• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

RIP JHMD

Obama is making sure the Republicans keep crying wolf.
 
It's a terrible plan election wise for the Republicans.
 
I used to think RJ got his talking points only from the DNC, but I see he's added the Congressional Black Caucus. How often do you huddle with Rev. Sharpton?
 
Pat Tillman and Chris Stevens are both from the Bay Area and both died under murky circumstances. Tillman's parents started speaking vocally about Pat's death soon after his funeral. Stevens's parents were critical of the politicization of their son's death during the campaign and haven't said a word about it since. The parents of the dead have a hell of a lot more skin in the game than pols trying to make points.
 
RJKarl said:
For her to have lied she would have had to access to the info. All she did was read a statement that was provided to her.
Click to expand...

This is so awesome. I want to print and frame it.

WE WATCHED THE TALKING POINTS CHANGED FROM THE COMPLETE TRUTH TO A FABRICATION. WE LITERALLY HAVE THE DEVOLUTION FROM THE TRUTH TO FICTION. DCI says "We knew right away."

Not only did she have access to it, but YOU have access to the fact that SHE had access to it.

Get off your knees, RJ and open your eyes.
 
RaleighDevil said:
I used to think RJ got his talking points only from the DNC, but I see he's added the Congressional Black Caucus. How often do you huddle with Rev. Sharpton?
Click to expand...

If you want to go there, how many times a day do you go to the Aryan Nation and CCC websites?

Don't cry you set the table.
 
FuckmouthedRube said:
Pat Tillman and Chris Stevens are both from the Bay Area and both died under murky circumstances. Tillman's parents started speaking vocally about Pat's death soon after his funeral. Stevens's parents were critical of the politicization of their son's death during the campaign and haven't said a word about it since. The parents of the dead have a hell of a lot more skin in the game than pols trying to make points.
Click to expand...

Sean Smith's mom is on t.v. twice a week. Not sure you can deduce much from how a person grieves.
 
ONW said:
Seriously dude? You think if there is anything here Issa, Boehner, and McConnell aren't going to get that information out...fucking hell
Click to expand...

Want to be clear that I am suggesting incompetence followed by political lies. Not suggesting that somehow we intentionally left the Ambassador out to dry. I think Obama and Hillary knew the political storm that it would cause almost immediately and helped manufacture an intentionally misleading story line to explain the awful events. Rice was the one that had to carry out the message despite it being pretty clear (there is plenty of evidence) that our intelligence community knew it was not a peaceful gathering gone overboard. Rice did the dirty work (for both Obama and Clinton), Obama survived the election, Clinton got out before things got really ugly and she would have to face a lot of questioning in the media, and now Rice has been reimbursed for taking one for the team.

I think this is politics 101 and it is pretty much why everyone is so disillusioned with politicians. Anyway - I just think Obama and Clinton and Rice are all full of baloney when it comes to the Benghazi deal. Rice's reward for going out to the front line is that she is nominated to a very prestigious position. I think originally Obama probably talked SOS with her, but when it became clear she was never going to make it through confirmation he did the next best thing he could do.
 
Except ALL then EVIDENCE multiple investigations found show definitively that neither Hillary nor ANYONE in the WH had ANY input in the talking points.

I understand your entire position is based on ALL of these investigations being wrong, but you refuse to admit this fact.

Just because you need it to be so to justify months of rant doesn't mean your position has a shred of truth in it.
 
RJKarl said:
Except ALL then EVIDENCE multiple investigations found show definitively that neither Hillary nor ANYONE in the WH had ANY input in the talking points.

I understand your entire position is based on ALL of these investigations being wrong, but you refuse to admit this fact.

Just because you need it to be so to justify months of rant doesn't mean your position has a shred of truth in it.
Click to expand...

Look, I am not going to continue to get into it with you. We disagree on this, I am ok with disagreeing with you. Your interpretation (which is not fact) is different than my interpretation (which is not fact). We both see the evidence and see different things apparently. Your claims on what is fact and what is not is suspect at best. It pretty much turns out that all of your opinions are fact, and all the opposing opinions are made up. It is quite a coincidence. Just chill out buddy. I don't need to justify anything. I am just making comments. If you don't agree with me I am not going to lose any sleep over it.

As-Salaam-Alaikum my brother.
 
RJKarl said:
Except ALL then EVIDENCE multiple investigations found show definitively that neither Hillary nor ANYONE in the WH had ANY input in the talking points.

I understand your entire position is based on ALL of these investigations being wrong, but you refuse to admit this fact.

Just because you need it to be so to justify months of rant doesn't mean your position has a shred of truth in it.
Click to expand...

I don't mean to be mean-spirited or unnecessarily argumentative, but this is provably false. Provably. There isn't any conjecture, there is an authenticated email from Hillary's spokesman stating that "her building leadership" had issues with the original talking points, and a second email showing that the first round of revisions left "her building's leadership....unresolved." She then went on to explicitly state what those issues precisely were, namely, that the first talking points made it look like State Dept. ignored warnings and that if that perception were allowed to permeate the dialogue, it would reflect poorly on, inter alia, her building leadership.

So the talking points changed.

And changed.

And changed.

And changed.

And then it didn't look that way anymore.

Then Susan Rice told everyone who would listen the "new and improved" facts.

I will confess to enjoying the occasional troll, but you don't have to take my word for it. The WHITE HOUSE released those emails. We don't have to speculate or offer conjecture. All of that is in the public domain at this point.

Please ask for a link to any assertion I have made in this post. I will gladly assist in linking you to the original documents. Your post is provably false. Provably and empirically.

I can say without fear of contradiction that I could disprove RJ's post. Easily. He's lying to himself or he's lying to us, or he's deliberately ignorant. If he can support his position that "all" of the evidence shows "definitively" that Hillary had nothing to do with it, I need to know who the State Department spokesman was referring to when she said "my building leadership." He should consider this a challenge.

RJ?
 
Last edited:
maybe they should have waited three months to talk about it like Reagan did on Iran-Contra
 
Better yet, something like this would have sufficed.


“ There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know.
There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don’t know. ”

—United States Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld
Click to expand...
 
Wrangor said:
Look, I am not going to continue to get into it with you. We disagree on this, I am ok with disagreeing with you. Your interpretation (which is not fact) is different than my interpretation (which is not fact). We both see the evidence and see different things apparently. Your claims on what is fact and what is not is suspect at best. It pretty much turns out that all of your opinions are fact, and all the opposing opinions are made up. It is quite a coincidence. Just chill out buddy. I don't need to justify anything. I am just making comments. If you don't agree with me I am not going to lose any sleep over it.

As-Salaam-Alaikum my brother.
Click to expand...

You have a right to your opinion, but you don't have a right to your facts.

It's not MY opinion it's the EVIDENCE multiple investigations have shown.

You refuse to allow EVIDENCE to impact your position.
 
WakeandBake said:
Click to expand...

Exactly. I personally feel Reagan is a REALLY overrated president. My personal favorite of my lifetime (33) is Herbert. He did what was right in spite of what it would cost him politically. Clinton was solid but in a bit more sleazy way. Reagan wasn't terrible, but he also isn't the second coming of Jesus like so many Republicans make him out to be. W and Obama have been birds of a feather pretty much. Talk a good game, deliver a bunch of hogwash. Christie in 2016! :)

Pretty much all politicians are a bunch of liars trying to save their own skin. Benghazi and Iran/Contra have a lot of similarities. Well intentioned screwup that the administration subsequently lied about. Not an impeachable offense, just poor decision making throughout and the result is a degradation of trust in the oval office to present factual information to the public, especially when those facts might be politically damning.
 
RJKarl said:
You have a right to your opinion, but you don't have a right to your facts.

It's not MY opinion it's the EVIDENCE multiple investigations have shown.

You refuse to allow EVIDENCE to impact your position.
Click to expand...

My God....there are no words.

Second request, RJ. Second.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top