"Did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?"

[Bad_Doggie]

mindless idiot

YOU INSULT DOGS WITH THAT SHIT COMMENT

SHAME ON YOU!

It deserves nothing more than a moist rancid turd.

Don't blame me.

Woof!

 

[Busybody]

It deserves nothing more than a moist rancid turd.

Don't blame me.

Woof!

shame on you

 

[Busybody]

by Datechguy | October 29th, 2012




I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism & everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid, with all dispatch — The enemy is receieving reinforcements daily & will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five days. If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible & die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor & that of his country

William Barret Travis February 24th 1836 the Alamo

To the German commander

NUTS!

The American Commander

General Anthony McAuliffe Dec 22nd 1994 Bastonge Belgium

During my recent road trip I had little time to consider news unrelated to where I was and what I was doing, so when Congresswoman Ann Marie Buerkle (R-NY) answered the first question at the Clay Town Hall event during her Town Hall Candidate Forum on Benghazi, she told me something I had not heard before:


In fact the two men who were subsequently killed went in against orders because they were told to stand down and they felt that the ambassador was in/at risk and they needed to go in and help him.

I was immediately brought to tears and thought of the Texans at the Alamo.

Like the Alamo these two men were fighting for time against a foe that outnumber them on the order of 50 to one. They understood that by going into that building their odds were very slim to come out alive but their honor and duty demanded that they act, that they do SOMETHING for their fellow American’s in danger and perhaps, just perhaps they would hold out long enough for help to arrive to rout their enemies.

It also brings to mind Flight 93. Flight 93 was the point where Sept 11th 2001 turned from an act of terror to the first battle in the war against Radical Islam. Like the men in Benghazi the people on that plane understood American lives we in danger and acted, perhaps they rationalized they would be able to somehow control the plane and survive but they knew the score and fought anyway. It was then when Americans stopped being victims and fought back and it was then when tears first came to my eyes that day too.

But there is one HUGE difference. These men likely understood the protocols, there was an actual chance they might get relief, there was a real possibility, however slight, that reinforcements would make it.

So like the Alamo they fought and like the Alamo they died and also like the Alamo they took a lot of their enemies with them:


Not knowing exactly what was taking place, the two SEALs set up a defensive perimeter. Unfortunately Ambassador Stevens was already gravely injured, and Foreign Service officer, Sean Smith, was dead. However, due to their quick action and suppressive fire, twenty administrative personnel in the embassy were able to escape to safety. Eventually, these two courageous men were overwhelmed by the sheer numbers brought against them, an enemy force numbering between 100 to 200 attackers which came in two waves. But the stunning part of the story is that Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty killed 60 of the attacking force. Once the compound was overrun, the attackers were incensed to discover that just two men had inflicted so much death and destruction. emphasis mine

Remember at the Alamo they beat back the first wave before sheer number overwhelmed the Texans who defended it. Picture that night for a moment, In the end attackers lost 30-60% of their force but for the sake of argument lest say only 25% of that was in the first wave. You’re attacking the compound, you’ve been attacking for hours and seen people all around you. You’ve been beaten back once and don’t actually know how many men are inside, what do you think would have happened if they heard the sound of a single helicopter gunship? A single plane? a single drone dropping a bomb on the force already bloodied at a rate that would cause most Western countries to declare the mission a disaster?

They would have run.

Instead there was no Helicopter gunship, there was no relieving force, there wasn’t even a single remote control bomb in those seven hours after all there is a fundraiser in Vegas to worry about.

All of us die in the end, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty died fighting, they died like men, like warriors and in the American Tradition that we once embraced and celebrated.

As for the Administration it tries to spin away its disgrace for electoral reasons. Why? It is my opinion their feelings mirrors the answer Congresswoman Buerkle’s opponent gave to that same question at that same forum:


…it’s also an opportunity to rethink US foreign policy and think about can we represent and build an empire and have a policy that really threatens people in other countries

I submit and suggest that the reason why these men were ordered to left the Ambassador die, and the reason why this administration did not come to the aid of these men was because they saw them the way the left has always saw our forces, at best dupes of an imperialist power or at worst part of an evil empire.

But this has always been the way of the left, it is the same left that opposed Reagan in the cold war, the same left that fought tooth and nail against our own military at every turn, the same left that cheered the Occupods as they clashed with police, the same left that portrays the US soldier as a suicidal brain injured time bomb just waiting to explode and has done so in culture for decades. That’s also why the left will never remember the words of Travis, to them the men at the Alamo were just a bunch of imperialist stooges who got what they deserved.

This is the left, this is what they believe, this is what they have always believed and these are the people who we foolishly put in charge of our military.

That is why an American president can fly to Vegas after our embassy is attacked and our ambassador is killed. It’s why the surviving attackers in Benghazi are still alive and boasting of their “victory” (although I suspect they have enlarged the numbers of their slain foes) and It’s why a dupe of a filmmaker sits in jail till after the election.

Why on earth would we expect them to do anything else?

 

[Busybody]

It deserves nothing more than a moist rancid turd.

Don't blame me.

Woof!

A President turns DOWN requests for extra security, multiple times

A President that watches an attack on his embassy IN REAL TIME and tells teh military to stand down THREE TIMES

The list goes on

AND YOU SEE HATRED FROM US?

How can ANYONE be so disgusting? But yes, you are English, where you WORSHIP your own KILLERS and JAIL your own people

DIE, BE TORN APART BY THE ONES YOU LOVE PROTECT AND CODDLE

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Loser

NIGGER

He is nine days away from iggy. A lot of folks are.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

A President turns DOWN requests for extra security, multiple times

A President that watches an attack on his embassy IN REAL TIME and tells teh military to stand down THREE TIMES

The list goes on

AND YOU SEE HATRED FROM US?

How can ANYONE be so disgusting? But yes, you are English, where you WORSHIP your own KILLERS and JAIL your own people

DIE, BE TORN APART BY THE ONES YOU LOVE PROTECT AND CODDLE

It is amazing that now that the Democrats are in charge, binders and dressage are the biggest issues of the day and the most serious charge is that Republicans want to take them back to the days of four and five percent growth in the economy.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Benghazi: Obama Emerges from the Fog of War
Bing West, NRO
October 29, 2012

Our ambassador to Libya was killed in our own consulate in Benghazi on the night of September 11. For the next six weeks, President Obama repeated the same talking point: The morning after the attack, he ordered increased security in our embassies in the region.

Suddenly, on the campaign trail in Denver on October 26, he changed his story. “The minute I found out what was happening . . . I gave the directive,” he said, “to make sure we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to do. I guarantee you everybody in the CIA and military knew the number-one priority was making sure our people are safe.”

Notice the repeated use of the present tense, implying that he gave the order during the attack. Mr. Obama met with his national-security team, including the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at 5:00 p.m. Washington time. For over an hour, the consulate staff had been constantly reporting that they were under assault by terrorists and Ambassador Chris Stevens was missing in action. In the White House, group-think leads to the mistaken assumption that the attackers are a spontaneous mob.

An hour after the attack has begun, the president orders the CIA and the military to do “whatever we need to do.” Yet the CIA and the military do nothing, except send drones overhead to watch the seven-hour battle. A CIA employee and former Navy SEAL, Tyrone Woods, twice calls for military help. He has a laser rangefinder and is pinpointing enemy targets, radioing the coordinates. The military send no aircraft to attack the designated targets. Special Operations forces standing by, 480 miles away — less than a two-hour plane ride — are not deployed.

Secretary of Defense Panetta later explained that this passivity was in keeping with a rule of warfare. “A basic principle,” he said on October 25, “is you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on — without having some real-time information about what’s taking place.”

Rarely has a spontaneous mob so thoroughly intimidated our nation. And so much for sending our squads out every day in Afghanistan on patrol, when they don’t know what’s going on. The next time a platoon is told to take an objective, some corporal will say, “SecDef says we don’t have to go into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on.”

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Yet the general in charge of the Africa region has allegedly said he received no directive from Washington to dispatch military aid. Members of the mutual protective society of generals are offering the bizarre defense that our Africa Command could do nothing because it has no military assets; it’s some sort of ghost command. Even if that is true, the most powerful nation in the world has sufficient forces and flexibility to send fighter aircraft over a consulate in flames, or to land some troops at the secure airport east of Benghazi. After all, our embassy in Tripoli, 400 miles away, sent an aircraft with six Americans to fight in Benghazi. But our base in Sigonella, 480 miles away, sent no help.

If General Dempsey had concluded that the U.S. military should do nothing, he would have reported his decision not to act back to his commander-in-chief before the latter went to bed to rest up for his campaign trip to Las Vegas the next day. After all, the ambassador was still missing. And brave Tyrone Woods was to die in a mortar attack five hours later. President Obama would naturally be more than a bit interested in why the military and the CIA did nothing after he explicitly ordered them “to make sure we are securing our personnel.”

Surely it is in the president’s best interests to release a copy of his order, which the military would have sent to hundreds in the chain of command. And if the president did not direct the NSC “to do whatever we need to do,” then who was in charge? When the American ambassador is attacked and remains out of American hands for over seven hours as a battle rages — and our military sends no aid — either the crisis-response system inside the White House is incompetent, or top officials are covering up.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/331892/benghazi-obama-emerges-fog-war-bing-west

When will your President finally get his lies in a row?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

...

President Obama was apparently so fearful of offending some Islamic mob that he preferred to let our people be killed than send a couple of F-18s from Sigonella to Benghazi. Flight time -- for fully armed aircraft at about 0.7 or 0.8 Mach -- is less than an hour. The attack went on for seven hours. If the fly-guys busted Mach, they could have been there in about a half hour. Plenty of time to pop a sonic boom over the consulate which -- as we've seen in Afghanistan many times -- is enough to send the terrorists running. And -- if there wasn't time for the first flight to be armed -- it would have been able to recon the situation and give the time for fully-armed aircraft to arrive about fifteen or twenty minutes later.

Obama's fingerprints are all over this refusal to come to the aid of our people when they were under attack. The CIA -- implicitly confirming the pleas for help -- denies that anyone in its chain of command rejected any such request. The specificity of the CIA denial gives us another proof that the requests were made, but it carries a second aspect of responsibility for the failure to send help. CIA Director David Petraeus must have passed the requests up the chain of command and someone higher than him -- the president is the only one higher than a cabinet member -- denied the requests.

Clinton has to have known what Charlene Lamb -- her head of embassy security -- knew during the attack. (Lamb testified at a 10 October congressional hearing that she was in real-time contact with the consulate during the attack.) So must have Petraeus, because his CIA operators -- former SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glenn Doherty among them -- were making the pleas for assistance and asking permission to rush to the consulate's defense. Woods and Doherty were told to "stand down." As Fox reports, the two apparently ignored the orders and rushed to the consulate to help. Unable to find the ambassador, they withdrew to their CIA outpost, which then came under attack. Both were killed there.

President Obama is still fumbling and lying about the whole incident including the refusal of the pleas for help. In a Denver TV interview on Friday, Obama ducked questions about the Benghazi incident twice. He's also saying that he ordered support for the consulate personnel as soon as he heard about the attacks.

Why, then, weren't the available forces deployed immediately to save American lives? If no one in the CIA chain of command refused aid, the failure has to be Obama's. No one else could have denied the real-time requests.

Charles Woods, father of Tyrone Woods, said that those who denied the requests for help murdered his son. Woods's anguish is understandable. His son was a hero, and paid with his life for Obama's failure to send military force to attack the enemy that was attacking him.

Naturally, Obama and his minions aren't owning up to their treachery and the media -- except for Fox News -- are burying the story.

The Washington Post and the New York Times -- both of which have endorsed Obama -- aren't reporting the story on the rejected pleas for help. ABC, CBS and NBC aren't either.

To its credit, CBS did break the story last week on the State Department emails that show Obama's administration knew that the Benghazi attack was made by terrorists, not some mob distracted from a protest against an anti-Islamic video. The other big liberal media -- i.e., most of the major media -- gave little or no coverage to the CBS scoop.

As huge a scandal as the Benghazi incident is, it's not possible for it to become an issue in the election unless Mitt Romney makes it one. So far, he hasn't and he isn't likely to in the final week of the campaign.

Don't expect to hear much about Obama's conduct of the Benghazi incident before the election or after, if he is reelected. The effect of Obama's refusal to come to the aid of people under attack is best understood by the terrorists still walking the streets of Benghazi, and their allies around the world.

Jed Babbin, The American Spectator

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Fast&Falafel

When you ascribe an action to the protest of a video when it is actuality a planned terror attack by Ansar al-Shariah, an established offshoot of al-Qaeda (if that’s not your “enemy,” then who) — and you knew that all along, you watched it live without doing anything, and then you told those who wanted to help to “stand down”? Meanwhile, our government may have been conspiring to arm another offshoot of al-Qaeda in Syria.

How much more treasonous can you get? Benedict Arnold was a piker.

Indeed, the discussion of Benghazi has just begun. And don’t be surprised if the conversation escalates from impeachment to treason very quickly. In fact, if Obama wins reelection you can bet on it. The cries of treason will be unstoppable. Not even if the mainstream media will be able to deny them.

As Pat Caddell noted, those same media lapdogs have muzzled themselves in an unprecedented manner in this matter, but our Canadian friends at least have some semblance of honor left, writing:

It is undoubtedly worse than Obama simply turned his back on cornered American citizens in a foreign land, knowing undoubtedly they would die. But that Barack did so without any compelling reason—except political—is beyond evil. Only a moral monster would have made that decision when it was within his powers to possibly save them with almost no effort of his own.

Moral monster? Those are extreme words but they fit an extreme situation and are appropriate to the use of the t-word. But it’s worse. Many now are trying to figure out the motivation for this behavior — beyond the obvious electoral whoring mentioned above, the need to be seen in a certain manner at a certain moment to be sure the Ohio vote doesn’t fall the wrong way.

But is there more than that? Is the treason yet greater? Were Obama and others covering up more than their ineptitude? Just what was Ambassador Stevens doing in Benghazi that day? Why had he left the Libyan capital to meet with the Turkish ambassador on the anniversary of September 11?

Rumors abound. According to Admiral Lyons writing in the Washington Times,

…one of Stevens’ main missions in Libya was to facilitate the transfer of much of Gadhafi’s military equipment, including the deadly SA-7 – portable SAMs – to Islamists and other al Qaeda-affiliated groups fighting the Assad Regime in Syria. In an excellent article, Aaron Klein states that Stevens routinely used our Benghazi consulate (mission) to coordinate the Turkish, Saudi Arabian and Qatari governments’ support for insurgencies throughout the Middle East. Further, according to Egyptian security sources, Stevens played a “central role in recruiting Islamic jihadists to fight the Assad Regime in Syria.”

Lyons adds, citing a Clare Lopez article at RadicalIslam.org,

…that there were two large warehouse-type buildings associated with our Benghazi mission. During the terrorist attack, the warehouses were probably looted. We do not know what was there and if it was being administrated by our two former Navy SEALs and the CIA operatives who were in Benghazi. Nonetheless, the equipment was going to hardline jihadis.

Do we know that for sure? I certainly don’t, although on the face of it sounds like a “Fast & Furious” scandal on a global scale with extraordinary geopolitical implications. But I imagine there are those who do know the truth, or a lot of it, considering the events were being watched in real time.

Roger L. Simon, PJMedia

 

[unregistered]

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The mainstream media have played an almost equally shameful role in the cover up. Even after the latest revelations have been leading the news on Fox and other media, Sunday's Washington Post had no front page article. What's more, a search of the entire first section of Sunday's Post found no article on the Benghazi cover up. There was simply no report whatever on the information, now emerging from many quarters, that contradicts the administration's (many, and false) statements to the public.

Of course, no one paying attention is surprised by this, for the Post has long been a very partisan supporter of the President in news coverage as well as editorial policy. But many of us who recall the more principled Post of a few decades back continue to be disappointed, not to mention very troubled, that this leading newspaper, and others like it, have so transparently abandoned any "watchdog" role during the reign of an administration much in need of monitoring by an aggressive and objective press.

This point is underscored when one considers the stories now circulating, and which a responsible press would be pursuing in order to fulfill its responsibility to keep citizens informed. For example, the reports that General Carter Ham, who was commander of the U.S. Africa Command, was summarily relieved (i.e., fired) because he made clear he would send special forces teams in response to the calls for help from our embattled countrymen in Benghazi. Within moments the General's second in command told him that he was taking over, that the General was relieved. This is scandalous, but apparently not news "fit to print" for our mainstream press.

For comparison, consider the administration's response to Hurricane Sandy's approaching landfall. As with the firestorm in Libya, the "perfect storm" now off the east coast is hard to assess, its future path difficult to predict. Yet our President was all over the national news shows today, pledging to be there and to deploy all sorts of people and equipment to assist even before the event. The President said that Americans "pull together" and "help one another" in times like this, and he professed that supervising reaction to the hurricane is more important than mere campaigning.

How nice it would have been if he had felt the same way on September 11, when Americans were being murdered in Benghazi. But he was ahead in the polls, and Las Vegas beckoned.

Ray Hartwell, The American Spectator



We're not going to let Democrats spike this story so that they can talk about binders and women's parts...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Our President isn't man enough to lead America.

He's not.


Valerie Jarret is and she hates America more than he does.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Ah the early morning Anti-Obama spewnami.

Who will be the frst to shoot down your load of horse shit and earn an ignore today Cap'n Busybody? So much for diverse and dissenting opinions eh? Right, far right, and fucking whacko right is "diverse" in your world.

The funniest part is that you're now using the very same sources as gospel that he was laughed at for using a couple of years ago. PJMedia? lmao? Soon you'll be posting excepts from the Enquirer detailing how President Obama is really an alien baby from Alpha Centauri.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

In nine days, you go on ignore.

This is the best you have by way of rebuttal. It is truly pathetic.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Looks like another Cambridge-Trayvon case:

The October Surprise in 2010

At 4:22 p.m. on Friday, October 29, 2010, President Barack Obama stepped into the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House and announced some startling news: Two bombs, hidden inside printer cartridges, had been detected the previous day on a cargo plane heading from Dubai to Chicago.

The detection was obviously good news--but did it really have to be news? That is, wasn’t there much to be gained by staying mum on the news, with an eye to catching the culprits?

Even if the bombs had not exploded as the terrorists had planned, there was no need to let them know that the plot had been foiled, as opposed to the bombs having merely malfunctioned. In intelligence circles, this investigative process is called “walking back the cat”--that is, trying to reverse-engineer the process by which the security system was penetrated in the first place. And that reverse-engineering can best be done in secrecy, before the bomb-makers have a chance to scatter.

But that’s not what happened. Here’s what the President said on that Friday afternoon two years ago:

The American people should know that the counterterrorism professionals are taking this threat very seriously and are taking all necessary and prudent steps to ensure our security. And the American people should be confident that we will not waver in our resolve to defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates and to root out violent extremism in all its forms.

Yes, it’s nice to know that a bomb was thwarted, but it would have been even nicer to know that the bomb-makers had been arrested or killed.

So why didn’t the President wait until he had more good news? What was the hurry on the announcement? We might note that the October 29, 2010, announcement came just four days before the 2010 midterm elections. And the President’s announcement was soon followed by five “readouts” of Obama conversations with the foreign leaders whose countries helped unravel the plot. In other words, the Obama administration worked overtime to push its counter-terrorism news to the forefront, just just before the elections.

The result was a decent-sized rally-‘round-the-flag effect. After all, what could Republicans say? Who can be against good news in the war on terror? Perhaps the GOP could have made the point about premature release of sensitive information, but they would have risked looking churlish as a result.

In any case, the impact on the 2010 elections was substantial. According to the exit polls, a full nine percent of those voting on November 2 said that combating terror was the most important issue--and of that nine-percent slice of the electorate, the Democrats, boosted by the news of the cartridge bomb, won by double digits. That is, even as they were losing on just about every other issue, the Democrats won on terrorism. The result was a lift for Congressional Democrats; they probably held on to an additional Senate seat or two, and perhaps also another half-dozen House seats.

So we have to ask: Cui bono? Who benefited? If the answer is that the Democrats in Congress were the beneficiaries, then the finger of suspicion might point to Democratic politicos with access to security information. And so we can focus on Tom Donilon, whom I first met in 1976, during Jimmy Carter’s first presidential campaign. After a long career in the political vineyards--including some time spent plucking the juicy grapes at Fannie Mae--Donilon has now ended up as President Obama’s national security adviser. A political operative put in charge of national security might seem like a joke, but the real joke is on the American people, because no one ever doubted that Donilon would bring his political bag of tricks with him to the National Security Council. And as I have noted here at Breitbart.com in the past, those damaging leaks in the summer of 2012--damaging to the country, but helpful to Obama--seem to have Donilon’s fingerprints all over them.

Pat Caddell (D)


This is why the press is covering for him and his lies. WHO GETS HURT by this OCTOBER SURPRISE???

Fourth, possible US military action against terrorists in Libya. We might first note that the entire Obama narrative on Libya has collapsed, leaving any Obama politico--including the totally political national security adviser, Tom Donilon--understandably desperate to do something to change the Libya story.
To its eternal moral discredit, the MSM are still refusing to connect the dots on the Libya story. Whereas during Watergate or Iran-Contra, the MSM were eager to dig deep, as well as make speculative leaps as to administration culpability, in Benghazi-gate there is no similar interest; the big-gun investigative reporters--Bob Woodward, Seymour Hersh, Brian Ross--all seem to be sitting on the sidelines.

Fortunately, thanks to other reporters, more interested in pursuing the story, as opposed to protecting the president, we now know, for example, that the doomed Americans on September 11 were fully aware that they were fighting organized terrorists and yet they got no help. And we further know--thanks to a six-weeks-too-late airing of “60 Minutes” video--that the very next day, September 12, Obama himself said that it had been a terrorist attack, and yet in the days to come, he changed his story, and CBS was happy to cover for him for more than a month.

So with that kind of supportive press coverage, perhaps the administration will gamble on some sort of game-changer in Libya, confident that the MSM will not accuse the Obamans of October-Surprising.
Could the administration find some last-minute target in Libya? Could it bomb a real terrorist target, that deserves bombing, or might it bomb some dubious target, just to make itself look tough? We might recall that in a desperate period of his presidency, Bill Clinton ordered the bombing of an aspirin factory in Sudan.

As we have seen, in 2010, the administration was willing to make good use of national security leaks. And as I have been saying for months, it’s been leaking in 2012, as well. In fact, to get a grip on the depths that the Obama administration is willing to plumb, it’s worth recalling what Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, was willing to say at the time of the leaks over Stuxnet and the kill-Bin Laden mission. The leaking, she declared on June 6, has been “Very, very disturbing … It’s dismayed our allies. It puts American lives in jeopardy. It puts our nation’s security in jeopardy.” A few weeks later, she added, “I think the White House has to understand that some of this is coming from their ranks.” After a fierce reaction inside the Democratic Party, Feinstein recanted her charge against the White House, although not the assertion, of course, that the leaks were harmful.

 

[unregistered]

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Tyrone Woods' dad just spelled it out for the President, "my son died a hero Mr. President and it's better to die a hero than live as a coward."

The President is not listening.

He's on a talking tour. He's got to make sure people hear words like Bullshitter...

... and man, does he have a lot of defenders.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

In nine days, you go on ignore.

This is the best you have by way of rebuttal. It is truly pathetic.

Oh no! I go on ignore after the election. Whatever shall I do?
Do yourself a favor and just do it now. I wouldn't want to expose you to an actual dissenting opinion to demolish the delicate Feng Shui of echo-chamber bullshit.

Hell, you don't even post your own opinion anymore, but the opinions of others so that you can hide behind "I don't necessarily agree with it, I just posted it".

If you want someone to rebut "your" position, then post it rather than a C&P spewnami that you can run from like a coward when it's shown to be fallacious.

The best you deserve is derisive laughter and eye-rolls. You have become a parody, Busybody-lite. Just a few baby steps to caricature.

 

[unregistered]

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Him talking about somebody being a bullshitter is really rich.

Indeed so.


Taxingly rich...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The embassy begged for help.


Our administration was focused on reelection and nothing else.


Obama went to bed. Obama got up and went to Vegas. We were supposed to turn our backs on Vegas...

Who is hiding U_D?

Me? or the guy who only talks about and attacks those with whom he disagrees with as his own mechanism for never being wrong for never having had the cue balls with which to make a stand or offer up an opinion of his own?

No, you are only about the shouting. When Bush was President, we tried to understand why and to state our case, but all we got was shouting and in victory and with power, did you moderate? no you continued to shout, so after the election, I think, however it falls, we're all tired of being shouted at, so you can shout into empty threads as far as I am concerned. Life is too short.

 

[unregistered]

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The involuntary Snicker Index is the highest it's ever been in history when Obama is at the lectern.

He's giving Chris Matthews follow-up strokes...

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Who is hiding U_D?

Me? or the guy who only talks about and attacks those with whom he disagrees with as his own mechanism for never being wrong for never having had the cue balls with which to make a stand or offer up an opinion of his own?

No, you are only about the shouting. When Bush was President, we tried to understand why and to state our case, but all we got was shouting and in victory and with power, did you moderate? no you continued to shout, so after the election, I think, however it falls, we're all tired of being shouted at, so you can shout into empty threads as far as I am concerned. Life is too short.

Shouting? There's only one person trying to shout down any and all opposition, the same as it goes for nearly every thread you and your compatriots participate in. back-slapping and echo chamber bullshit.

4est_4est_Gump 43
miles 21
Re-TurnerLeaf 18
vetteman 11
Liar 8
RobDownSouth 6
Ulaven_Demorte 5
zipman 3
IrezumiKiss 3
Bad_Doggie 2
Obama_2012 2
MeeMie 1
hummermania 1