the-hell-are-you
>
>As well he should explode. It's the President, not him, who
>should be held accountable.
For what?
>On 2012-11-16, Michael <michael...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>http://gawker.com/5961030/john-mccain-explodes-after-cnn-reporter-asks-him-why-he-didnt-attend-benghazi-briefing-who-the-hell-are-you
>
>As well he should explode. It's the President, not him, who
>should be held accountable.
|
| Benghazi-gate gets even more ludicrous
| ...
| This is absolutely right as far as it goes, but it doesn't
| go far enough. At the most fundamental level, the reason it
| is absurd to suspect the existence of a "cover-up" over the
| Benghazi attack is that such a cover-up could not have had
| any conceivable goal. Back to the beginning: the underlying
| accusation about Benghazi is that the Obama administration
| deliberately mischaracterised the terrorist attack there as
| having grown out of a spontaneous demonstration because
| that would be less politically damaging. Such a cover-up
| would have made no sense because the attack would not have
| been less politically damaging had it grown out of a
| spontaneous demonstration.
| ...
<http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/11/susan-rice>
--bks
Eric Ramon
Nov 15, 2012, 10:23:45 PM11/15/12
to
On Nov 15, 6:49 pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
<consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
> On 2012-11-16, Michael <michaeldwils...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://gawker.com/5961030/john-mccain-explodes-after-cnn-reporter-ask...
2002 - June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb explodes outside American
consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.
2003 - May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers kill 34,
including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda
suspected.
2004 - May 29–31, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices
of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil
workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people
dead including 1 American.
June 11–19, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul
Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans
and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.
Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate,
killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi
security.
2006 - Sept. 13, Damascus, Syria: an attack by four gunman on the
American embassy is foiled.
2007 - Jan. 12, Athens, Greece: the U.S. embassy is fired on by an
anti-tank missile causing damage but no injuries.
2008 - May 26, Iraq: a suicide bomber on a motorcycle kills six U.S.
soldiers and wounds 18 others in Tarmiya.
June 24, Iraq: a suicide bomber kills at least 20 people, including
three U.S. Marines, at a meeting between sheiks and Americans in
Karmah, a town west of Baghdad.
June 12, Afghanistan: four American servicemen are killed when a
roadside bomb explodes near a U.S. military vehicle in Farah Province.
July 13, Afghanistan: nine U.S.soldiers and at least 15 NATO troops
die when Taliban militants boldly attack an American base in Kunar
Province, which borders Pakistan. It's the most deadly against U.S.
troops in three years.
Aug. 18 and 19, Afghanistan: as many as 15 suicide bombers backed by
about 30 militants attack a U.S. military base, Camp Salerno, in
Bamiyan. Fighting between U.S. troops and members of the Taliban rages
overnight. No U.S. troops are killed.
Sept. 16, Yemen: a car bomb and a rocket strike the U.S. embassy in
Yemen as staff arrived to work, killing 16 people, including 4
civilians. At least 25 suspected al-Qaeda militants are arrested for
the attack.
<consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
> On 2012-11-16, Michael <michaeldwils...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://gawker.com/5961030/john-mccain-explodes-after-cnn-reporter-ask...
>
> As well he should explode. It's the President, not him, who
> should be held accountable. It's dereliction of duty all
> the way around -- the press, the President, SecState, all
> the way down the line. And the reporter tries to make it
> about McCain.
>
> Dereliction of duty is a crime. And this administration
> is guilty of it.
>
> --
> An amateur practices until he gets it right. A pro
> practices until he can't get it wrong. -- unknown
you know this list, right?
> As well he should explode. It's the President, not him, who
> should be held accountable. It's dereliction of duty all
> the way around -- the press, the President, SecState, all
> the way down the line. And the reporter tries to make it
> about McCain.
>
> Dereliction of duty is a crime. And this administration
> is guilty of it.
>
> --
> An amateur practices until he gets it right. A pro
> practices until he can't get it wrong. -- unknown
2002 - June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb explodes outside American
consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.
2003 - May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers kill 34,
including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda
suspected.
2004 - May 29–31, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices
of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil
workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people
dead including 1 American.
June 11–19, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul
Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans
and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.
Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate,
killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi
security.
2006 - Sept. 13, Damascus, Syria: an attack by four gunman on the
American embassy is foiled.
2007 - Jan. 12, Athens, Greece: the U.S. embassy is fired on by an
anti-tank missile causing damage but no injuries.
2008 - May 26, Iraq: a suicide bomber on a motorcycle kills six U.S.
soldiers and wounds 18 others in Tarmiya.
June 24, Iraq: a suicide bomber kills at least 20 people, including
three U.S. Marines, at a meeting between sheiks and Americans in
Karmah, a town west of Baghdad.
June 12, Afghanistan: four American servicemen are killed when a
roadside bomb explodes near a U.S. military vehicle in Farah Province.
July 13, Afghanistan: nine U.S.soldiers and at least 15 NATO troops
die when Taliban militants boldly attack an American base in Kunar
Province, which borders Pakistan. It's the most deadly against U.S.
troops in three years.
Aug. 18 and 19, Afghanistan: as many as 15 suicide bombers backed by
about 30 militants attack a U.S. military base, Camp Salerno, in
Bamiyan. Fighting between U.S. troops and members of the Taliban rages
overnight. No U.S. troops are killed.
Sept. 16, Yemen: a car bomb and a rocket strike the U.S. embassy in
Yemen as staff arrived to work, killing 16 people, including 4
civilians. At least 25 suspected al-Qaeda militants are arrested for
the attack.
xyzz-Quack!
Nov 15, 2012, 10:35:19 PM11/15/12
to
On Nov 15, 8:45 pm, Michael <michaeldwils...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://gawker.com/5961030/john-mccain-explodes-after-cnn-reporter-ask...
John McCain skips a briefing on Benghazi to go to a presser
> http://gawker.com/5961030/john-mccain-explodes-after-cnn-reporter-ask...
complaining that he's not getting enough info about Benghazi?
Pure awesomeness.
Almost as good as the main who picked Sarah Palin for his VIP
complaining that Susan Rice isn't smart enough to be Secretary of
State.
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Nov 15, 2012, 10:35:55 PM11/15/12
to
On 2012-11-16, Eric Ramon <ramon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 15, 6:49?pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
to equate them.
None of them were an American ambassador, on 9/11, at a high-profile
compound that had multiple prior threats, where heightened security
was requested yet denied. Nor were Americans under siege for many hours
when 1) help should have been available or 2) was available but not sent.
Blaming others instead of accepting responsibility -- that's what
Obama can do. He is a coward and a cretin. And you're doing it too --
I guess you support him in refusing to accept responsibility for his
fecklessness.
--
I have a cop friend who thinks he ought be able to give a new ticket;
"too dumb for conditions".
> On Nov 15, 6:49?pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
><consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2012-11-16, Michael <michaeldwils...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >http://gawker.com/5961030/john-mccain-explodes-after-cnn-reporter-ask...
>>
>> As well he should explode. It's the President, not him, who
>> should be held accountable. It's dereliction of duty all
>> the way around -- the press, the President, SecState, all
>> the way down the line. And the reporter tries to make it
>> about McCain.
>>
>> Dereliction of duty is a crime. And this administration
>> is guilty of it.
>>
>> --
>> An amateur practices until he gets it right. A pro
>> practices until he can't get it wrong. -- unknown
>
> you know this list, right?
What is that supposed to mean? You can't be serious in trying
>> On 2012-11-16, Michael <michaeldwils...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >http://gawker.com/5961030/john-mccain-explodes-after-cnn-reporter-ask...
>>
>> As well he should explode. It's the President, not him, who
>> should be held accountable. It's dereliction of duty all
>> the way around -- the press, the President, SecState, all
>> the way down the line. And the reporter tries to make it
>> about McCain.
>>
>> Dereliction of duty is a crime. And this administration
>> is guilty of it.
>>
>> --
>> An amateur practices until he gets it right. A pro
>> practices until he can't get it wrong. -- unknown
>
> you know this list, right?
to equate them.
None of them were an American ambassador, on 9/11, at a high-profile
compound that had multiple prior threats, where heightened security
was requested yet denied. Nor were Americans under siege for many hours
when 1) help should have been available or 2) was available but not sent.
Blaming others instead of accepting responsibility -- that's what
Obama can do. He is a coward and a cretin. And you're doing it too --
I guess you support him in refusing to accept responsibility for his
fecklessness.
--
I have a cop friend who thinks he ought be able to give a new ticket;
"too dumb for conditions".
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Nov 15, 2012, 10:40:36 PM11/15/12
to
On 2012-11-16, xyzz-Quack! <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote:
not a surprise.
> Almost as good as the main who picked Sarah Palin for his VIP
> complaining that Susan Rice isn't smart enough to be Secretary of
> State.
I think it's the "honest enough" that is the question. When you are
stupid enough to peddle a story a child wouldn't believe, that's stupid.
And it's noted that you just point fingers at others, as usual.
Obama is a coward and a cretin, and you trying to blame Republicans
for his fecklessness takes the cake.
Try accepting some responsibility for a change. Blaming Republicans
for Democratic failings is low-class. But I guess oh-so-Democrat.
--
There's nothing sweeter than life nor more precious than time.
-- Barney
> On Nov 15, 8:45?pm, Michael <michaeldwils...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://gawker.com/5961030/john-mccain-explodes-after-cnn-reporter-ask...
>
> John McCain skips a briefing on Benghazi to go to a presser
> complaining that he's not getting enough info about Benghazi?
>
> Pure awesomeness.
Considering the lies that were peddled in previous briefings,
>> http://gawker.com/5961030/john-mccain-explodes-after-cnn-reporter-ask...
>
> John McCain skips a briefing on Benghazi to go to a presser
> complaining that he's not getting enough info about Benghazi?
>
> Pure awesomeness.
not a surprise.
> Almost as good as the main who picked Sarah Palin for his VIP
> complaining that Susan Rice isn't smart enough to be Secretary of
> State.
stupid enough to peddle a story a child wouldn't believe, that's stupid.
And it's noted that you just point fingers at others, as usual.
Obama is a coward and a cretin, and you trying to blame Republicans
for his fecklessness takes the cake.
Try accepting some responsibility for a change. Blaming Republicans
for Democratic failings is low-class. But I guess oh-so-Democrat.
--
There's nothing sweeter than life nor more precious than time.
-- Barney
Bradley K. Sherman
Nov 15, 2012, 10:42:23 PM11/15/12
to
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American <con...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>On 2012-11-16, xyzz-Quack! <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 15, 8:45?pm, Michael <michaeldwils...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> http://gawker.com/5961030/john-mccain-explodes-after-cnn-reporter-ask...
>>
>> John McCain skips a briefing on Benghazi to go to a presser
>> complaining that he's not getting enough info about Benghazi?
>>
>> Pure awesomeness.
>
>Considering the lies that were peddled in previous briefings,
>not a surprise.
For example?
>> On Nov 15, 8:45?pm, Michael <michaeldwils...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> http://gawker.com/5961030/john-mccain-explodes-after-cnn-reporter-ask...
>>
>> John McCain skips a briefing on Benghazi to go to a presser
>> complaining that he's not getting enough info about Benghazi?
>>
>> Pure awesomeness.
>
>Considering the lies that were peddled in previous briefings,
>not a surprise.
--bks
xyzz-Quack!
Nov 15, 2012, 10:44:50 PM11/15/12
to
On Nov 15, 10:40 pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
<consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
To summarize:
2012: Susan Rice makes a wrong public statement based on bad
intelligence
2003: George W. Bush starts a war based on bad intelligence
Which of these two do Lindsay Graham and John McCain think is a
national crisis?
<consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
2012: Susan Rice makes a wrong public statement based on bad
intelligence
2003: George W. Bush starts a war based on bad intelligence
Which of these two do Lindsay Graham and John McCain think is a
national crisis?
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Nov 15, 2012, 11:26:43 PM11/15/12
to
On 2012-11-16, xyzz-Quack! <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 15, 10:40?pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
so transparent it wouldn't fool a schoolchild.
> 2003: George W. Bush starts a war based on bad intelligence
He got buy in. But it's ancient history.
> Which of these two do Lindsay Graham and John McCain think is a
> national crisis?
Despicable tactics again, I see.
--
The longer I live, the more I realize the impact of attitude on my
life. ... I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 90%
how I react to it. And so it is for you... we are in charge of our
attitudes. -- Charles Swindoll
xyzz-Quack!
Nov 15, 2012, 11:40:06 PM11/15/12
to
On Nov 15, 11:26 pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
I'm not blaming McCain and Graham for the deaths in Benghazi. I'm
blaming them for trying to use it to score political points and not
even being subtle about it.
blaming them for trying to use it to score political points and not
even being subtle about it.
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Nov 16, 2012, 12:10:52 AM11/16/12
to
On 2012-11-16, xyzz-Quack! <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 15, 11:26?pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
> I'm blaming them for trying to use it to score political points and
> not even being subtle about it.
distract from Obama's responsibility for the whole sordid affair.
McCain is a genuine war hero outraged about Obama's cowardly and
cavalier treatment of Americans. Saying he is trying to score
political points is dastardly and beneath contempt.
Who *would* you hold accountable? When will the press and the Congress
do so? Apparently they won't. So McCain has to do it. To claim that he
is trying to score political points by doing his job is once again,
despicable and transparent tactics.
Obama is to blame, he won't answer questions, and when McCain attempts
to get him to accept responsibility, Democrats make cheap, false, and
dishonorable attacks on him.
Basically, your party and President are cowardly and dishonorable, and
when anyone tries to hold them accountable, they double down on the
cowardly and dishonorable.
--
Fiction was invented the day Jonah arrived home and told
his wife that he was three days late because he had been
swallowed by a whale. -- Gabriel Garcia Marquez
Eric Ramon
Nov 16, 2012, 12:21:18 AM11/16/12
to
On Nov 15, 9:10 pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
I hear Obama is toast.
That is to say, you tend to overreact in a highly partisan way.
That is to say, you tend to overreact in a highly partisan way.
D@n Brett@
Nov 16, 2012, 12:26:27 AM11/16/12
to
in such a dastardly way.
Dan
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Nov 16, 2012, 7:52:56 AM11/16/12
to
On 2012-11-16, Eric Ramon <ramon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 15, 9:10?pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
I don't have to point fingers at others and blame.
>
> That is to say, you tend to overreact in a highly partisan way.
Overreact? That's the whole point. It isn't a partisan issue.
Do you understand dead? D-E-A-D? With people who could've
and should've helped? Do you understand duty, and helping
fellow Americans? Apparently the Democratic Party does not.
And to try and weasel out of being held accountable, as you
apparently are wont to do? Low and dishonorable.
The Democratic Party is redefining low and dishonorable. But
it is because of their cowardice and dishonesty, not because of
political talking points.
I would think that you would have to hold your nose to have
voted for Obama. That so many apparently did isn't praise
of Obama -- it's an indictment of your party. The low demagoguery
and naked political favor-giving of machine politics is ugly
and disgusting. Welcome to the Democratic Party.
--
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale
returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
-- Mark Twain
> On Nov 15, 9:10?pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
><consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Obama is to blame, he won't answer questions, and when McCain attempts
>> to get him to accept responsibility, Democrats make cheap, false, and
>> dishonorable attacks on him.
>>
>> Basically, your party and President are cowardly and dishonorable, and
>> when anyone tries to hold them accountable, they double down on the
>> cowardly and dishonorable.
>
>
> I hear Obama is toast.
I thought he was and I was wrong. I can admit I was wrong;
>>
>> Obama is to blame, he won't answer questions, and when McCain attempts
>> to get him to accept responsibility, Democrats make cheap, false, and
>> dishonorable attacks on him.
>>
>> Basically, your party and President are cowardly and dishonorable, and
>> when anyone tries to hold them accountable, they double down on the
>> cowardly and dishonorable.
>
>
> I hear Obama is toast.
I don't have to point fingers at others and blame.
>
> That is to say, you tend to overreact in a highly partisan way.
Do you understand dead? D-E-A-D? With people who could've
and should've helped? Do you understand duty, and helping
fellow Americans? Apparently the Democratic Party does not.
And to try and weasel out of being held accountable, as you
apparently are wont to do? Low and dishonorable.
The Democratic Party is redefining low and dishonorable. But
it is because of their cowardice and dishonesty, not because of
political talking points.
I would think that you would have to hold your nose to have
voted for Obama. That so many apparently did isn't praise
of Obama -- it's an indictment of your party. The low demagoguery
and naked political favor-giving of machine politics is ugly
and disgusting. Welcome to the Democratic Party.
--
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale
returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
-- Mark Twain
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Nov 16, 2012, 7:58:42 AM11/16/12
to
On 2012-11-16, D@n Brett@ <nud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 15, 11:21?pm, Eric Ramon <ramon.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 15, 9:10?pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
of my mistake. I know the concept is difficult for you, but just try
to imagine what that might mean.
--
I don't want to get to the end of my life and find I have just
lived the length of it. I want to have lived the width of it as
well. -- Diane Ackerman
> On Nov 15, 11:21?pm, Eric Ramon <ramon.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 15, 9:10?pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
>>
>> <consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Obama is to blame, he won't answer questions, and when McCain attempts
>> > to get him to accept responsibility, Democrats make cheap, false, and
>> > dishonorable attacks on him.
>>
>> > Basically, your party and President are cowardly and dishonorable, and
>> > when anyone tries to hold them accountable, they double down on the
>> > cowardly and dishonorable.
>>
>> I hear Obama is toast.
>>
>> That is to say, you tend to overreact in a highly partisan way.
>
> I'm surprised he still trusts the right-wing media after being mislead
> in such a dastardly way.
No, I understand that responsibility lies with me and I take ownership
>> <consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Obama is to blame, he won't answer questions, and when McCain attempts
>> > to get him to accept responsibility, Democrats make cheap, false, and
>> > dishonorable attacks on him.
>>
>> > Basically, your party and President are cowardly and dishonorable, and
>> > when anyone tries to hold them accountable, they double down on the
>> > cowardly and dishonorable.
>>
>> I hear Obama is toast.
>>
>> That is to say, you tend to overreact in a highly partisan way.
>
> I'm surprised he still trusts the right-wing media after being mislead
> in such a dastardly way.
of my mistake. I know the concept is difficult for you, but just try
to imagine what that might mean.
--
I don't want to get to the end of my life and find I have just
lived the length of it. I want to have lived the width of it as
well. -- Diane Ackerman
J.C. Watts
Nov 16, 2012, 8:48:43 AM11/16/12
to
On Nov 15, 11:10 pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
Honestly Con, I think you should probably go away for awhile. After
the election debacle, and rants and diatribes like this, it really is
hard to take you seriously.
the election debacle, and rants and diatribes like this, it really is
hard to take you seriously.
J.C. Watts
Nov 16, 2012, 8:52:22 AM11/16/12
to
On Nov 16, 6:52 am, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
<consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
starting a war in Iraq based on false information. In fact, Romney
was going to have a lot of them in his administration. Did you ever
call them out for being held accountable?
I think there should be hearings on this obviously. But it would be
nice if Republicans would let the hearings happen without jumping to
conclusions first, which from my eyes looks like what they are trying
to do.
<consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
> On 2012-11-16, Eric Ramon <ramon.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 15, 9:10?pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
> ><consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Obama is to blame, he won't answer questions, and when McCain attempts
> >> to get him to accept responsibility, Democrats make cheap, false, and
> >> dishonorable attacks on him.
>
> >> Basically, your party and President are cowardly and dishonorable, and
> >> when anyone tries to hold them accountable, they double down on the
> >> cowardly and dishonorable.
>
> > I hear Obama is toast.
>
> I thought he was and I was wrong. I can admit I was wrong;
> I don't have to point fingers at others and blame.
>
>
>
> > That is to say, you tend to overreact in a highly partisan way.
>
> Overreact? That's the whole point. It isn't a partisan issue.
>
> Do you understand dead? D-E-A-D? With people who could've
> and should've helped? Do you understand duty, and helping
> fellow Americans? Apparently the Democratic Party does not.
> And to try and weasel out of being held accountable, as you
> apparently are wont to do? Low and dishonorable.
>
> The Democratic Party is redefining low and dishonorable. But
> it is because of their cowardice and dishonesty, not because of
> political talking points.
Members of the Bush administration were never held accountable for
>
> > On Nov 15, 9:10?pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
> ><consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Obama is to blame, he won't answer questions, and when McCain attempts
> >> to get him to accept responsibility, Democrats make cheap, false, and
> >> dishonorable attacks on him.
>
> >> Basically, your party and President are cowardly and dishonorable, and
> >> when anyone tries to hold them accountable, they double down on the
> >> cowardly and dishonorable.
>
> > I hear Obama is toast.
>
> I thought he was and I was wrong. I can admit I was wrong;
> I don't have to point fingers at others and blame.
>
>
>
> > That is to say, you tend to overreact in a highly partisan way.
>
> Overreact? That's the whole point. It isn't a partisan issue.
>
> Do you understand dead? D-E-A-D? With people who could've
> and should've helped? Do you understand duty, and helping
> fellow Americans? Apparently the Democratic Party does not.
> And to try and weasel out of being held accountable, as you
> apparently are wont to do? Low and dishonorable.
>
> The Democratic Party is redefining low and dishonorable. But
> it is because of their cowardice and dishonesty, not because of
> political talking points.
starting a war in Iraq based on false information. In fact, Romney
was going to have a lot of them in his administration. Did you ever
call them out for being held accountable?
I think there should be hearings on this obviously. But it would be
nice if Republicans would let the hearings happen without jumping to
conclusions first, which from my eyes looks like what they are trying
to do.
Bradley K. Sherman
Nov 16, 2012, 8:58:38 AM11/16/12
to
>Do you understand dead? D-E-A-D? With people who could've
>and should've helped?
Like the 500,000 dead civilians in Iraq? What did you
>and should've helped?
do to help there?
--bks
xyzz-Quack!
Nov 16, 2012, 9:00:47 AM11/16/12
to
would attend briefings on it, so they know what they are ranting
about. The fact that McCain skipped his briefing for a press event
shows that he's not really interested in real oversight, he just wants
to score points.
xyzz-Quack!
Nov 16, 2012, 9:03:27 AM11/16/12
to
make them wonder what else Fox News is telling them that is what they
want to hear, but is false.
xyzz-Quack!
Nov 16, 2012, 9:14:52 AM11/16/12
to
On Nov 16, 12:10 am, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
I'm waiting for the facts to come out before assigning blame. But if
you don't think I'm open to acknowledging its a fuckup, well google is
your friend and I've posted on this before.
>
> > I'm blaming them for trying to use it to score political points and
> > not even being subtle about it.
>
> No, you are repeating Democrat talking points that are trying to
> distract from Obama's responsibility for the whole sordid affair.
And you're repeating GOP talking points
> McCain is a genuine war hero outraged about Obama's cowardly and
> cavalier treatment of Americans. Saying he is trying to score
> political points is dastardly and beneath contempt.
McCain is indeed a genuine war hero. But as a politician he has lost
his way since 2000 and is sad shadow of his former self.
> Who *would* you hold accountable? When will the press and the Congress
> do so? Apparently they won't. So McCain has to do it.
McCain can't do it with any credibility when he blows off the
oversight briefings.
> To claim that he
> is trying to score political points by doing his job is once again,
> despicable and transparent tactics.
Doing his job doesn't include attending oversight briefings? To claim
that he isn't trying to score political points is to be willfully
blind to what's going on in Washington.
>
> Obama is to blame, he won't answer questions, and when McCain attempts
> to get him to accept responsibility, Democrats make cheap, false, and
> dishonorable attacks on him.
Obama may be to blame, but Republicans started making cheap, false and
dishonorable attacks on him before the smoke even cleared in Benghazi,
before they or anyone knew anything. And they continue to do so rather
than do real investigation and oversight.
you don't think I'm open to acknowledging its a fuckup, well google is
your friend and I've posted on this before.
>
> > I'm blaming them for trying to use it to score political points and
> > not even being subtle about it.
>
> No, you are repeating Democrat talking points that are trying to
> distract from Obama's responsibility for the whole sordid affair.
> McCain is a genuine war hero outraged about Obama's cowardly and
> cavalier treatment of Americans. Saying he is trying to score
> political points is dastardly and beneath contempt.
his way since 2000 and is sad shadow of his former self.
> Who *would* you hold accountable? When will the press and the Congress
> do so? Apparently they won't. So McCain has to do it.
oversight briefings.
> To claim that he
> is trying to score political points by doing his job is once again,
> despicable and transparent tactics.
that he isn't trying to score political points is to be willfully
blind to what's going on in Washington.
>
> Obama is to blame, he won't answer questions, and when McCain attempts
> to get him to accept responsibility, Democrats make cheap, false, and
> dishonorable attacks on him.
dishonorable attacks on him before the smoke even cleared in Benghazi,
before they or anyone knew anything. And they continue to do so rather
than do real investigation and oversight.
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Nov 16, 2012, 9:33:13 AM11/16/12
to
On 2012-11-16, J.C. Watts <jone...@charter.net> wrote:
> On Nov 15, 11:10?pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
What do you call leaving four Americans to die in Benghazi? Embodying
the Democratic party principles? I know, to the president -- it's just
a bump in the road.
Well, the same dishonorable blame-other tactics are being called out,
and you say "you can't take it seriously". What can you take seriously?
I know government workers have a hard time taking anything seriously.
It's not like anyone considers turning the money spigot off. Big mama
government will provide. Just don't try and hit them in their pension
-- then they get nasty.
--
Fast, reliable, cheap. Pick two and we'll talk.
-- unknown
> On Nov 15, 11:10?pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
the Democratic party principles? I know, to the president -- it's just
a bump in the road.
Well, the same dishonorable blame-other tactics are being called out,
and you say "you can't take it seriously". What can you take seriously?
I know government workers have a hard time taking anything seriously.
It's not like anyone considers turning the money spigot off. Big mama
government will provide. Just don't try and hit them in their pension
-- then they get nasty.
--
Fast, reliable, cheap. Pick two and we'll talk.
-- unknown
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Nov 16, 2012, 9:41:30 AM11/16/12
to
On 2012-11-16, xyzz-Quack! <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 12:10?am, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
up?
>
>>
>> > I'm blaming them for trying to use it to score political points and
>> > not even being subtle about it.
>>
>> No, you are repeating Democrat talking points that are trying to
>> distract from Obama's responsibility for the whole sordid affair.
>
> And you're repeating GOP talking points
away from your homeboys. Bringing up Palin -- how ridiculous
can you get.
>
>> McCain is a genuine war hero outraged about Obama's cowardly and
>> cavalier treatment of Americans. Saying he is trying to score
>> political points is dastardly and beneath contempt.
>
> McCain is indeed a genuine war hero. But as a politician he has lost
> his way since 2000 and is sad shadow of his former self.
>
>> Who *would* you hold accountable? When will the press and the Congress
>> do so? Apparently they won't. So McCain has to do it.
>
> McCain can't do it with any credibility when he blows off the
> oversight briefings.
And since he was lied to in previous briefings, you want him to take
them at face value?
>
>> To claim that he
>> is trying to score political points by doing his job is once again,
>> despicable and transparent tactics.
>
> Doing his job doesn't include attending oversight briefings? To claim
> that he isn't trying to score political points is to be willfully
> blind to what's going on in Washington.
won't work.
>
>>
>> Obama is to blame, he won't answer questions, and when McCain attempts
>> to get him to accept responsibility, Democrats make cheap, false, and
>> dishonorable attacks on him.
>
> Obama may be to blame, but Republicans started making cheap, false and
> dishonorable attacks on him before the smoke even cleared in Benghazi,
> before they or anyone knew anything.
moments after the attack. That's what was attacked, and you don't need
any more evidence since they actually did it and it's a matter of
public record. It's cowardly and un-American, though I suppose it fits
well with Obama's world view.
So how was that "cheap, false, and dishonorable"? Do you even know what
that means?
> And they continue to do so rather than do real investigation and
> oversight.
at others instead of addressing the issue at hand. Oh, does that
remind me of someone and some political party?
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Nov 16, 2012, 9:42:54 AM11/16/12
to
On 2012-11-16, xyzz-Quack! <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 12:26?am, "D@n Brett@" <nuda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 15, 11:21?pm, Eric Ramon <ramon.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Nov 15, 9:10?pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
>>
>> > <consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Obama is to blame, he won't answer questions, and when McCain attempts
>> > > to get him to accept responsibility, Democrats make cheap, false, and
>> > > dishonorable attacks on him.
>>
>> > > Basically, your party and President are cowardly and dishonorable, and
>> > > when anyone tries to hold them accountable, they double down on the
>> > > cowardly and dishonorable.
>>
>> > I hear Obama is toast.
>>
>> > That is to say, you tend to overreact in a highly partisan way.
>>
>> I'm surprised he still trusts the right-wing media after being mislead
>> in such a dastardly way.
>
> I've thought about that too. Not just him though. What happened should
> make them wonder what else Fox News is telling them that is what they
> want to hear, but is false.
What was false? Specifically? There was an erroneous analysis, one which
>> > <consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Obama is to blame, he won't answer questions, and when McCain attempts
>> > > to get him to accept responsibility, Democrats make cheap, false, and
>> > > dishonorable attacks on him.
>>
>> > > Basically, your party and President are cowardly and dishonorable, and
>> > > when anyone tries to hold them accountable, they double down on the
>> > > cowardly and dishonorable.
>>
>> > I hear Obama is toast.
>>
>> > That is to say, you tend to overreact in a highly partisan way.
>>
>> I'm surprised he still trusts the right-wing media after being mislead
>> in such a dastardly way.
>
> I've thought about that too. Not just him though. What happened should
> make them wonder what else Fox News is telling them that is what they
> want to hear, but is false.
might have been different without Sandy. So give me the "false".
J.C. Watts
Nov 16, 2012, 9:45:47 AM11/16/12
to
On Nov 16, 8:33 am, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
<consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
you actually John McCain????
> I know government workers have a hard time taking anything seriously.
> It's not like anyone considers turning the money spigot off. Big mama
> government will provide. Just don't try and hit them in their pension
> -- then they get nasty.
LOL...your rants are getting even more pathetic.
<consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
> On 2012-11-16, J.C. Watts <jonens...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 15, 11:10?pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
> ><consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Basically, your party and President are cowardly and dishonorable, and
> >> when anyone tries to hold them accountable, they double down on the
> >> cowardly and dishonorable.
>
> > Honestly Con, I think you should probably go away for awhile. After
> > the election debacle, and rants and diatribes like this, it really is
> > hard to take you seriously.
>
> What do you call leaving four Americans to die in Benghazi? Embodying
> the Democratic party principles? I know, to the president -- it's just
> a bump in the road.
>
> Well, the same dishonorable blame-other tactics are being called out,
> and you say "you can't take it seriously". What can you take seriously?
Certainly not you...you are too partisan to be taken seriously. Are
>
> > On Nov 15, 11:10?pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
> ><consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Basically, your party and President are cowardly and dishonorable, and
> >> when anyone tries to hold them accountable, they double down on the
> >> cowardly and dishonorable.
>
> > Honestly Con, I think you should probably go away for awhile. After
> > the election debacle, and rants and diatribes like this, it really is
> > hard to take you seriously.
>
> What do you call leaving four Americans to die in Benghazi? Embodying
> the Democratic party principles? I know, to the president -- it's just
> a bump in the road.
>
> Well, the same dishonorable blame-other tactics are being called out,
> and you say "you can't take it seriously". What can you take seriously?
you actually John McCain????
> I know government workers have a hard time taking anything seriously.
> It's not like anyone considers turning the money spigot off. Big mama
> government will provide. Just don't try and hit them in their pension
> -- then they get nasty.
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Nov 16, 2012, 9:47:42 AM11/16/12
to
On 2012-11-16, J.C. Watts <jone...@charter.net> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 6:52?am, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
from the Democratic party all about?
> In fact, Romney was going to have a lot of them in his
> administration. Did you ever call them out for being held
> accountable?
attempt to avoid blame with a red herring.
> I think there should be hearings on this obviously. But it would be
> nice if Republicans would let the hearings happen without jumping to
> conclusions first, which from my eyes looks like what they are
> trying to do.
hearings, what are you supposed to do? Bend over and take it?
Obama lied. His administration lied. Period. He was caught at
it, now he uses the FBI and the Petraeus affair to distract.
They are the ones subverting the process, and here you are pointing
fingers at McCain.
That is low tactics, and I would hope it would be beneath you.
J.C. Watts
Nov 16, 2012, 9:48:02 AM11/16/12
to
On Nov 16, 8:41 am, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
See...this is why it is hard to take you seriously. If you can't find
any fault in the way some in the Republican leadership have approached
this issue, then I don't know what to say.
I think hearings need to be held and the truth needs to come out, but
I have my doubts that's what McCain really wants.
Jon
any fault in the way some in the Republican leadership have approached
this issue, then I don't know what to say.
I think hearings need to be held and the truth needs to come out, but
I have my doubts that's what McCain really wants.
Jon
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Nov 16, 2012, 9:48:40 AM11/16/12
to
On 2012-11-16, xyzz-Quack! <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 8:52?am, "J.C. Watts" <jonens...@charter.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 16, 6:52?am, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
>>
>>
>> <consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 2012-11-16, Eric Ramon <ramon.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Nov 15, 9:10?pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
>> > ><consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >> Obama is to blame, he won't answer questions, and when McCain attempts
>> > >> to get him to accept responsibility, Democrats make cheap, false, and
>> > >> dishonorable attacks on him.
>>
>> > >> Basically, your party and President are cowardly and dishonorable, and
>> > >> when anyone tries to hold them accountable, they double down on the
>> > >> cowardly and dishonorable.
>>
>> > > I hear Obama is toast.
>>
>> > I thought he was and I was wrong. I can admit I was wrong;
>> > I don't have to point fingers at others and blame.
>>
>> > > That is to say, you tend to overreact in a highly partisan way.
>>
>> > Overreact? That's the whole point. It isn't a partisan issue.
>>
>> > Do you understand dead? D-E-A-D? With people who could've
>> > and should've helped? Do you understand duty, and helping
>> > fellow Americans? Apparently the Democratic Party does not.
>> > And to try and weasel out of being held accountable, as you
>> > apparently are wont to do? Low and dishonorable.
>>
>> > The Democratic Party is redefining low and dishonorable. But
>> > it is because of their cowardice and dishonesty, not because of
>> > political talking points.
>>
>> Members of the Bush administration were never held accountable for
>> starting a war in Iraq based on false information. ?In fact, Romney
>>
>> <consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 2012-11-16, Eric Ramon <ramon.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Nov 15, 9:10?pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
>> > ><consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >> Obama is to blame, he won't answer questions, and when McCain attempts
>> > >> to get him to accept responsibility, Democrats make cheap, false, and
>> > >> dishonorable attacks on him.
>>
>> > >> Basically, your party and President are cowardly and dishonorable, and
>> > >> when anyone tries to hold them accountable, they double down on the
>> > >> cowardly and dishonorable.
>>
>> > > I hear Obama is toast.
>>
>> > I thought he was and I was wrong. I can admit I was wrong;
>> > I don't have to point fingers at others and blame.
>>
>> > > That is to say, you tend to overreact in a highly partisan way.
>>
>> > Overreact? That's the whole point. It isn't a partisan issue.
>>
>> > Do you understand dead? D-E-A-D? With people who could've
>> > and should've helped? Do you understand duty, and helping
>> > fellow Americans? Apparently the Democratic Party does not.
>> > And to try and weasel out of being held accountable, as you
>> > apparently are wont to do? Low and dishonorable.
>>
>> > The Democratic Party is redefining low and dishonorable. But
>> > it is because of their cowardice and dishonesty, not because of
>> > political talking points.
>>
>> Members of the Bush administration were never held accountable for
>> was going to have a lot of them in his administration. ?Did you ever
>> call them out for being held accountable?
>>
>> I think there should be hearings on this obviously. ?But it would be
>>
>> nice if Republicans would let the hearings happen without jumping to
>> conclusions first, which from my eyes looks like what they are trying
>> to do.
>
> Plus it would be nice if those with Congressional oversight duties
> would attend briefings on it, so they know what they are ranting
> about. The fact that McCain skipped his briefing for a press event
> shows that he's not really interested in real oversight, he just wants
> to score points.
Who are you to decide he needs a briefing? Since the administration
>> conclusions first, which from my eyes looks like what they are trying
>> to do.
>
> Plus it would be nice if those with Congressional oversight duties
> would attend briefings on it, so they know what they are ranting
> about. The fact that McCain skipped his briefing for a press event
> shows that he's not really interested in real oversight, he just wants
> to score points.
has repeatedly lied during the briefings, why would they be a priority?
--
Being against torture ought to be sort of a bipartisan thing.
-- Karl Lehenbauer
Bradley K. Sherman
Nov 16, 2012, 9:52:47 AM11/16/12
to
>Who are you to decide he needs a briefing? Since the administration
>has repeatedly lied during the briefings, why would they be a priority?
>
The top Republican the committee, Senator Susan Collins, AND
>has repeatedly lied during the briefings, why would they be a priority?
>
Chairman Senator Joe Lieberman, both called him out for not
showing up! McCain has turned Benghazigate into a clown show.
--bks
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Nov 16, 2012, 9:59:17 AM11/16/12
to
On 2012-11-16, J.C. Watts <jone...@charter.net> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 8:41?am, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
>> Who are you to judge him and what he needs to do? ?IT ISN"T ABOUT HIM.
It isn't about them.
> I think hearings need to be held and the truth needs to come out, but
> I have my doubts that's what McCain really wants.
Why? Because you're trying to make it about him? It isn't about him.
It is about getting at the truth. If the Obama administration cooperates
with the hearings, I say fine. But with their outrageous evasive tactics,
including the talking points you are parroting trying to make McCain and
the Republicans the issue, that can't be done.
I am just sick of this constant red herring point fingers approach.
Bringing up Palin -- how ridiculous can you get. Bringing up past
adminstration's errors. That isn't the issue. The issue is the
Benghazi situation.
Let the hearings commence. With all the players. If that happens? I
am happy. The press and the Democrats -- but I repeat myself --
pointing of fingers at McCain is a transparent attempt to distract.
> On Nov 16, 8:41?am, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
> I think hearings need to be held and the truth needs to come out, but
> I have my doubts that's what McCain really wants.
It is about getting at the truth. If the Obama administration cooperates
with the hearings, I say fine. But with their outrageous evasive tactics,
including the talking points you are parroting trying to make McCain and
the Republicans the issue, that can't be done.
I am just sick of this constant red herring point fingers approach.
Bringing up Palin -- how ridiculous can you get. Bringing up past
adminstration's errors. That isn't the issue. The issue is the
Benghazi situation.
Let the hearings commence. With all the players. If that happens? I
am happy. The press and the Democrats -- but I repeat myself --
pointing of fingers at McCain is a transparent attempt to distract.
Bradley K. Sherman
Nov 16, 2012, 10:06:56 AM11/16/12
to
>Let the hearings commence. With all the players. If that happens? I
>am happy. The press and the Democrats -- but I repeat myself --
>pointing of fingers at McCain is a transparent attempt to distract.
>
Distract from what? There's nothing there to see.
>am happy. The press and the Democrats -- but I repeat myself --
>pointing of fingers at McCain is a transparent attempt to distract.
>
--bks
J.C. Watts
Nov 16, 2012, 10:09:17 AM11/16/12
to
On Nov 16, 8:59 am, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
<consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
Of course it is. How they conduct congressional oversight is part of
the issue here.
>
> > I think hearings need to be held and the truth needs to come out, but
> > I have my doubts that's what McCain really wants.
>
> Why? Because you're trying to make it about him? It isn't about him.
> It is about getting at the truth. If the Obama administration cooperates
> with the hearings, I say fine. But with their outrageous evasive tactics,
> including the talking points you are parroting trying to make McCain and
> the Republicans the issue, that can't be done.
How they conduct oversight is certainly part of the issue. Skipping
hearing so they can conduct press conferences show that "finding the
truth" may not be their primary goal. You can't see that?
> I am just sick of this constant red herring point fingers approach.
> Bringing up Palin -- how ridiculous can you get. Bringing up past
> adminstration's errors. That isn't the issue. The issue is the
> Benghazi situation.
Bringing up the previous administration, and your reaction to that,
shows that you are not politically neutral in the matter. Which I
suspected from the beginning.
Jon
<consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
the issue here.
>
> > I think hearings need to be held and the truth needs to come out, but
> > I have my doubts that's what McCain really wants.
>
> Why? Because you're trying to make it about him? It isn't about him.
> It is about getting at the truth. If the Obama administration cooperates
> with the hearings, I say fine. But with their outrageous evasive tactics,
> including the talking points you are parroting trying to make McCain and
> the Republicans the issue, that can't be done.
hearing so they can conduct press conferences show that "finding the
truth" may not be their primary goal. You can't see that?
> I am just sick of this constant red herring point fingers approach.
> Bringing up Palin -- how ridiculous can you get. Bringing up past
> adminstration's errors. That isn't the issue. The issue is the
> Benghazi situation.
shows that you are not politically neutral in the matter. Which I
suspected from the beginning.
Jon
The Undead Edward M. Kennedy
Nov 16, 2012, 10:25:51 AM11/16/12
to
"J.C. Watts" <jone...@charter.net> wrote in message news:3cff1f5c-6908-487d...@3g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
I did. I think all the republican apologists are bordering on assholes
on this one. Tom-whoever-it-was who disappeared being a notable
example of a non-libertarian claiming to be one. Disgust me much.
Fucking bullshit. I hate democrats only slightly more than Bushists.
Caveat: A small minority of Republicans are not Bushists. A small
minority of Democrats do not believe in unicorns.
--Tedward
The Undead Edward M. Kennedy
Nov 16, 2012, 10:32:08 AM11/16/12
to
"Con Reeder, unhyphenated American" <cons...@duxmail.com> wrote
advisors screwed the pooch?
Conservatives are humans. Sometimes they fuck up.
THEY FUCKED UP BIG TIME.
--Tedward
xyzz-Quack!
Nov 16, 2012, 10:33:28 AM11/16/12
to
On Nov 16, 9:59 am, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
Dude. The hearings have commenced. The only player that's been
missing is John McCain, because the classified briefing he skipped was
part of the hearings process! Today, David Petreus is testifying.
So the hearings are happening.
The real problem here, IMO, is the right-wing fantasy that Benghazi is
a combination Iran Hostage Crisis - Watergate silver bullet that will
finally bring down Obama after birtherism, Rev Wright, false cries of
socialism, etc. failed to. When in fact it's simply a garden variety
security and intelligence fuck-up, of the type every president has.
And I'm sure if the hearings, which are already ongoing, don't
produce that silver bullet you will be claiming it's a coverup.
missing is John McCain, because the classified briefing he skipped was
part of the hearings process! Today, David Petreus is testifying.
So the hearings are happening.
The real problem here, IMO, is the right-wing fantasy that Benghazi is
a combination Iran Hostage Crisis - Watergate silver bullet that will
finally bring down Obama after birtherism, Rev Wright, false cries of
socialism, etc. failed to. When in fact it's simply a garden variety
security and intelligence fuck-up, of the type every president has.
And I'm sure if the hearings, which are already ongoing, don't
produce that silver bullet you will be claiming it's a coverup.
The Undead Edward M. Kennedy
Nov 16, 2012, 10:37:27 AM11/16/12
to
"xyzz-Quack!" <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote
----
I call busllshit. Never ascribe whatever when stupidity makes more
sense. I think McCain just fucked up, and your assertion about
oversight verses scoring points is bullshit.
You're right he wanted to score points, but he just screwed up.
It wasn't at the expense of oversight, which he would have relished.
--Tedward
I call busllshit. Never ascribe whatever when stupidity makes more
sense. I think McCain just fucked up, and your assertion about
oversight verses scoring points is bullshit.
You're right he wanted to score points, but he just screwed up.
It wasn't at the expense of oversight, which he would have relished.
--Tedward
xyzz-Quack!
Nov 16, 2012, 10:41:50 AM11/16/12
to
On Nov 16, 10:37 am, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" <e...@o.com>
wrote:
> "xyzz-Quack!" <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote
So you're saying he's incompetent? That's his excuse?
wrote:
> "xyzz-Quack!" <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote
xyzz-Quack!
Nov 16, 2012, 10:51:10 AM11/16/12
to
> "xyzz-Quack!" <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote
Maybe he really is incompetent... that's definitely a possibility. ...
But then again this was a classified briefing so 1) he couldn't
grandstand for reporters and 2) he might learn something contrary to
his narrative. So not sure how much he would have relished it.
But then again this was a classified briefing so 1) he couldn't
grandstand for reporters and 2) he might learn something contrary to
his narrative. So not sure how much he would have relished it.
The Undead Edward M. Kennedy
Nov 16, 2012, 10:58:25 AM11/16/12
to
"xyzz-Quack!" <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote
If, by your definition, everyone who has ever made a brain fart is
incompetent, then sure, dude, I wouldn't look at McCain's body
of work and call him incompetent, though he certainly has his
share of mistakes, like Palin.
"That's his excuse."?
Whatever, dude. Reagan, Bush X2, Clinton all had their mistakes.
None were incompetent. Well, Reagan was at the end, but not
before.
--Tedward
incompetent, then sure, dude, I wouldn't look at McCain's body
of work and call him incompetent, though he certainly has his
share of mistakes, like Palin.
"That's his excuse."?
Whatever, dude. Reagan, Bush X2, Clinton all had their mistakes.
None were incompetent. Well, Reagan was at the end, but not
before.
--Tedward
Emperor Wonko the Sane
Nov 16, 2012, 11:16:09 AM11/16/12
to
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 9:23:45 PM UTC-6, Eric Ramon wrote:
> On Nov 15, 6:49 pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
>
> <consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>
> > should be held accountable. It's dereliction of duty all
>
> > the way around -- the press, the President, SecState, all
>
> > the way down the line. And the reporter tries to make it
>
> > about McCain.
>
> >
>
> > Dereliction of duty is a crime. And this administration
>
> > is guilty of it.
>
>
>
> 2002 - June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb explodes outside American
>
> consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.
>
>
>
> 2003 - May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers kill 34,
>
> including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda
>
> suspected.
>
>
>
> 2004 - May 29–31, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices
>
> of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil
>
> workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people
>
> dead including 1 American.
>
>
>
> June 11–19, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul
>
> Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans
>
> and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.
>
>
>
> Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate,
>
> killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi
>
> security.
>
>
>
> 2006 - Sept. 13, Damascus, Syria: an attack by four gunman on the
>
> American embassy is foiled.
>
>
>
> 2007 - Jan. 12, Athens, Greece: the U.S. embassy is fired on by an
>
> anti-tank missile causing damage but no injuries.
>
>
>
> 2008 - May 26, Iraq: a suicide bomber on a motorcycle kills six U.S.
>
> soldiers and wounds 18 others in Tarmiya.
>
>
>
> June 24, Iraq: a suicide bomber kills at least 20 people, including
>
> three U.S. Marines, at a meeting between sheiks and Americans in
>
> Karmah, a town west of Baghdad.
>
>
>
> June 12, Afghanistan: four American servicemen are killed when a
>
> roadside bomb explodes near a U.S. military vehicle in Farah Province.
>
>
>
> July 13, Afghanistan: nine U.S.soldiers and at least 15 NATO troops
>
> die when Taliban militants boldly attack an American base in Kunar
>
> Province, which borders Pakistan. It's the most deadly against U.S.
>
> troops in three years.
>
>
>
> Aug. 18 and 19, Afghanistan: as many as 15 suicide bombers backed by
>
> about 30 militants attack a U.S. military base, Camp Salerno, in
>
> Bamiyan. Fighting between U.S. troops and members of the Taliban rages
>
> overnight. No U.S. troops are killed.
>
>
>
> Sept. 16, Yemen: a car bomb and a rocket strike the U.S. embassy in
>
> Yemen as staff arrived to work, killing 16 people, including 4
>
> civilians. At least 25 suspected al-Qaeda militants are arrested for
>
> the attack.
I see. In which of those incidents did the government have specific requests for more security and the obvious concern about the anniversary of 9/11?
Doug
> On Nov 15, 6:49 pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
>
> <consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2012-11-16, Michael <michaeldwils...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >http://gawker.com/5961030/john-mccain-explodes-after-cnn-reporter-ask...
>
> >
>
> > As well he should explode. It's the President, not him, who
> > On 2012-11-16, Michael <michaeldwils...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >http://gawker.com/5961030/john-mccain-explodes-after-cnn-reporter-ask...
>
> >
>
>
> > should be held accountable. It's dereliction of duty all
>
> > the way around -- the press, the President, SecState, all
>
> > the way down the line. And the reporter tries to make it
>
> > about McCain.
>
> >
>
> > Dereliction of duty is a crime. And this administration
>
> > is guilty of it.
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> > An amateur practices until he gets it right. A pro
>
> > practices until he can't get it wrong. -- unknown
>
>
>
> you know this list, right?
> >
>
> > --
>
> > An amateur practices until he gets it right. A pro
>
> > practices until he can't get it wrong. -- unknown
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2002 - June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb explodes outside American
>
> consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.
>
>
>
> 2003 - May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers kill 34,
>
> including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda
>
> suspected.
>
>
>
> 2004 - May 29–31, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices
>
> of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil
>
> workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people
>
> dead including 1 American.
>
>
>
> June 11–19, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul
>
> Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans
>
> and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.
>
>
>
> Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate,
>
> killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi
>
> security.
>
>
>
> 2006 - Sept. 13, Damascus, Syria: an attack by four gunman on the
>
> American embassy is foiled.
>
>
>
> 2007 - Jan. 12, Athens, Greece: the U.S. embassy is fired on by an
>
> anti-tank missile causing damage but no injuries.
>
>
>
> 2008 - May 26, Iraq: a suicide bomber on a motorcycle kills six U.S.
>
> soldiers and wounds 18 others in Tarmiya.
>
>
>
> June 24, Iraq: a suicide bomber kills at least 20 people, including
>
> three U.S. Marines, at a meeting between sheiks and Americans in
>
> Karmah, a town west of Baghdad.
>
>
>
> June 12, Afghanistan: four American servicemen are killed when a
>
> roadside bomb explodes near a U.S. military vehicle in Farah Province.
>
>
>
> July 13, Afghanistan: nine U.S.soldiers and at least 15 NATO troops
>
> die when Taliban militants boldly attack an American base in Kunar
>
> Province, which borders Pakistan. It's the most deadly against U.S.
>
> troops in three years.
>
>
>
> Aug. 18 and 19, Afghanistan: as many as 15 suicide bombers backed by
>
> about 30 militants attack a U.S. military base, Camp Salerno, in
>
> Bamiyan. Fighting between U.S. troops and members of the Taliban rages
>
> overnight. No U.S. troops are killed.
>
>
>
> Sept. 16, Yemen: a car bomb and a rocket strike the U.S. embassy in
>
> Yemen as staff arrived to work, killing 16 people, including 4
>
> civilians. At least 25 suspected al-Qaeda militants are arrested for
>
> the attack.
I see. In which of those incidents did the government have specific requests for more security and the obvious concern about the anniversary of 9/11?
Doug
Emperor Wonko the Sane
Nov 16, 2012, 11:26:41 AM11/16/12
to b...@panix.com
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 8:54:16 PM UTC-6, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
> Con Reeder, unhyphenated American <con...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On 2012-11-16, Michael <michael...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Con Reeder, unhyphenated American <con...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>
>
> >http://gawker.com/5961030/john-mccain-explodes-after-cnn-reporter-asks-him-why-he-didnt-attend-benghazi-briefing-who-the-hell-are-you
>
> >
>
> >As well he should explode. It's the President, not him, who
>
> >should be held accountable.
>
>
>
> For what?
> >
>
> >As well he should explode. It's the President, not him, who
>
> >should be held accountable.
>
>
>
>
> |
>
> | Benghazi-gate gets even more ludicrous
>
> | ...
>
> | This is absolutely right as far as it goes, but it doesn't
>
> | go far enough. At the most fundamental level, the reason it
>
> | is absurd to suspect the existence of a "cover-up" over the
>
> | Benghazi attack is that such a cover-up could not have had
>
> | any conceivable goal. Back to the beginning: the underlying
>
> | accusation about Benghazi is that the Obama administration
>
> | deliberately mischaracterised the terrorist attack there as
>
> | having grown out of a spontaneous demonstration because
>
> | that would be less politically damaging. Such a cover-up
>
> | would have made no sense because the attack would not have
>
> | been less politically damaging had it grown out of a
>
> | spontaneous demonstration.
>
> | ...
>
> <http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/11/susan-rice>
>
>
>
> --bks
I'm amazed at how rsfcking dense the Economist can be sometimes. I read an article a few years ago about the Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon where they never stated the obvious fact that Hezbollah is an Iranian proxy group.
Here, they ignore that the administration was warned about a possible attack and that additional security had been requested. Spontaneous outbursts generally cannot be anticipated. They honestly expect us to think that being surprised is no different than dereliction? The Economist is also ignoring the fact that it is clear that several members of the administration, including the president, have lied about what happened. People usually don't lie without a reason.
Doug
Kyle T. Jones
Nov 16, 2012, 11:38:12 AM11/16/12
to
On 11/16/12 6:58 AM, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
> On 2012-11-16, D@n Brett@<nud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 15, 11:21?pm, Eric Ramon<ramon.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 15, 9:10?pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
> of my mistake. I know the concept is difficult for you, but just try
> to imagine what that might mean.
>
That you've stopped being a single-source consumer, with a deep and
abiding trust that the far-right media is providing the "real story"
while the more centrist media is in the pocket of the left?
Well, no, that's clearly not the case...
Cheers.
--
Too bad. Read the manual. If this stuff were easy
we would not get the big bucks. -- Michael Press, June 1st 2012
> On 2012-11-16, D@n Brett@<nud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 15, 11:21?pm, Eric Ramon<ramon.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 15, 9:10?pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
>>>
>>> <consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Obama is to blame, he won't answer questions, and when McCain attempts
>>>> to get him to accept responsibility, Democrats make cheap, false, and
>>>> dishonorable attacks on him.
>>>
>>>> Basically, your party and President are cowardly and dishonorable, and
>>>> when anyone tries to hold them accountable, they double down on the
>>>> cowardly and dishonorable.
>>>
>>> I hear Obama is toast.
>>>
>>> <consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Obama is to blame, he won't answer questions, and when McCain attempts
>>>> to get him to accept responsibility, Democrats make cheap, false, and
>>>> dishonorable attacks on him.
>>>
>>>> Basically, your party and President are cowardly and dishonorable, and
>>>> when anyone tries to hold them accountable, they double down on the
>>>> cowardly and dishonorable.
>>>
>>> I hear Obama is toast.
>>>
>>> That is to say, you tend to overreact in a highly partisan way.
>>
>>
>> I'm surprised he still trusts the right-wing media after being mislead
>> in such a dastardly way.
>
> No, I understand that responsibility lies with me and I take ownership
>> in such a dastardly way.
>
> of my mistake. I know the concept is difficult for you, but just try
> to imagine what that might mean.
>
That you've stopped being a single-source consumer, with a deep and
abiding trust that the far-right media is providing the "real story"
while the more centrist media is in the pocket of the left?
Well, no, that's clearly not the case...
Cheers.
--
Too bad. Read the manual. If this stuff were easy
we would not get the big bucks. -- Michael Press, June 1st 2012
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Nov 16, 2012, 11:44:21 AM11/16/12
to
On 2012-11-16, xyzz-Quack! <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 9:59?am, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
><consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Let the hearings commence. With all the players. If that happens? I
>> am happy. The press and the Democrats -- but I repeat myself --
>> pointing of fingers at McCain is a transparent attempt to distract.
>
> Dude. The hearings have commenced. The only player that's been
> missing is John McCain, because the classified briefing he skipped was
> part of the hearings process!
Do you seriously think he is not read in? Your measly point is
>
>> Let the hearings commence. With all the players. If that happens? I
>> am happy. The press and the Democrats -- but I repeat myself --
>> pointing of fingers at McCain is a transparent attempt to distract.
>
> Dude. The hearings have commenced. The only player that's been
> missing is John McCain, because the classified briefing he skipped was
> part of the hearings process!
no point at all.
> Today, David Petreus is testifying.
>
> So the hearings are happening.
>
> The real problem here, IMO, is the right-wing fantasy that Benghazi is
> a combination Iran Hostage Crisis - Watergate silver bullet that will
> finally bring down Obama after birtherism, Rev Wright, false cries of
> socialism, etc. failed to. When in fact it's simply a garden variety
> security and intelligence fuck-up, of the type every president has.
>
> And I'm sure if the hearings, which are already ongoing, don't
> produce that silver bullet you will be claiming it's a coverup.
no excuse for it. The simple facts of the case as they are known now
are damning enough. The people were left to die, and they were put
into position to die because of political posturing. And you bringing
McCain up to distract from that is trying to score political points.
By the way, you *do* recall that you posting that ridiculous
accusation against McCain is what started this little dustup?
--
Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently equipped fool. -- unknown
Bradley K. Sherman
Nov 16, 2012, 11:45:49 AM11/16/12
to
Emperor Wonko the Sane <do...@sorensensdomain.net> wrote:
>
>Here, they ignore that the administration was warned about a possible
>attack and that additional security had been requested. Spontaneous
>outbursts generally cannot be anticipated. They honestly expect us to
>think that being surprised is no different than dereliction? The
>Economist is also ignoring the fact that it is clear that several
>members of the administration, including the president, have lied about
>what happened. People usually don't lie without a reason.
>
You have no idea what you're talking about. None of that stuff
>
>Here, they ignore that the administration was warned about a possible
>attack and that additional security had been requested. Spontaneous
>outbursts generally cannot be anticipated. They honestly expect us to
>think that being surprised is no different than dereliction? The
>Economist is also ignoring the fact that it is clear that several
>members of the administration, including the president, have lied about
>what happened. People usually don't lie without a reason.
>
ever happened. Turn off Rush Limbaugh and read the news yourself.
--bks
Bradley K. Sherman
Nov 16, 2012, 11:46:48 AM11/16/12
to
>I have no fantasy. I know that four people are dead, and that there is
>no excuse for it.
Well other than that they were at a CIA outpost in a country
>no excuse for it.
undergoing a civil war! Sheesh.
--bks
xyzz-Quack!
Nov 16, 2012, 11:53:15 AM11/16/12
to
On Nov 16, 11:44 am, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
<consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
> By the way, you *do* recall that you posting that ridiculous
> accusation against McCain is what started this little dustup?
No, I don't. Do you have me mistaken for another poster?
> By the way, you *do* recall that you posting that ridiculous
> accusation against McCain is what started this little dustup?
Dennis J
Nov 16, 2012, 3:33:03 PM11/16/12
to
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 08:59:17 -0600, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated
American" <cons...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>
>It isn't about them.
sure it is, they're just like the guy I *HAD* to learn about in
American" <cons...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>
>It isn't about them.
History class (he was a Wisconsinite) "IN MY HAND IS AN ENVELOPE WITH
THE NAMES OF KNOWN COMMUNISTS!!!!" the envelope contained Blank pages.
so excuse my Skepticism until people actually testify under Oath.
too many Republicans are acting McCarthyesque.
--
"Beware of the Military-Industrial Complex!!" D.D.E
"iPOD -- I Prefer Other Devices"
"Education is the progressive discovery of our own Ignorance" Will Durant
"One can't have a sense of perspective without a sense of Humor" -- Wayne Thiboux
"the Glass is not only half full, it has been delicious so far!!" -- ME
To reply, SCRAPE off the end bits.
Dennis J
Nov 16, 2012, 3:36:51 PM11/16/12
to
like 30-40 killed over 8 different attacks. Mountain from a molehill
is what we have here.
more like Mourdock/Ailes trying to repeat Hearst.... REMEMBER THE
MAINE!!!!
meda...@gmail.com
Nov 16, 2012, 3:44:37 PM11/16/12
to con...@duxmail.com
On Friday, November 16, 2012 7:58:42 AM UTC-5, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
> On 2012-11-16, D@n Brett@ <nud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 15, 11:21?pm, Eric Ramon <ramon.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Nov 15, 9:10?pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
> On 2012-11-16, D@n Brett@ <nud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 15, 11:21?pm, Eric Ramon <ramon.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>
>
> >> <consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> > Obama is to blame, he won't answer questions, and when McCain attempts
>
> >> > to get him to accept responsibility, Democrats make cheap, false, and
>
> >> > dishonorable attacks on him.
>
> >>
>
> >> > Basically, your party and President are cowardly and dishonorable, and
>
> >> > when anyone tries to hold them accountable, they double down on the
>
> >> > cowardly and dishonorable.
>
> >>
>
> >> I hear Obama is toast.
>
> >>
>
> >> That is to say, you tend to overreact in a highly partisan way.
>
> >
>
> > I'm surprised he still trusts the right-wing media after being mislead
>
> > in such a dastardly way.
>
>
>
> No, I understand that responsibility lies with me and I take ownership
>
> of my mistake. I know the concept is difficult for you, but just try
>
> to imagine what that might mean.
>
>
>
> --
> >>
>
> >> <consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> > Obama is to blame, he won't answer questions, and when McCain attempts
>
> >> > to get him to accept responsibility, Democrats make cheap, false, and
>
> >> > dishonorable attacks on him.
>
> >>
>
> >> > Basically, your party and President are cowardly and dishonorable, and
>
> >> > when anyone tries to hold them accountable, they double down on the
>
> >> > cowardly and dishonorable.
>
> >>
>
> >> I hear Obama is toast.
>
> >>
>
> >> That is to say, you tend to overreact in a highly partisan way.
>
> >
>
> > I'm surprised he still trusts the right-wing media after being mislead
>
> > in such a dastardly way.
>
>
>
> No, I understand that responsibility lies with me and I take ownership
>
> of my mistake. I know the concept is difficult for you, but just try
>
> to imagine what that might mean.
>
>
>
>
> I don't want to get to the end of my life and find I have just
>
> lived the length of it. I want to have lived the width of it as
>
> well. -- Diane Ackerman
Have you ever stopped to think that, just maybe, you're not really...equipped... to form such strong opinions? I mean, I guess you can't help it, but you should have learned by now to keep these "fits" on the down low. You're really looking like more of an ass than on election day. And I didn't think that was possible.
Eric Ramon
Nov 16, 2012, 3:50:58 PM11/16/12
to
On Nov 16, 4:52 am, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
<consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>
> I would think that you would have to hold your nose to have
> voted for Obama. That so many apparently did isn't praise
> of Obama -- it's an indictment of your party. The low demagoguery
> and naked political favor-giving of machine politics is ugly
> and disgusting. Welcome to the Democratic Party.
>
as you probably know, I didn't vote for Obama. I voted for Jill Stein.
I've been thinking about the dropoff in voting from 2012. With all of
those missing votes you have to figure a whole lot of people have been
turned off by both parties and are disillusioned with "hope and
change". Those people also thought the Republican alternative was not
preferable.
In fact, with a setup that should have made it easy for the
Republicans to win the White House, your guys somehow blew it with
your crazy fringe ideas and belligerent stance that anyone who didn't
share those views was inferior.
<consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>
> I would think that you would have to hold your nose to have
> voted for Obama. That so many apparently did isn't praise
> of Obama -- it's an indictment of your party. The low demagoguery
> and naked political favor-giving of machine politics is ugly
> and disgusting. Welcome to the Democratic Party.
>
as you probably know, I didn't vote for Obama. I voted for Jill Stein.
I've been thinking about the dropoff in voting from 2012. With all of
those missing votes you have to figure a whole lot of people have been
turned off by both parties and are disillusioned with "hope and
change". Those people also thought the Republican alternative was not
preferable.
In fact, with a setup that should have made it easy for the
Republicans to win the White House, your guys somehow blew it with
your crazy fringe ideas and belligerent stance that anyone who didn't
share those views was inferior.
D@n Brett@
Nov 16, 2012, 5:58:11 PM11/16/12
to
On Nov 16, 8:42 am, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
> > make them wonder what else Fox News is telling them that is what they
> > want to hear, but is false.
>
> What was false? Specifically? There was an erroneous analysis, one which
> might have been different without Sandy. So give me the "false".
duty to lie.
HTH
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/dick-morris-explains-romney-landslide-prediction-i-felt-it-was-my-duty-to-say-what-i-said/
Dan
<consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
> On 2012-11-16, xyzz-Quack! <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2012-11-16, xyzz-Quack! <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 16, 12:26?am, "D@n Brett@" <nuda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 15, 11:21?pm, Eric Ramon <ramon.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Nov 15, 9:10?pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
> >> On Nov 15, 11:21?pm, Eric Ramon <ramon.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> > <consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > Obama is to blame, he won't answer questions, and when McCain attempts
> >> > > to get him to accept responsibility, Democrats make cheap, false, and
> >> > > dishonorable attacks on him.
>
> >> > > Basically, your party and President are cowardly and dishonorable, and
> >> > > when anyone tries to hold them accountable, they double down on the
> >> > > cowardly and dishonorable.
>
> >> > I hear Obama is toast.
>
> >> > That is to say, you tend to overreact in a highly partisan way.
>
> >> I'm surprised he still trusts the right-wing media after being mislead
> >> in such a dastardly way.
>
> > I've thought about that too. Not just him though. What happened should
> >> > <consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > Obama is to blame, he won't answer questions, and when McCain attempts
> >> > > to get him to accept responsibility, Democrats make cheap, false, and
> >> > > dishonorable attacks on him.
>
> >> > > Basically, your party and President are cowardly and dishonorable, and
> >> > > when anyone tries to hold them accountable, they double down on the
> >> > > cowardly and dishonorable.
>
> >> > I hear Obama is toast.
>
> >> > That is to say, you tend to overreact in a highly partisan way.
>
> >> I'm surprised he still trusts the right-wing media after being mislead
> >> in such a dastardly way.
>
> > make them wonder what else Fox News is telling them that is what they
> > want to hear, but is false.
>
> What was false? Specifically? There was an erroneous analysis, one which
> might have been different without Sandy. So give me the "false".
>
> --
> An amateur practices until he gets it right. A pro
> practices until he can't get it wrong. -- unknown
Dick Morris went on Sean Hannity's show and said he felt it was his
> --
> An amateur practices until he gets it right. A pro
> practices until he can't get it wrong. -- unknown
duty to lie.
HTH
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/dick-morris-explains-romney-landslide-prediction-i-felt-it-was-my-duty-to-say-what-i-said/
Dan
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Nov 16, 2012, 6:31:52 PM11/16/12
to
On 2012-11-16, D@n Brett@ <nud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 8:42?am, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
><consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2012-11-16, xyzz-Quack! <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 16, 12:26?am, "D@n Brett@" <nuda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Nov 15, 11:21?pm, Eric Ramon <ramon.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Nov 15, 9:10?pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
>>
>> >> > <consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > Obama is to blame, he won't answer questions, and when McCain attempts
>> >> > > to get him to accept responsibility, Democrats make cheap, false, and
>> >> > > dishonorable attacks on him.
>>
>> >> > > Basically, your party and President are cowardly and dishonorable, and
>> >> > > when anyone tries to hold them accountable, they double down on the
>> >> > > cowardly and dishonorable.
>>
>> >> > I hear Obama is toast.
>>
>> >> > That is to say, you tend to overreact in a highly partisan way.
>>
>> >> I'm surprised he still trusts the right-wing media after being mislead
>> >> in such a dastardly way.
>>
>> > I've thought about that too. Not just him though. What happened should
>> > make them wonder what else Fox News is telling them that is what they
>> > want to hear, but is false.
>>
>> What was false? Specifically? There was an erroneous analysis, one which
>> might have been different without Sandy. So give me the "false".
>>
>
>> On 2012-11-16, xyzz-Quack! <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 16, 12:26?am, "D@n Brett@" <nuda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Nov 15, 11:21?pm, Eric Ramon <ramon.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Nov 15, 9:10?pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
>>
>> >> > <consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > Obama is to blame, he won't answer questions, and when McCain attempts
>> >> > > to get him to accept responsibility, Democrats make cheap, false, and
>> >> > > dishonorable attacks on him.
>>
>> >> > > Basically, your party and President are cowardly and dishonorable, and
>> >> > > when anyone tries to hold them accountable, they double down on the
>> >> > > cowardly and dishonorable.
>>
>> >> > I hear Obama is toast.
>>
>> >> > That is to say, you tend to overreact in a highly partisan way.
>>
>> >> I'm surprised he still trusts the right-wing media after being mislead
>> >> in such a dastardly way.
>>
>> > I've thought about that too. Not just him though. What happened should
>> > make them wonder what else Fox News is telling them that is what they
>> > want to hear, but is false.
>>
>> What was false? Specifically? There was an erroneous analysis, one which
>> might have been different without Sandy. So give me the "false".
>>
>
> Dick Morris went on Sean Hannity's show and said he felt it was his
> duty to lie.
>
> HTH
>
> http://www.mediaite.com/tv/dick-morris-explains-romney-landslide-prediction-i-felt-it-was-my-duty-to-say-what-i-said/
>
If you think I was relying on Dick Morris, you don't know much. In
> duty to lie.
>
> HTH
>
> http://www.mediaite.com/tv/dick-morris-explains-romney-landslide-prediction-i-felt-it-was-my-duty-to-say-what-i-said/
>
fact, he was a major reason I had doubt...he is notoriously wrong.
My prediction was based on the religious right coming out for
Romney. They didn't. Neither did the Catholics. If they had
been out at Bush levels, then it would have been different.
Obama did get many fewer votes than 2008, which was the other
part of the process. It's just turnout was way down for the
Republicans too.
I was wrong. Not the first time, not the last time. None of it had
to do with being misled by the media. No one knew what would
happen for sure.
In retrospect, I should have sold out when Sandy hit and polling was
interrupted. Oh well.
I am going to make out great. I used the "shellacking" as motivation
to start working on a project I have been avoiding for a long time. It
has so far succeeded spectacularly, in just 9 days, and I am not sure
I would have started it without the asskicking rendered me by Intrade
and David Axelrod.
--
Celebrate Diversity...
except veterans, small-business owners, practicing Catholics, gun
owners, talk-radio listeners, tea-party attendees, Texans, smokers, limited-
government proponents, pro-lifers, taxpayers, NASCAR fans, Boy Scouts,
oil-company employees, secure-border advocates, capitalists, global-
warming agnostics, Cuban refugees, school-choicers.. -- Peter Kirsanow
Wolfie
Nov 16, 2012, 9:08:41 PM11/16/12
to
"Con Reeder, unhyphenated American" wrote
> My prediction was based on the religious right coming out for
> Romney. They didn't.
Wrong again:
> Romney. They didn't.
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/16/15219396-no-its-not-christians-fault-obama-won
xyzz-Quack!
Nov 17, 2012, 7:46:36 AM11/17/12
to
On Nov 16, 9:07 pm, "Wolfie" <bgbdw...@gte.net> wrote:
> "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American" wrote
>
> > My prediction was based on the religious right coming out for
> > Romney. They didn't.
>
> Wrong again:
>
> http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/16/15219396-no-its-not-chr...
> "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American" wrote
>
> > My prediction was based on the religious right coming out for
> > Romney. They didn't.
>
> Wrong again:
>
It all looks good until you get to this:
"But there’s a need for context here: (1) They make up just 14 percent
of the registered-voter base in the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. They
outpaced that percentage in the presidential election, (2) This is
true every other demographic group in the country as well."
Assertion (2) is either very poorly worded, or mathematically
impossible.
0 new messages