Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Profiling is not ok...Follow

#102 May 16 2013 at 11:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Prior threads where it was established (by you of course) that there was nothing to this story. Yet here we are months later with the story. Hmmmm...

Yes. Prior threads where there was nothing to the story followed up by a non-story in which Republicans "leak" intentionally misleading versions of the e-mails to ABC News making it look as though the White House drove the talking point creation, followed up by the e-mail dump showing this not to be the case.

I mean, it's a great example of "This is all just politics from the GOP" (see: "leak" of false info) but even that's not a new story.

Edit: Props to CBS News for straight out saying the truth: Republicans lied in the "leaked" emails they provided ABC News. But, you know, when you're actually worried about the event and not the politics the first thing you do is pass doctored documents to the media to create a false news story and then start calling for impeachment because this "story" is worse than "Watergate plus Iran-Contra times ten".

Edited, May 17th 2013 12:15am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#103 May 17 2013 at 7:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,008 posts
Just idle musing here, but... how much of a difference does it make that some groups were given extra scrutiny? They weren't outright denied or rejected, right? I mean, universities get audited all the time (literally every year at the ones I've worked for, though they focus on different colleges or departments). It's a pain, but it makes sure we have our ducks in a row.

Compare that to a complete lack of scrutiny for, oh, say "Pulpit Freedom Sunday", where around 1500 pastors across the country endorsed Mitt Romney in front of their congregations, an action that should be easy justification for stripping their tax exempt status. So why haven't we heard of any churches being stripped of their tax-exempt status? The IRS has officially halted tax audits of churches until it can adopt rules that clarify which high-level employee has the authority to initiate them; in fact, they haven't done any church audits since 2009.

Personally, I consider that as much as an issue of increased scrutiny... if not even more of an issue.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#104 May 17 2013 at 7:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Having their tax status delayed meant delaying their entire operations. Even if they were ultimately passed, I do think there's a real problem if one group has that hurdle and a competing group doesn't based purely on their ideologies.

I don't know enough about the church thing to comment although there's no reason why they can't both be wrong.

Back on Benghazi, a column worth reading. The fiasco at Benghazi was almost entirely a CIA fuck-up. Out of the thirty people evacuated following the attack, two-thirds were CIA workers, the rest being State Department workers or contractors of various stripes. The two former SEALS who died were CIA agents, a fact almost entirely skipped by conservatives lauding how these men "heard the alarm call and jumped into action and gave their lives". The building wasn't a State Department building with some CIA ties, it was a CIA building with a State Department front.

But the administration is unwilling to reveal just how far or deeply the CIA is in Libya and the GOP cares more about Clinton than truth or justice or whatever so the focus remains on the State Department.

Edited, May 17th 2013 9:07am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#105 May 17 2013 at 7:51 AM Rating: Good
******
44,305 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Even if they were ultimately passed, I do think there's a real problem if one group has that hurdle and a competing group doesn't based purely on their ideologies.
If you were to try to make a case for conspiracy and scandal, this one would have been the better one to pick up on.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#106 May 17 2013 at 11:03 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
5,663 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
Just idle musing here, but... how much of a difference does it make that some groups were given extra scrutiny? They weren't outright denied or rejected, right? I mean, universities get audited all the time (literally every year at the ones I've worked for, though they focus on different colleges or departments). It's a pain, but it makes sure we have our ducks in a row.


Because SCANDAL!!!!11

Whether or not there were any attempts to cover it up, had either of these things happened during the Bush administration (cough), or if you know, it turned out the IRS targeted people indiscriminately, cough, there would have been no mention of it by anyone in particular.

They are actually hoping to drag these "scandals" on and on until the next presidential election to use it against HR Clinton. Their strategy to is to cling desperately to what little they have to attack with in hopes more details will eventually emerge they can use to convince a handful of extra people that the gubbermint is out to get them, and the only answer to that is putting people in charge who will destroy it from within.
____________________________
my Tumblr
Pixelmon Server Info
FFXI-AH Profile
#107 May 17 2013 at 2:55 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Except that's not what happened. What happened is the Mayor cut the police force because he adopted a policy that assumed that criminals commit crimes because of high police presence. Then, when crimes skyrocketed, instead of accepting that his assumption about crime was wrong, he attempted to blame it on a completely unrelated budget issue.


That doesn't even make sense. Mayor A cuts police enforcement while criticizing Mayor B for having crime. If and only if, Mayor A had no relevant crime issues can Mayor A criticize Mayor B. Since Mayor A had not only similar crimes, but more of them, Mayor A has no reason to make comments.

Gbaji wrote:
There was no shortage of funds for security in Libya. The state department chose not to increase security, not because of budget restrictions, but because of policy within the department itself. I'm just not sure how much more clearly I can state this. If you'd like, I can dig up the quote from the state department official who said this like 6 months ago in testimony about this very thing. This is not even a point of debate except among people who are ignorant of the facts.
...
Again. You are operating on a false assumption. Nothing Republicans in the House did had any effect at all on the security levels in Libya at the time of the attack. Nothing. Those levels were chosen by the state department for reasons that were unrelated to funding.
....
Irrelevant. We're talking about this case. We've already had dozens of threads about WMDs.
.....
Read what above? Obama didn't do anything wrong because....(something about Bush)? Huh? How is that even an argument?


Read above. You're conveniently overlooking the fact that more people died under Bush with less hearings and no complaints. So what's the big deal now? 2016 period. If Republicans were genuine about their claims, it wouldn't have started now. Just like how Democrats contradicted themselves with Obama's support of Drone support, Republicans are doing the same thing. If you refuse to admit the hypocrisy, then that's a personal issue. I'm smart enough to know that each party purposely attacks their opponents for their personal gain.

Gbaji wrote:
No one's questioning whether people died. They're questioning *why* they died. Why do you think the intelligence reports were altered?


Alteration of intelligence reports do not address why they died.
Gbaji wrote:

Except in this case, they weren't concealing some kind of operational details. They changed the reports so as to make it seem like the motivation for the attack itself was different. And it was changed in such a way as to align with the Obama administrations foreign policy. That's why this is a problem.


Not only did Obama said it was an act of terror in his first address, the motive does not address why they died. Once again, it's a political twist to a valid point in a selfish manner.

Gbaji wrote:
How the **** do you prevent the next attack if you wont honestly acknowledge why this one happened? You can't learn from past mistakes if you pretend that you didn't make any at all, and it happened for unrelated reasons. Do you understand that the entire purpose of changing that intelligence was so that the Obama administration could pretend that the attack was unrelated to anything having to do with foreign policy? It's specifically about ensuring that they take no blame for what happened, but some guy in Hollywood takes it instead.

It is about shirking responsibility. Obviously, if they do that, they can't learn from it, much less make changes to avoid the same problem the next time.


Covering up is "reactive" not "proactive". Do you not understand that having the worst and most crooked White House leadership *itself* doesn't decrease physical security of a building? Leadership takes the overall responsibility, but the problem existed PRIOR to the attack.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#108 May 18 2013 at 7:46 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,744 posts
And this begins the stupid analogy war.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#109 May 18 2013 at 8:40 AM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
Your mom is a stupid analogy war.
____________________________
Banh
#110 May 18 2013 at 2:13 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts
The building wasn't a State Department building with some CIA ties, it was a CIA building with a State Department front.

In the intel community they call such buildings "Embassies" or occasionally "Consulates." The directory of CIA contacts abroad is basically a list of State DCMs.

Edit: My replies to any of the actual issues discussed are essentially identical to Joph's, so I didn't bother echoing him. I don't notice if it was mentioned or not yet, but the Benghazi thing is starting to arc over into damaging to the GOP if they continue to pursue it. They should probably concentrate on the IRS thing, it's far more effective for them.

Edited, May 18th 2013 4:26pm by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#111 May 20 2013 at 9:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Another column about the Benghazi CIA operation, saying it was possibly being used to transfer anti-aircraft missiles out of Libya and to the Syrian rebels through Turkey.
Business Insider wrote:
Stevens' last meeting on Sept. 11 was with Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin, and a source told Fox News that Stevens was in Benghazi "to negotiate a weapons transfer in an effort to get SA-7 missiles out of the hands of Libya-based extremists."

Syrian rebels subsequently began shooting down Syrian helicopters and fighter jets with SA-7s akin to those in Qaddafi's looted stock. (The interim Libyan government also sent money and fighters to Syria.)


I was previously skeptical that the US wanted the rebels to have anti-aircraft weapons on their own (for obvious reasons) but this certainly sounds plausible. That the US is using Turkey to funnel aid to the rebels is no secret though.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#112 May 20 2013 at 9:47 AM Rating: Good
******
44,305 posts
Spoonless wrote:
Your mom is a stupid analogy war.
Your war is a stupid mom analogy.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#113 May 20 2013 at 8:30 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
xantav wrote:
To Gbaji:

Help me, a layman, understand the scandal in simple yes or no answers to the following questions.

1) Is this the first time a US embassy was attacked on foreign soil which resulted in the deaths of US citizens?


No. But I believe it's one of only two times that a US ambassador has actually been killed in such an attack. And it's only the second time in my lifetime (that I can think of) where a US embassy/consulate was actually "taken over". Attacks usually involve people throwing grenades, planting bombs, or driving bomb laden vehicles into the sides of the building to kill random people. It's a whole different thing to actually assault a consulate building and kill/capture everyone inside.

I believe the last time that happened was 1979 in Iran. So yeah, it's kinda significant in terms of a failure of security.

Quote:
2) If the answer to 1 is no, is the problem that there wasn't full disclosure to the public a few hours after the incident, thereby a different response to similar situations in the past?


The problem is that the Obama administration appears to have latched onto a politically convenient, but incorrect, explanation for why the attacks occurred. They attempted to sell this motivation to the public, even in the face of fairly clear evidence that it wasn't true. Then when it became obvious that this story wasn't going to fly, they attempted to cover up the fact that they'd attempted to do this in the first place. That cover up continues to this day every time Obama or one of his flunkies goes on TV and insists that the intelligence was somehow confusing, or they didn't know, or whatever excuse they use on any given day.


The lie was the attempt to convince the public that the attacks were the result of protests over a video and not a planned terrorist attack long after the administration clearly knew that the opposite was true. The cover up is everything they've done since then to attempt to convince people that they didn't do that. That's where the scandal comes from. It's not about covering up details of the attack. It's about covering up their own attempt to lie to the American public about what happened.


To put it in context, it would be like if Carter, back in 1979, tried to argue that the hostages taken in Iran really had nothing to do with retaliation for his decisions regarding the Shaw, but instead was because they were offended that we'd canceled Fantasy Island (or something equally silly). If you put that out there, had the media repeat it enough times, and even put an official on the talk shows to repeat it as well, you might be an idiot for trying such a stupid lie, but you still did ultimately lie.

That's why this is important. Regardless of how foolish the attempt was, they did make it. And in typical "the cover up is worse than the crime" fashion, had they simply owned up to the initial statements being an overzealous case of projected wishful thinking and moved on, they might have suffered a minor black eye but that's it. But it was an election year, so they chose to deny that they did anything wrong at all. And much like Nixon's delays during Watergate, it helped them push the scandal down the road long enough to win re-election, but at the cost of it becoming a bigger deal over time. As I pointed out earlier, the cover up wasn't some single action in the past. It's ongoing. Every day they play games with selective document dumps and classifications, and executive privilege, they dig themselves into a deeper hole. They make it more clear that they have something to hide, and that's often far far worse than what you're hiding.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#114 May 20 2013 at 8:30 PM Rating: Good
lolgaxe wrote:
Spoonless wrote:
Your mom is a stupid analogy war.
Your war is a stupid mom analogy.
Your mom's **** war is stupid................-ogy.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#115 May 20 2013 at 8:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Attacks usually involve people throwing grenades, planting bombs, or driving bomb laden vehicles into the sides of the building to kill random people.

Yeah, that's okay. Those deaths don't count compared to SUPER AWESOME TAKEOVER DEATHS!

Quote:
It's a whole different thing to actually assault a consulate building and kill/capture everyone inside.

That didn't happen in Benghazi so... yay?

Funny enough, the GOP was also crying "Scandal! Cover-up!" about the nearly two dozen survivors of the attack. You guys can't even keep your 'scandals' straight Smiley: laugh

Yadda, yadda "news from no where" yadda yadda.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#116 May 21 2013 at 4:27 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Spoonless wrote:
Your mom is a stupid analogy war.
Your war is a stupid mom analogy.
Your mom's **** war is stupid................-ogy.
Good try, good try.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#119 May 21 2013 at 7:08 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,305 posts
gbaji wrote:
The problem is that the Obama administration appears to have latched onto a politically convenient, but incorrect, explanation for why the attacks occurred.
Considering how familiar that should sound to you and how hard you defended it last time around one would think you'd be praising this administration.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#120 May 21 2013 at 7:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
wowbaggerthegreat wrote:
Well to be fair it's extremely difficult to keep up with all the Democrats lies.

And sock accounts!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#122 May 21 2013 at 8:43 AM Rating: Good
******
44,305 posts
wowbaggerthegreat wrote:
Don't worry I don't think
No worries there.
wowbaggerthegreat wrote:
But I'm guessing you remember what w was doing when 911went down.
Not really, I was more concerned with actually being there than people like you using it to win your little political arguments. So you're this month's version, huh. Two weeks, maybe.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#124 May 21 2013 at 8:55 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,305 posts
wowbaggerthegreat wrote:
Now you're embarrassed you can't say the same about where obama was during this siege.
Kind of generic pretend-conservative stretching, even for the Asylum, but I guess when you're trying so hard to be controversial and to anger people you just have to be as broad as possible.
wowbaggerthegreat wrote:
I would be embarrassed if i were a Democrat to.
If I were a Democrat I probably wouldn't care any more than I do now.

Edited, May 21st 2013 10:55am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#125 May 21 2013 at 8:57 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,241 posts
wowbaggerthegreat wrote:


I would be embarrassed if i were a Democrat to.

I would be embarrassed if I used something as meaningless as political affiliation to judge someone by.

Likewise, I'm guessing (and REALLY going out on a limb) that Lolgaxe has way more embarrassing things to be embarrassed about than which politician gets his vote.

I think two weeks is pretty optimistic.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#126 May 21 2013 at 8:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
wowbaggerthegreat wrote:
But I'm guessing you remember what w was doing when 911went down.

Nice equivalency. Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#127 May 21 2013 at 9:00 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,305 posts
You know, 4 dead 10 injured is totally the same as 3,000 dead and 6,000 injured.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#128 May 21 2013 at 9:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
You know, 4 dead 10 injured in a Libyan city most people had never heard of is totally the same as 3,000 dead and 6,000 injured in the heart of New York City.

/nod
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#129 May 21 2013 at 9:05 AM Rating: Good
******
44,305 posts
Eh, more the liver.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#130 May 21 2013 at 9:12 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts

No. But I believe it's one of only two times that a US ambassador has actually been killed in such an attack.


2 does sort of look like and upside down 5. Or by "such an attack" did you mean "in Libya at the US Embassy"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodger_Davies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_E._Meloy,_Jr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleo_A._Noel,_Jr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gordon_Mein
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolph_Dubs
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#131 May 21 2013 at 9:15 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
You know, 4 dead 10 injured is totally the same as 3,000 dead and 6,000 injured.
Basically the only difference is a couple zeroes and zeroes are worthless, everyone knows that!

Edited, May 21st 2013 5:15pm by Aethien
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#132 May 21 2013 at 9:26 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts
Have you read about what's going on at fort hood? They are still paying this mass murderer while his victims are fighting tooth and nail to get combat pay all because Obama won't classify it as a terrorist attack.

Firstly, he hasn't been found guilty of anything. The 'they' you're referring to is DOD who are bound by the UCMJ which legally requires paying him until he's convicted of something. Which is probably a good idea, generally. As to the combat pay phony outrage, this wasn't combat. Bad luck isn't combat. If people want to give the families some money they should give them some money. What an idiotic premise to even pretend to be upset about. We don't give purple hearts to people wounded in car accidents driving to McDonald's, either. Where's the outrage? Wounded soldiers denied thousands of dollars per year in potential benefits! What idiotic bullshit.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#133 May 21 2013 at 9:29 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,015 posts
wowbaggerthegreat wrote:
Well to be fair it's extremely difficult to keep up with all the Democrats lies.

Btw. Where and what was obama doing during the seige in benghazi? I mean we all know exactly what w was doing at and during 911?

Reading books to kindergarteners. You're absolutely correct; O'Bama should have been in Libya fighting off Muslims with an M4, the same way Dubya should have been sitting on the top of 1 WTC deflecting airliners.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#135 May 21 2013 at 9:34 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,305 posts
wowbaggerthegreat wrote:
Notice none of you radicals responded to what's going down at fort hood.
Combat is based on region, not actual combat anyway. Calling it a terrorist attack wouldn't really get anyone anything. That is just the "waitresses make as much as brigadier generals" argument repackaged. I'd say "nice try," but it really wasn't.

Edited, May 21st 2013 11:35am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#137 May 21 2013 at 9:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,000 posts
What do you consider a Muslim attack?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#138 May 21 2013 at 9:49 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
What do you consider a Muslim attack?


Two of the guys at my gym are Turkish Muslims. I train muay thai and boxing with them - it involves a lot of sparring.

They're always Muslim attacking me.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#139 May 21 2013 at 9:51 AM Rating: Good
******
44,305 posts
That sucks. I like Turkish food. Smiley: frown
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#140 May 21 2013 at 10:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,000 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
What do you consider a Muslim attack?


Two of the guys at my gym are Turkish Muslims. I train muay thai and boxing with them - it involves a lot of sparring.

They're always Muslim attacking me.

I bet they're on a watch list for that.

Smiley: tinfoilhat
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#143 May 21 2013 at 11:42 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,305 posts
wowbaggerthegreat wrote:
And it only took w one year to have him executed.
You're not sure how the branches of government work, are you?

Edited, May 21st 2013 1:43pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#144 May 21 2013 at 11:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,000 posts
wowbaggerthegreat wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
What do you consider a Muslim attack?


Two of the guys at my gym are Turkish Muslims. I train muay thai and boxing with them - it involves a lot of sparring.

They're always Muslim attacking me.

I bet they're on a watch list for that.

Smiley: tinfoilhat


Probably not. That list is apparently only reserved for tea party members.


Well of course, the government has to keep people safe from the things they're afraid of. Nothing says scary like a fat chick in a tight-fitting Sarah Palin t-shirt.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#146 May 21 2013 at 11:51 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,241 posts
wowbaggerthegreat wrote:
What happened in boston was an islamic attack.

Benghazi was an islamic attack.

The fort hood massacre was an islamic attack.

The dc snipers was an islamic attack. And it only took w one year to have him executed. The fort hood mass murderer hasn't even had a trial date set.

And so far nothing has been done about benghazi.


FO and go away. I'm sick and tired of people, republican people democratic people, unhappy people absorb hate and seek blame with every breath and then attempt to spread all that self-loathing and paranoia and sick hatefulness. **** happens. No one can predict it all, no one can stop it all.

If you really want to compare GW Bush to Obama I want all the statistics in order to make my decision. I dont' simply want some obviously skewed rant about islamic attacks on americans. I want to know how many americans die - in total, under each adminstration. I want to know how many muslims we killed in retaliation for attacks against americans. I want to know how many muslims americans killed - in total. I want to know how many americans died going to war against the 'islamic'.. If you want to convince me that one president is better than another, or your ideology and hatred towards a large percentage of this worlds population is justified you're going to have to do better than throw out some headlines that we've all heard a hundred times.

Get a grip on reality - but get it somewhere else.

Ur no varus.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#147 May 21 2013 at 11:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,000 posts
wowbaggerthegreat wrote:
Everyone knows that the liberals are the fat and lazy ones so say the polls.


It's a mixed bag. Don't forget there's a fair number of the pot-smoking vegetarian hippie types as well. Hard to put on weight with that lifestyle.

Edited, May 21st 2013 10:52am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#148 May 21 2013 at 11:54 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,305 posts
Elinda wrote:
Ur no varus.
Went from potential lulz and post-fodder to boring in nine posts. I'm actually a little disappointed.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#149 May 21 2013 at 11:54 AM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

No. But I believe it's one of only two times that a US ambassador has actually been killed in such an attack.


2 does sort of look like and upside down 5. Or by "such an attack" did you mean "in Libya at the US Embassy"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodger_Davies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_E._Meloy,_Jr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleo_A._Noel,_Jr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gordon_Mein
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolph_Dubs


Killed in an actual attack on the physical US embassy/consulate grounds. We've had ambassadors killed on the streets, or during kidnappings, car crashes, etc. But it's extremely rare for them to die while actually in a US diplomatic building for precisely the reason that they're expected to be "safe" under those conditions. In your list, only the first one (Rodger Davies) was physically inside the building when killed.

Although I must point out for completeness' sake that Francis Meloy's killers insisted that they were part of the People's Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and that the Popular Front consists of just a bunch of splitters.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#150 May 21 2013 at 12:08 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,241 posts
wowbaggerthegreat wrote:
Everyone knows that the liberals are the fat and lazy ones so say the polls.
Polls, what polls?



____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#151 May 21 2013 at 12:15 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,305 posts
gbaji wrote:
Killed in an actual attack on the physical US embassy/consulate grounds.
If Stephens and crew were attacked just outside the gate you'd have been okay with it?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 74 All times are in CST