Of course not. That is how partisan politics works.Originally Posted by Kuntmissioner
Can you give some examples of her different type of visibility?
Initially Michelle was criticized by the media for being invisible, and non-media friendly. Now, you are criticizing her for being highly visible yet in a "different way". Seems to me that she can't win.
"You run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole; you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole."
Obama's State Department had credible information two days before the consulate was attacked. They did nothing. So the question isn't what should Obama do but rather why did he do nothing when he knew the attack was imminent?
Revealed: inside story of US envoy's assassination
Exclusive: America 'was warned of embassy attack but did nothing'
The killings of the US ambassador to Libya and three of his staff were likely to have been the result of a serious and continuing security breach, The Independent can reveal.
...
According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and "lockdown", under which movement is severely restricted.
Source.
The only 'kook' in this thread is bukowskiIQ72.I love your posts. It has been 8 days. Bush caught Bin laden in a week.
After the most likely preventable 1983 barracks bombing in Beirut that killed 241 American servicemen Saint Reagan grabbed his guns and did ...NOTHING. NADA. I apologize. Reagan did give a nice speech saying he felt very sorry for the loses.
France who lost 58 troops that day conducted a bunch of their own airstrikes. Don't listen to the kooks like Rollo and Sixtoepete try and rewrite history like Fox News.
It's not enough for the libtard to blame Bush for Obama's failings, he wants to blame Reagan too! Who will be bukowskiIQ72's next GOP Obama Fail scapegoat...Abraham Lincoln?
One of two things is going on in the thread:
#1 -- Far more people on this forum than I would have ever imagined (more than zero) receive the daily national security briefings
#2 -- a whole lot of people are talking out of their ass and have no clue what was known before the attack or what has transpired since
I write things about poker at my Poker Blog and elsewhere on the Internets
I am not blaming Reagan for anything. I am blaming you guys for trying to create this false narrative where all your guys were tough on terror and Obama isn't.
December 11, 2001
"President Obama rarely comments on criticisms from the Republican presidential candidates, but today he offered a feisty, blunt response to charges that he is engaged in a foreign policy of “appeasement.”
“Ask Osama bin Laden and the 22 out of 30 top al-Qaeda leaders who’ve been taken off the field whether I engage in appeasement,” the president fired back at an impromptu news conference at the White House."
That was before they took out al-Qaeda's number two man, one of the main impetuses for the recent attacks. Al-Qaeda is getting sick of us taking out their guys and responded with the Lybian attack. Rollo Tomasi's 4 people were killed at our embassy is BS and Obama has done nothing is living in a vacuum thinking at best and more likely a bunch of lies.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...ama-bin-laden/
PFA members are not privy to national security briefings. President Obama of course is. However, these important briefings (President Bush attended almost 100% of them) are not high on Obama's agenda (unlike fundraisers with Beyonce and Jay-Z and meeting with a pirate and David Letterman instead of Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu).
Obama has missed more than half of his national security briefings.
Even the Washington Post asked...
Why is Obama skipping more than half of his daily intelligence meetings?
If you only watch NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC and read the NYT, Boston Globe and other biased liberal rags then I can forgive you for having 'no clue' about Obama's failed foreign policy.
However, many PFA members are well informed by reading the Drudge Report, Wall Street Journal, the American Spectator, National Review, New York Post, Boston Herald, TownHall, Daily Caller, Breitbart and watching FOX NEWS CHANNEL.
So having a right-wing slant is ok, but having a left-wing slant makes one stupid; interesting. You should do what i do: when the RNC is on I watch MSNBC; when thed DNC is on I watch FOX. Other than that I only read articles linked to by people I trust as rational thinkers: some are Liberals, some are Conservatives, and some are firebrand Libertarians... linking to an editorial as facts won't get you on that list by the way. Also, the Boston Herald is about as bad as Salon.com, it's like listening to the people in line at a methadone clinic.PFA members are not privy to national security briefings. President Obama of course is. However, these important briefings (President Bush attended almost 100% of them) are not high on Obama's agenda (unlike fundraisers with Beyonce and Jay-Z and meeting with a pirate and David Letterman instead of Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu).
Obama has missed more than half of his national security briefings.
Even the Washington Post asked...
Why is Obama skipping more than half of his daily intelligence meetings?
If you only watch NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC and read the NYT, Boston Globe and other biased liberal rags then I can forgive you for having 'no clue' about Obama's failed foreign policy.
However, many PFA members are well informed by reading the Drudge Report, Wall Street Journal, the American Spectator, National Review, New York Post, Boston Herald, TownHall, Daily Caller, Breitbart and watching FOX NEWS CHANNEL.
I write things about poker at my Poker Blog and elsewhere on the Internets
"Your guys"? Lol. You will blame anyone before you will admit Obama's failings. You're not concerned about a non-existent 'false narrative' (and don't point to TUFFTURF as your reason to change the topic), you are only interested in deflecting attention away from Obama's failures.I am not blaming Reagan for anything. I am blaming you guys for trying to create this false narrative where all your guys were tough on terror and Obama isn't.
December 11, 2001
"President Obama rarely comments on criticisms from the Republican presidential candidates, but today he offered a feisty, blunt response to charges that he is engaged in a foreign policy of “appeasement.”
“Ask Osama bin Laden and the 22 out of 30 top al-Qaeda leaders who’ve been taken off the field whether I engage in appeasement,” the president fired back at an impromptu news conference at the White House."
That was before they took out al-Qaeda's number two man, one of the main impetuses for the recent attacks. Al-Qaeda is getting sick of us taking out their guys and responded with the Lybian attack. Rollo Tomasi's 4 people were killed at our embassy is BS and Obama has done nothing is living in a vacuum thinking at best and more likely a bunch of lies.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...ama-bin-laden/
Stick to Obama's foreign policy failures.
US EMBASSY IN PAKISTAN UNDER SIEGE
IRAN: Hundreds chant 'Death to France,' 'Down with the U.S.'
INDONESIA: U.S. consulate shut for second day amid protests
AFGHANISTAN: Hundreds chant anti-American slogans
Republican senators decry 'useless, worthless' Clinton briefing
You missed my point entirely.So having a right-wing slant is ok, but having a left-wing slant makes one stupid; interesting. You should do what i do: when the RNC is on I watch MSNBC; when thed DNC is on I watch FOX. Other than that I only read articles linked to by people I trust as rational thinkers: some are Liberals, some are Conservatives, and some are firebrand Libertarians... linking to an editorial as facts won't get you on that list by the way. Also, the Boston Herald is about as bad as Salon.com, it's like listening to the people in line at a methadone clinic.
You stated as one of your options, "a whole lot of people are talking out of their ass and have no clue what was known before the attack or what has transpired since".
I merely pointed out that if one only gets the news from biased, liberal outlets, then yes, one will not be well informed.
This is undeniable because the liberal lame stream media refuses to report the truth about far-left, liberal, socialist President Obama.
Journalism is dead in the liberal media. They have zero interest in fair and balanced reporting. Their sole purpose is to cover up, ignore or bury Obama's failures while simultaneously misdirecting attention to false non-stories about Romney. They carry water for Obama. In short, they lie. Their dwindling ratings and readership reflect this.
It's only reasonable to recognize that the other news outlets I mentioned will be much more diligent in reporting the truth about Obama. However, the difference is that most main stream conservative/impartial news outlets treat both sides fairly.
The liberal media does not and will never treat both sides fairly. In general they are nothing but propaganda outlets for far-left, liberal and progressive policies and initiatives.
If you don't recognize this, you have been living under a rock for the past decade.
P.S. The Boston Herald is a great newspaper. The radical, left-wing liberal Boston Globe is just plain awful. Thankfully, it is on the verge of bankruptcy and will soon be gone forever.
the Globe is owned by the NY Times do you know how many stories about Libya ran in the NY Times today, the day the Obama Administrations WH spokes jopke Jay Carney said after a week of denial "of course it was a terrorist attack"You missed my point entirely.
You stated as one of your options, "a whole lot of people are talking out of their ass and have no clue what was known before the attack or what has transpired since".
I merely pointed out that if one only gets the news from biased, liberal outlets, then yes, one will not be well informed.
This is undeniable because the liberal lame stream media refuses to report the truth about far-left, liberal, socialist President Obama.
Journalism is dead in the liberal media. They have zero interest in fair and balanced reporting. Their sole purpose is to cover up, ignore or bury Obama's failures while simultaneously misdirecting attention to false non-stories about Romney. They carry water for Obama. In short, they lie. Their dwindling ratings and readership reflect this.
It's only reasonable to recognize that the other news outlets I mentioned will be much more diligent in reporting the truth about Obama. However, the difference is that most main stream conservative/impartial news outlets treat both sides fairly.
The liberal media does not and will never treat both sides fairly. In general they are nothing but propaganda outlets for far-left, liberal and progressive policies and initiatives.
If you don't recognize this, you have been living under a rock for the past decade.
P.S. The Boston Herald is a great newspaper. The radical, left-wing liberal Boston Globe is just plain awful. Thankfully, it is on the verge of bankruptcy and will soon be gone forever.
0.0 stories on Libya ran in the "paper of record" today
I'm pretty cookie-cutter libertarian (social lib, fiscal con) but it's funny to me how the conservative base on this forum (minus Druff and CMONEY) are pretty fucking mongoloid overall.
LOL at your fail party for not being unable to unseat a pretty bad president. Please get your shit together for 2016.
No one values your opinion. Fade away troll.
I'm not a Republican but I can still spot a fool like you.
Let's start with democracy. Didn't have it before the war, did after the war. How did that come about?you're the one that thinks we "empowered" japan.
i don't need to explain shit.
you however, need to explain how you came up with one of the most retarded statements my eyes have ever laid eyes upon.
No I wouldn't but I have been trying hard for almost 4 years not to.Of course. You wouldn't want the facts to get in the way of a permanent facepalming.
:themoreyouknow
Haven't watched any t.v., been in the bomb shelter waiting for the sky to fall. I still have a permanentwhen it comes to our beloved President.
The only 'kook' in this thread is bukowskiIQ72.
It's not enough for the libtard to blame Bush for Obama's failings, he wants to blame Reagan too! Who will be bukowskiIQ72's next GOP Obama Fail scapegoat...Abraham Lincoln?
you simply don't understand his point, he is responding to the fact that Obama is being criticized for "not doing anything". As to whether Obama's, Reagans or Bushes policy is to blame.......that's not the issue in Buk post. Only you are bringing that up. Bukowski is responding to the OP and making a good point that to criticize Obama for not having gotten revenge YET is retarded as no President ever responds that fast to any terrorist attack. Criticizing middle eastern policy is fair game but often just ends up in hypocritical statements by both parties.
It is amazing watching the right wing guys. So upset and filled with disdain they lose their ability to have a rational discussion at times.
I always laugh when you say this. Issue by issue you are a down-the-line Republican -- actually, the fact that you don't realize this is just another indication that you are. And not the good kind like Reagan, or Eisenhower, or even Nixon, who were at least palatable.
I write things about poker at my Poker Blog and elsewhere on the Internets
I understand his point. You didn't understand mine.
you simply don't understand his point, he is responding to the fact that Obama is being criticized for "not doing anything". As to whether Obama's, Reagans or Bushes policy is to blame.......that's not the issue in Buk post. Only you are bringing that up. Bukowski is responding to the OP and making a good point that to criticize Obama for not having gotten revenge YET is retarded as no President ever responds that fast to any terrorist attack. Criticizing middle eastern policy is fair game but often just ends up in hypocritical statements by both parties.
It is amazing watching the right wing guys. So upset and filled with disdain they lose their ability to have a rational discussion at times.
Bukowski72 brought up Bush and Reagan. Earlier I explained that the question shouldn't be 'what can Obama do about it?' but rather 'why did he do nothing when he knew the attack was imminent?'
Asking the question this way reveals how incompetent Obama's foreign policy has been.
Mine was a very reasoned and logical point.
I'm pleased I made you smile and appreciative of the diligence and loyalty you demonstrate by reading everything I write on PFA.I always laugh when you say this. Issue by issue you are a down-the-line Republican -- actually, the fact that you don't realize this is just another indication that you are. And not the good kind like Reagan, or Eisenhower, or even Nixon, who were at least palatable.
Now with your vast knowledge and familiarity with my take on the 'issues', please tell me why I am a 'bad' Republican. I am not a registered Republican but I'll be one in this post to help you answer my question.
Please enlighten me. How am I an inferior or defective member of the GOP? How can I become more like Reagan, Eisenhower and Nixon?
Was Arianna Huffington a 'bad' Republican but later a 'good' Democrat? How about Alan Spector? How can I become a more 'palatable' Republican?
Six Toes OBV
all hail Hydra
Originally Posted by DanDruff:Since I'm a 6'2" Republican with an average-sized nose and a last name which doesn't end with "stein", "man", or "berg", I can hide among the goyim and remain undetected unless I open my mouth about money matters.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote
