When is Jim in NJ

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Benghazi happened just as originally described. There was no coverup. The ties to al Qaeda were fabricated by a corrupt journalist to sell a story, which the GOP ate up with great delight. That is, unless my facts are wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Whether it was Al Queda or not (that may still be open for debate), it certainly had nothing to do with a video, yet the administration kept playing that card, which essentially was blaming an American citizen for what happened in Benghazi (the video was made by an American). What do you think of that? Then we have a senior administration official (Clinton), saying "what difference does it make" what the root cause was. What difference does it make. Tell that to the families.

Obama also (1) spent almost $1 trillion on a stimulus that he said would keep unemployment below 8%, and unemployment shot over 10%; (2) claimed to be post partisan, yet his IRS was targeting the tea party; (3) said "if you like your plan or doctor, you can keep them - period".

Not one critical syllable from you-know-who on any of those flubs.

So who is the fanatic? Hmmmmmmm...

Et tu, Nebe?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Benghazi happened just as originally described. There was no coverup. The ties to al Qaeda were fabricated by a corrupt journalist to sell a story, which the GOP ate up with great delight. That is, unless my facts are wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nebe, bin laden ordered the hit. Hillary was smuggling manpads in her slacks to Iran in exchange for a discount at the rug emporium around exit 38 on the Long Island expressway. This is all about Chicago and Acorn, the Rev Wright and pot in Hawaii. It would be funny if he were really an American citizen.

Benghazi.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Lmao!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Nebe, bin laden ordered the hit. Hillary was smuggling manpads in her slacks to Iran in exchange for a discount at the rug emporium around exit 38 on the Long Island expressway. This is all about Chicago and Acorn, the Rev Wright and pot in Hawaii. It would be funny if he were really an American citizen.

Benghazi.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Phew! Thank you for admitting it was about these loony tunes, not about Bush. And yet . . . you still have your nose up their butt.

[scottw]

this is great isn't it? Spence starts a thread hoping to make himself feel better about the failures of his hero and then complains that others make everything about his hero...Paul was actually the first to inject the O word...Eben makes a "statement of fact"(opinion)...neglecting to include any facts which makes the statement little more than an opinion based on ??? Paul insults Jim for being insulting.....and Eben and Spence tickle each other's navels and laugh at fart jokes-LMAO....I think they refer to this as "enlightened high-mindedness"

meanwhile...domestic economic policy is a disaster, foreign policy is a disaster, Governors act like thugs and Presidents take lavish 4 million dollar vacations and then whine about income inequality

[Nebe]

Pinkies up spence!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Scott. Here is your facts. Old news....

http://www.theeverlastinggopstoppers...ication-video/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Spence, let's try a little exercise, shall we?

You started this thread with the assumption that I would not be critical of Christie. but I was.

Your turn.

Hilary, as we all know, recently made up stories about being under sniper fire at an airport in Kosovo or somewhere, where she had to DIVE! into waiting military vehicles. Video from that day showed she lied through her teeth, as she was calmly smiling and waving for the cameras.

Her excuse? She was tired from not getting enough sleep the night before! Anyone who raises kids knows what brutal sleep deprivation feels like. Never, not once, has sleep deprivation caused any of us to believe we were under sniper attack.

OK Spence, what say you? Why doesn't this incident show without a shred of doubt, that this is a woman who will say anything whatsoever, and then confronted with irrefutable evidence of a lie, she makes up another lie.

What say you?

Good luck!

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Scott. Here is your facts. Old news....

http://www.theeverlastinggopstoppers...ication-video/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The article is not related to your post to which ScottW referred.

It doesn't say that Benghazi happened as originally described. The original description involving the video is not even discussed.

It doesn't say there was NO cover-up. It says that a couple of memos were misquoted which somehow discredits the whole investigation, and disregards everything else about the incident. And the "misquotes" don't entirely change the nature of the "original" quotes. One left out mention of the State Dept. and the other was a rewrite by the CIA which left out references to al Qaeda which they had in their original quote to satisfy the sensitivities of State Dept.

It doesn't say that the ties to Al Qaeda were "fabricated" by a corrupt journalist to sell a story. It stays away from discussing ties to Al Qaeda, which subsequent stories by "reputable" journalists (including CNN )show existed.

As Spence likes to say, this is old news.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Scott. Here is your facts. Old news....

http://www.theeverlastinggopstoppers...ication-video/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I suspect that if I were to reference or link the

http:www.theeverlastinglibstoppers.com

or something similar

for "facts and old news" on a controversial issue, you and Spence would be cackling and howling...

brilliant

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

You guys are funny. Here's Christie in a pickle and you just can't help but make it about Obama.

-spence

Christie's guilt is still unproven, and again if he is guilty I will be the first to say he
should face the consequences.
I will say this for him, he was willing to face it head on, not claiming he read it in the press, LOL, and he faced the charges in front of the press answering every question for an hour and a half including apologizing profusely.

I doubt the Rose Garden has been open for that much questioning or answering time about the many scandals in the last 5 years.

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

Spence starts a thread hoping to make himself feel better about the failures of his hero and then complains that others make everything about his hero...

Wrong. I started this thread to make fun of Jim.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Wrong. I started this thread to make fun of Jim.

-spence

And your jests proved to be unfounded, since I said that if Christie ordered this, he's unfit to serve the public. Since you dodged my question, allow me to ask again,. Spence, what do you think of the fact (and it is irrefutable fact) that Hilary lied to our faces about getting shot at, at the airport in Kosovo or somewhere? And her excuse for lying, that she was tired? Does that excuse hold water?

I mean, if sleep deprivation cause her to lose the ability to distinguish between reality and fantasy, what the hell is going to happen when she gets calls from the Situation Room at 3 AM? If she is suffering from exhaustion-induced psychosis, is she going to order the Marines to invade Portugal?

Let's lay down our cards, Spence. Let's see who the fanatic is who cannot be critical of those who share our political ideology. Hint - it's not me.

You started this, let's take it to its logical conclusion, shall we?

I await your reply...

[PaulS]

Let's be fair, Christie doesn't share your "political ideology".

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Let's be fair, Christie doesn't share your "political ideology".

Me? You think? I would think I agree with him on most of the issues, and for sure I admire his willingness to speak honestly and correctly about what needs to be addressed via the labor unions.

I was a huge supporter of his for a presidential run. If he had anything to do with ordering the lane closures, I want that to come out, because in that case, i would never vote for him in the primary.

Hope all is well Paul.

Jim

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

And your jests proved to be unfounded, since I said that if Christie ordered this, he's unfit to serve the public. Since you dodged my question, allow me to ask again,. Spence, what do you think of the fact (and it is irrefutable fact) that Hilary lied to our faces about getting shot at, at the airport in Kosovo or somewhere? And her excuse for lying, that she was tired? Does that excuse hold water?

I mean, if sleep deprivation cause her to lose the ability to distinguish between reality and fantasy, what the hell is going to happen when she gets calls from the Situation Room at 3 AM? If she is suffering from exhaustion-induced psychosis, is she going to order the Marines to invade Portugal?

Let's lay down our cards, Spence. Let's see who the fanatic is who cannot be critical of those who share our political ideology. Hint - it's not me.

You started this, let's take it to its logical conclusion, shall we?

I await your reply...

Yoo-hoo, Spence? Yo, Spence!!

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Yoo-hoo, Spence? Yo, Spence!!

Can't I work a bit? It helps to pay the bills.

My jest is not unfounded as I never claimed you'd profess your fealty.

We've beaten the Kosovo topic to death. What's next? Biden's plaigerism and Wright's "chickens coming home to roost"?

What's interesting here is that you actually have a scandal broken with a smoking gun versus Obama's "scandals" that are highly manufactured.

What remains to be seen is if Christy can make it through this. I'd like to think he's being honest but the number of close aids that were involved makes that difficult. You know the guy is running for POTUS and you don't warn him of an ethics violation that could likely submarine his campaign?

This along with the Sandy story could very well spell doom. He's lucky it came out now.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

We've beaten the Kosovo topic to death.
-spence

Kindly refresh my memory? Tell me how that lie actually makes her MORE suited to be POTUS than if she told the truth?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Can't I work a bit? It helps to pay the bills.

My jest is not unfounded as I never claimed you'd profess your fealty.

We've beaten the Kosovo topic to death. What's next? Biden's plaigerism and Wright's "chickens coming home to roost"?

What's interesting here is that you actually have a scandal broken with a smoking gun versus Obama's "scandals" that are highly manufactured.

What remains to be seen is if Christy can make it through this. I'd like to think he's being honest but the number of close aids that were involved makes that difficult. You know the guy is running for POTUS and you don't warn him of an ethics violation that could likely submarine his campaign?

This along with the Sandy story could very well spell doom. He's lucky it came out now.

-spence

This "scandal" is actually more hilarious than SNL would portray it. No doubt they will. It's that there are those flashbacks of Christie (that name just doesn't seem to fit him) walking with Obama after Sandy and praising him, and being able to "reach across the aisle" and be "bi-partisan," and bashing tea partiers and "right wing conservatives." I can't help but snicker as I write this. He bashes and shuns those who should be his allies and cozies up to those who he supposedly runs against. Has he learned anything now? Those cuddly little puppy dogs that he would befriend are now furiously biting at his ankles, and soon the wildebeest that he is will fall and become prey to his own lack of principle.

Or, as you say, he's lucky it came out now. That is, of course, how "scandals" die, isn't it? Just let time pass and they go away. And if anyone brings them up, just ask haven't we "beaten them to death?", and say it's old news. Poof. And if that doesn't quiet the old news chatter, just sarcastically repeat the scandal's names as if that, like voodoo, cleanses them of any force or validity. Right. So, since all scandals are "manufactured" (played up big by the media to give them "legs," or given a mere mention, if anything, and dropped from the conversation to wither and die) they can be dismissed by time and lack of attention.

But my laughter is cynical here, tinged with a bit of joy. The establishment Republican willingness to play the progressive game is the same self-destruction that Christie is experiencing now. He has no true friends, neither among them, nor from those across the aisle, nor most of the media. He might actually now be the very candidate that the Democrats would like to run against. Not someone with the virtue and principle to inspire the majority of Americans who want something other than more of the same, but someone not too unlike themselves, but damaged, marginalized, destroyed, and a destruction brought about by appeasing them rather than truly fighting them.

When the Republican party can muster itself to being a true opponent to the progressive ideal of huge government and our dependence on it . . . can actually stand for the principles that made us "exceptional," made us the place for individuals hungering for freedom, not a bee hive society . . . when it can articulate such principles as well as act on them rather than concocting "strategies" for so-called victory such as funding and letting Obamacare grow so that most will hate it and then vote the Dems out . . . then it will be a truly different choice for the people. And it will have a reason to exist.

As it is now, Democrat lite is a losing proposition . . . even if they win.

[detbuch]

Mea culpa. My above post went too far. Christie, I don't think, actually "bashed" right wingers. He's too accomplished a politician to do that. His profession to be "conservative" while acting more as a "centrist" makes him appear to "conservatives" to be soft on principles. He appears to talk "right" but slide "left" when the dust settles. And that is what the "conservative base" sees as a sort of slap in the face, and what makes that base suspicious of his bona fides as a leader. But if he can't convince that base, and if it distrusts him too much, he might, despite his reputed popularity, have a tough time winning the general election for President.

And his willingness to work with the left would probably lead us further down that road, just more slowly. If the Dems were actually willing to work with "conservatives" there might also be a slow down in the direction we're going, But their success in rapidly "transforming" America is built, not on compromise, but on the opposite.

So it appears that the unwillingness to "compromise," while talking it, is the means to success. That the Repubs try to be agreeable appears to make them weak, so they get rolled over without fear of retribution. Harry Reid boldly used the "nuclear option" to bar the ability of the minority to filibuster court nominees, so Obama can freely fill vacancies at record speed with the type of judges who will help further the progressive agenda. And what do the Repubs do? They promise to restore the filibuster power when they win. Brilliant. Instead of using the power to ram through their type of judges, they'll go back to having them denied. And we go further down the road.

So Christie may weather the storm. If he does, and if it makes him stronger and an even stronger candidate by beating his attackers, will he act as tough as he talks, or will he talk and slide?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Benghazi happened just as originally described. There was no coverup. The ties to al Qaeda were fabricated by a corrupt journalist to sell a story, which the GOP ate up with great delight. That is, unless my facts are wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"The ties to al Qaeda were fabricated by a corrupt journalist to sell a story"

Interesting. The US Senate, which last time I checked was run by the Democrats, issued a report saying definitively that there were ties to Al Queda.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...nghazi-report/

Our presidential front runner, Mrs Clinton, said during the hearings "what difference does it make" who was responsible. HOW ABOUT THIS...the difference is, the truth tells us accurately, who we need to go after to seek justice. That means nothing to the woman who was in charge of the department that lost 4 of its employees?

I don't get the liberal willingness to let politicians get away with absolutely anything, especially if their name is Kennedy or Clinton. I truly do not get it.

[PaulS]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1028711Our presidential front runner, Mrs Clinton, said during the hearings "what difference does it make" who was responsible. HOW ABOUT THIS...the difference is, the truth tells us accurately, who we need to go after to seek justice. That means nothing to the woman who was in charge of the department that lost 4 of its employees?

I don't get the liberal willingness to let politicians get away with absolutely anything, especially if their name is Kennedy or Clinton. I truly do not get it.[/QUOTE]

So when she made that statement, was she refering to "who was responsible" as you indicated b/c the way you wrote that it sounds like she didn't care who was responsible?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Interesting. The US Senate, which last time I checked was run by the Democrats, issued a report saying definitively that there were ties to Al Queda.

The report you cite was a product of the Senate Intel Committee which isn't run by democrats...it's bi-partisan. From what I've read it pretty much aligns with the independent review from a year ago.

It doesn't appear to establish anything new. It's been known for some time that participants in the attack had some level of linkage to groups claiming to be al Qaeda in north Africa, but there's still no evidence of material involvement by those groups or involvement by core alQaeda in Pakistan.

Anyone can raise a black flag and claim to be alQaeda.

Our presidential front runner, Mrs Clinton, said during the hearings "what difference does it make" who was responsible. HOW ABOUT THIS...the difference is, the truth tells us accurately, who we need to go after to seek justice. That means nothing to the woman who was in charge of the department that lost 4 of its employees?

To Paul's response...she said those responsible would come out in the investigation but the priority should be on the initial actions necessary to protect out people. Funny, Jim never posts the entire remarks...

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

But my laughter is cynical here, tinged with a bit of joy. The establishment Republican willingness to play the progressive game is the same self-destruction that Christie is experiencing now. He has no true friends, neither among them, nor from those across the aisle, nor most of the media. He might actually now be the very candidate that the Democrats would like to run against. Not someone with the virtue and principle to inspire the majority of Americans who want something other than more of the same, but someone not too unlike themselves, but damaged, marginalized, destroyed, and a destruction brought about by appeasing them rather than truly fighting them.

When you look at Christy's record on many issues he certainly looks like a conservative. That's he's not as rabid a partisan as the tea party would like doesn't diminish his own beliefs.

I think the GOP would benefit much from a Republican-light nominee. A hard change in course to the right from what's been established by both parties over the past decades would be seen are more progressive than what we have today.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The report you cite was a product of the Senate Intel Committee which isn't run by democrats...it's bi-partisan. From what I've read it pretty much aligns with the independent review from a year ago.

It doesn't appear to establish anything new. It's been known for some time that participants in the attack had some level of linkage to groups claiming to be al Qaeda in north Africa, but there's still no evidence of material involvement by those groups or involvement by core alQaeda in Pakistan.

Anyone can raise a black flag and claim to be alQaeda.



To Paul's response...she said those responsible would come out in the investigation but the priority should be on the initial actions necessary to protect out people. Funny, Jim never posts the entire remarks...

-spence

"the Senate Intel Committee which isn't run by democrats"

The Senate Intel committee has a chairperson who runs the committee. That chairperson is Diane Feinstein. Ms Feinstein is a Democrat. Therefore that committee, like every single senate committee, is run by the democrats. Am I going too fast for you?

There are 15 members of the committee...7 Republicans, 7 democrats, an an independent who caucuses with the Democrats. Stop embarassing yourself.

Nebe said that the link to Al Queda was fabricated by a reporter. The report issued by the senate intelligence committee, run by those in your party, seems to contradict that.

"Anyone can raise a black flag and claim to be alQaeda."

That's true. Presumably, however, the Senate intelligence committee has some ability to differentiate between genuine Al Queda, and some wannabe. If that's not the case, perhaps Senator Feinstein is in over her head.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

So when she made that statement, was she refering to "who was responsible" as you indicated b/c the way you wrote that it sounds like she didn't care who was responsible?

Let's assume that all she was indifferent to, was the motivatiuon behind the attackers. How is that still not crucial? If the attack was a response toi a video, then we know we can avoid future attacks by stepping up security when such videos come out. If the attack was a pre-meditated terrorist plot, we avoid future attacks by killing the members of that terrorist group.

Those are very different scenarios Paul, each of which having a completely different response. I don't believe that you disagree with that statement. It's stupifying that the SesState, and presumptive presidential nomine sees no reason to split those hairs.

WHere am I going wrong Paul? No sarcasm, that's a sincere querstion. Politics aside, I don't see how her question doesn't raise serious questions about her ability to serve at that level.

As an aside, blaming the attack on a video, is blaming the attack on a goddamn American citizen, since it was an American who mnade the video. SHe is supposed to be looking out for Americans, not throwing them under the bus to deflect blame for an attack.

I don't blame her for the attack. In this age, you can't stop them all. Her response was astounding.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"The ties to al Qaeda were fabricated by a corrupt journalist to sell a story"

Interesting. The US Senate, which last time I checked was run by the Democrats, issued a report saying definitively that there were ties to Al Queda.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...nghazi-report/

Our presidential front runner, Mrs Clinton, said during the hearings "what difference does it make" who was responsible. HOW ABOUT THIS...the difference is, the truth tells us accurately, who we need to go after to seek justice. That means nothing to the woman who was in charge of the department that lost 4 of its employees?

I don't get the liberal willingness to let politicians get away with absolutely anything, especially if their name is Kennedy or Clinton. I truly do not get it.

jim you quoted fox, how dare you....how about CNN?
Spence, once again you are totally WRONG a

CNN) -- The deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, was "likely preventable" based on known security shortfalls and prior warnings that the security situation there was deteriorating, the majority of the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in a report released on Wednesday.Separately, the findings also noted what the FBI had told the panel -- that 15 people cooperating with its investigation had been killed in Benghazi, undercutting the investigation. It was not clear if the killings were related to the probe.

Moreover, it said that people linked with various al Qaeda-related groups in North Africa and elsewhere participated in the September 11, 2012, attack, but investigators haven't been able to determine whether any one group was in command.


http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/15/politi...html?hpt=hp_t2

carry on - and BTW, you people are all insane.

[PaulS]

Read what she said. I don't think you have ever read a transcript.

"Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime."

So she said she wanted to know what happened, prevent it from happening again, and bring them to justice.

Frankly, spending this much time on a sentence or 2 in a hour??? long questioning is silly.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I think the GOP would benefit much from a Republican-light nominee.

-spence

We tried that with McCain and Romney, didn't work out that well. I suppose the answer isn't to nominate a more radical conservative, but rather to nominate someone who won't let the Democrats and the media (sorry for the redundancy) launch unfounded attacks, one after the other. We need someone who (1) has appeal to independents, and (2) isn't afraid to throw an elbow back when attacked. That was Christie.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Read what she said. I don't think you have ever read a transcript.

"Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime."

"it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice"

Apparently you didn't read my last post. This quote from Clinton is idiotic. It is stupifying in its absurdity. The tactical response, in terms of preventing a future attack, is very different depending upon whether it was a reaction to a video, or a premeditated terrorist plot.

Paul, what about the fact that suggesting it was because of the video, is throwing an American citizen under the bus? As well as inviting Islamic radicals to declare a fatwah on the poor guy?