FROM 2012 INTO 2013 POLITICS THREAD

dog eat dog world · Oct 29, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Uncle.Ruckus said:

Not at all. Obama's going to win. That doesn't mean I'm not going to point out cocksuckery when I see it. And exmediahack is a sexist, racist cocksucker.
Click to expand...

Given the rules, I hope it is time you took a break Uncle.

Uncle.Ruckus · Oct 29, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

dog eat dog world said:

Uncle.Ruckus said:

Not at all. Obama's going to win. That doesn't mean I'm not going to point out cocksuckery when I see it. And exmediahack is a sexist, racist cocksucker.
Click to expand...

Given the rules, I hope it is time you took a break Uncle.
Click to expand...

Calling someone a cocksucker on this thread isn't against the rules, you whining, dumb fuck.

Double Down · Oct 29, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Whining about the rules IS, however, against the rules. In fact, it's the only rule.

Inky_Wretch · Oct 29, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Thomas Peterffy cracks me up. I wonder how much he's spent on TV ads and why he thinks people will be influenced by him.

Starman · Oct 29, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

YankeeFan said:

LongTimeListener said:

Disaster recovery is best left to the private sector.
Click to expand...

Do you want to compare who did a better job during Katrina?

I'll take WalMart.
Click to expand...

Awesome, let's outsource disaster aid to WalMart. God knows the Walton family needs the money.

dog eat dog world · Oct 29, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Oh damn, I forgot. Liberals can call anyone a name since it's typical of their defense strategy in any discussion. That's just for the other guys.

REGARDLESS of how this election turns out, many of you I hear were gloating in 2008 that the Republican party was about to become a regional party. I don't think the Messiah feels that way and deep down, neither do you, no matter how much you crow.

dog eat dog world · Oct 29, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Double Down said:

Whining about the rules IS, however, against the rules. In fact, it's the only rule.
Click to expand...

I wasn't whining, I was pointing out a violation of the rules.

Uncle.Ruckus · Oct 29, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

dog eat dog world said:

Double Down said:

Whining about the rules IS, however, against the rules. In fact, it's the only rule.
Click to expand...

I wasn't whining, I was pointing out a violation of the rules.
Click to expand...

And, as usual, you're dead fucking wrong. And you never bothered to read the rules of this thread. Moron.

YankeeFan · Oct 29, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Killed for the sake of appearances:

Libya Warnings Were Plentiful, but Unspecific

By MICHAEL R. GORDON, ERIC SCHMITT and MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT

WASHINGTON — In the months leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, the Obama administration received intelligence reports that Islamic extremist groups were operating training camps in the mountains near the Libyan city and that some of the fighters were “Al Qaeda-leaning,” according to American and European officials.

The warning about the camps was part of a stream of diplomatic and intelligence reports that indicated that the security situation throughout the country, and particularly in eastern Libya, had deteriorated sharply since the United States reopened its embassy in Tripoli after the fall of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s government in September 2011.

By June, Benghazi had experienced a string of assassinations as well as attacks on the Red Cross and a British envoy’s motorcade. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, who was killed in the September attack, e-mailed his superiors in Washington in August alerting them to “a security vacuum” in the city. A week before Mr. Stevens died, the American Embassy warned that Libyan officials had declared a “state of maximum alert” in Benghazi after a car bombing and thwarted bank robbery.

In the closing weeks of the presidential campaign, the circumstances surrounding the attack on the Benghazi compound have emerged as a major political issue, as Republicans, led by their presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, have sought to lay blame for the attack on President Obama, who they argued had insufficiently protected American lives there.

Interviews with American officials and an examination of State Department documents do not reveal the kind of smoking gun Republicans have suggested would emerge in the attack’s aftermath such as a warning that the diplomatic compound would be targeted and that was overlooked by administration officials.

What is clear is that even as the State Department responded to the June attacks, crowning the Benghazi compound walls with concertina wire and setting up concrete barriers to thwart car bombs, it remained committed to a security strategy formulated in a very different environment a year earlier.

In the heady early days after the fall of Colonel Qaddafi’s government, the administration’s plan was to deploy a modest American security force and then increasingly rely on trained Libyan personnel to protect American diplomats — a policy that reflected White House apprehensions about putting combat troops on the ground as well as Libyan sensitivities about an obtrusive American security presence.

In the following months, the State Department proceeded with this plan. In one instance, State Department security officials replaced the American military team in Tripoli with trained Libyan bodyguards, while it also maintained the number of State Department security personnel members at the Benghazi compound around the minimum recommended level.
Click to expand...

dog eat dog world · Oct 29, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Uncle.Ruckus said:

dog eat dog world said:

Double Down said:

Whining about the rules IS, however, against the rules. In fact, it's the only rule.
Click to expand...

I wasn't whining, I was pointing out a violation of the rules.
Click to expand...

And, as usual, you're dead fucking wrong. And you never bothered to read the rules of this thread. Moron.
Click to expand...

Eat shit there. There, I'm speaking about your diet. Here's hoping you're bitter as hell next Wednesday.

dog eat dog world · Oct 29, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

YankeeFan said:

Killed for the sake of appearances:

Libya Warnings Were Plentiful, but Unspecific

By MICHAEL R. GORDON, ERIC SCHMITT and MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT

WASHINGTON — In the months leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, the Obama administration received intelligence reports that Islamic extremist groups were operating training camps in the mountains near the Libyan city and that some of the fighters were “Al Qaeda-leaning,” according to American and European officials.

The warning about the camps was part of a stream of diplomatic and intelligence reports that indicated that the security situation throughout the country, and particularly in eastern Libya, had deteriorated sharply since the United States reopened its embassy in Tripoli after the fall of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s government in September 2011.

By June, Benghazi had experienced a string of assassinations as well as attacks on the Red Cross and a British envoy’s motorcade. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, who was killed in the September attack, e-mailed his superiors in Washington in August alerting them to “a security vacuum” in the city. A week before Mr. Stevens died, the American Embassy warned that Libyan officials had declared a “state of maximum alert” in Benghazi after a car bombing and thwarted bank robbery.

In the closing weeks of the presidential campaign, the circumstances surrounding the attack on the Benghazi compound have emerged as a major political issue, as Republicans, led by their presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, have sought to lay blame for the attack on President Obama, who they argued had insufficiently protected American lives there.

Interviews with American officials and an examination of State Department documents do not reveal the kind of smoking gun Republicans have suggested would emerge in the attack’s aftermath such as a warning that the diplomatic compound would be targeted and that was overlooked by administration officials.

What is clear is that even as the State Department responded to the June attacks, crowning the Benghazi compound walls with concertina wire and setting up concrete barriers to thwart car bombs, it remained committed to a security strategy formulated in a very different environment a year earlier.

In the heady early days after the fall of Colonel Qaddafi’s government, the administration’s plan was to deploy a modest American security force and then increasingly rely on trained Libyan personnel to protect American diplomats — a policy that reflected White House apprehensions about putting combat troops on the ground as well as Libyan sensitivities about an obtrusive American security presence.

In the following months, the State Department proceeded with this plan. In one instance, State Department security officials replaced the American military team in Tripoli with trained Libyan bodyguards, while it also maintained the number of State Department security personnel members at the Benghazi compound around the minimum recommended level.
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

But he's going to get to the bottom of this, and find the culprit. The amazing thing is he'll do it without mirrors.

LongTimeListener · Oct 29, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Mitt has laser-focused the Lying His Ass Off strategy on Ohio:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/30/us/politics/gop-turns-fire-on-obama-pillar-auto-bailout.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

In the past few days his running mate, Representative Paul D. Ryan, has accused Mr. Obama of allowing the bailout to bypass nonunion workers at Delphi, a big auto parts maker with operations in Ohio; Mr. Romney has characterized Mr. Obama’s bailout plan as based on his approach; and Mr. Romney incorrectly told a rally in Defiance, Ohio, late last week outright that Jeep was considering moving its production to China. (Jeep is discussing increasing production in China for sales within China; it is not moving jobs out of Ohio or the United States, or building cars in China for export to the United States.)

It is easier to run an effective campaign when total disregard for facts is acceptable.

Log in or Sign up

FROM 2012 INTO 2013 POLITICS THREAD

dog eat dog world New Member

Uncle.Ruckus Guest

Double Down Well-Known Member

Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

Starman Well-Known Member

dog eat dog world New Member

dog eat dog world New Member

Uncle.Ruckus Guest

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

dog eat dog world New Member

dog eat dog world New Member

LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

FROM 2012 INTO 2013 POLITICS THREAD

dog eat dog world New Member

Uncle.Ruckus Guest

Double Down Well-Known Member

Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

Starman Well-Known Member

dog eat dog world New Member

dog eat dog world New Member

Uncle.Ruckus Guest

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

dog eat dog world New Member

dog eat dog world New Member

LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches