Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Georgia in 2010?

[Dept of Insanity Cop]

Aggie wrote:

Fine, then just come out and say the investigation is ongoing. But there was WAY too hard a push on the video story, THAT is what made people question it. But some people are too partisan to take the blinders off.

Not partisan, just understanding of it.

Don't forget, about 20 or so cities WERE raising hell over that video. Burning flags, riots, chanting etc all over the middle-east. They do get worked up over their religion over there.

There was a coordinated terrorist attack on our embassy. There ALSO were riots over some stupid anti-Islam film. Both things happened.

[Mustard Biscuit]

Aggie wrote:

Fine, then just come out and say the investigation is ongoing. But there was WAY too hard a push on the video story, THAT is what made people question it. But some people are too partisan to take the blinders off.

I agree with you. It's time to take off the blinders!

[Dept of Insanity Cop]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/us/politics...

[American Bulldog]

Dept of Insanity Cop wrote:

<quoted text>
Not partisan, just understanding of it.
Don't forget, about 20 or so cities WERE raising hell over that video. Burning flags, riots, chanting etc all over the middle-east. They do get worked up over their religion over there.
There was a coordinated terrorist attack on our embassy. There ALSO were riots over some stupid anti-Islam film. Both things happened.

The obama admin was pinning the blame on the video from the start despite the fact that Petraeus reported that it was a terrorist attack. There is also evidence that something could have been done to help but none was sent.
]http://factcheck.org/2012/10/ benghazi-timeline/

[American Bulldog]

http://factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timelin...

[American Bulldog]

Libertarian Dillweed wrote:

The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 indicates that a budget must be submitted each year by the President. That budget is fleshed out by the Office of Management and Budget. He's Done this. In fact, you can see his 2013 budget online right now. Enjoy your reading...
The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 requires Congress to pass and work out a budget. They can just let the presidents fly right though..(yeah..right!).. or they can work out their own.
Republican obstructionism in the 212th Congress has basically made this an impossibility. You want a budget? Get rid of your Tea Party congressmen.
Getting a budget passed is a messy affair. People try to tack things on, they use procedural elements to black basic movement, different majority numbers are required for certain things. Given the nature of the 212th Congress, it's no surprise that there's been no progress. If this didn't make sense, you should read more on the Congressional Budget Process.
To repeatedly say "Obama didn't pass a budget" is just cheap political talk intended to rile-up the uninformed.

Harry and the dimwits.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/...

[Mustard biscuits]

zinniemae wrote:

Am a democrat.

I am not, thank you.

[Libertarian Dillweed]

American Bulldog wrote:

http://factcheck.org/2012/10/b enghazi-timeline/

So, this is your point?:

September 12th: Obama Labels Attack ‘Act of Terror,’ Not ‘Terrorism’

If he said "terrorism" as opposed to "act of terror", you'd be satisfied?

[Aggie]

Libertarian Dillweed wrote:

<quoted text>
So, this is your point?:
September 12th: Obama Labels Attack ‘Act of Terror,’ Not ‘Terrorism’
If he said "terrorism" as opposed to "act of terror", you'd be satisfied?

If this is the best you can come up with after looking at that website, than there is no point in trying to logically discuss the issue with you. You will continue to be among the willingly ignorant who swallow whatever fairy tale is spun. You have not expressed any willingness to even consider that there is something here to be explained: the British pulled their people out of Benghazi, the Red Cross pulled out of Benghazi, our consulate is the last western presence and there are al Qaeda flags being flown all over Benghazi and yet the consulate's requests for additional security are denied. Why? And this was after a bomb was placed outside the wall that blew a huge hole in the wall that was reported to be big enough for dozens of people to get through. We have reports that during the attack, the CIA personnel at the annex were told to stand down from aiding the consulate, why? Tyrone Woods exposed his position by "lighting up" the mortar position, you don't do that unless you think assistance is coming, where was it? If these questions are meaningless to you, I'm stunned. If American citizens are willing to put their lives on the line for this country, they deserve to know their government will back them up, and if it won't, they should at least know the American people will stand up and ask why.

[Bill in Dville]

Aggie wrote:

<quoted text>
If this is the best you can come up with after looking at that website, than there is no point in trying to logically discuss the issue with you. You will continue to be among the willingly ignorant who swallow whatever fairy tale is spun. You have not expressed any willingness to even consider that there is something here to be explained:...

You're running into and documenting one of the "main" issues on this site, "there is no point in trying to logically discuss the issue"...You might be trying to have a legitimate discussion with four different posters who are the same person, none of the "posters" have a lick of sense.

Ask someone to define racism, no one can or does.

Ask someone to define "fair share" on taxes, no one can or does.

You should have seen the discussions about taxes in here, very few people understand our tax system, but most everyone (at least the lefties) can spout the party line that the evil rich don't pay their fair share, when around half the country doesn't pay ANY federal income tax...

I've stopped responding directly to unregistered posters (BTW, how's your registration going? If you're still having issues, you might want to try another e-mail address), it's not worth having the same discussion with what might be the same person 3 or 4 times...

[No Morals]

Aggie wrote:

<quoted text>
If this is the best you can come up with after looking at that website, than there is no point in trying to logically discuss the issue with you. You will continue to be among the willingly ignorant who swallow whatever fairy tale is spun. You have not expressed any willingness to even consider that there is something here to be explained: the British pulled their people out of Benghazi, the Red Cross pulled out of Benghazi, our consulate is the last western presence and there are al Qaeda flags being flown all over Benghazi and yet the consulate's requests for additional security are denied. Why? And this was after a bomb was placed outside the wall that blew a huge hole in the wall that was reported to be big enough for dozens of people to get through. We have reports that during the attack, the CIA personnel at the annex were told to stand down from aiding the consulate, why? Tyrone Woods exposed his position by "lighting up" the mortar position, you don't do that unless you think assistance is coming, where was it? If these questions are meaningless to you, I'm stunned. If American citizens are willing to put their lives on the line for this country, they deserve to know their government will back them up, and if it won't, they should at least know the American people will stand up and ask why.

The dems have always had disdain against our military but the Benghazi coverup is truly disgusting. The coverup is one thing but obama and the dems trying to gloss over this situation are morally bankrupt. The truth is not an option with obama, who no doubt is calling the shots.

[Aggie]

@Bill in Dville
You're absolutely right on all points. And I recognize half the time (if not more), I am wasting my time, but it is difficult to see such willing ignorance go unchallenged.
I have sent a follow -up and was going to give it until Wednesday, after which I probably will just try to re-register.

[Tellin the truth]

Bill in Dville wrote:

<quoted text>

Ask someone to define racism, no one can or does.
Ask someone to define "fair share" on taxes, no one can or does.

You go on about the same crap that you heard on Neal Boortzs show ENDLESSLY. Then you convince yourself that you're somehow "more intelligent" or superior to everybody around you. Then you call everyone around you "clueless and uneducated". You can't WAIT to tell people that you know a bit about taxes - and the opportunity to puff up and make yourself appear more important..

You're just a Rosco P. Coletrain - Bumbling and blubbering and full of unjustified self-importance.

So there you have the other side of the story...

[Tellin the truth]

No Morals wrote:

<quoted text>The dems have always had disdain against our military but the Benghazi coverup is truly disgusting. The coverup is one thing but obama and the dems trying to gloss over this situation are morally bankrupt. The truth is not an option with obama, who no doubt is calling the shots.

Again- what do you think is being covered up?

[General Robert E Lee]

Tellin the truth wrote:

<quoted text>
You go on about the same crap that you heard on Neal Boortzs show ENDLESSLY. Then you convince yourself that you're somehow "more intelligent" or superior to everybody around you. Then you call everyone around you "clueless and uneducated". You can't WAIT to tell people that you know a bit about taxes - and the opportunity to puff up and make yourself appear more important..
You're just a Rosco P. Coletrain - Bumbling and blubbering and full of unjustified self-importance.
So there you have the other side of the story...

The other side of the story is:

What do you say is a "fair share" tax rate?

[Tellin the truth]

General Robert E Lee wrote:

<quoted text>
The other side of the story is:
What do you say is a "fair share" tax rate?

It's a loaded question in regards to how you Boortz Worshippers use it, and people are smart enough to recognize that as such.

But here's a starting point for you - A rate that DOESN'T result in this:

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/09/14/rep...

[Synergy]

Aggie wrote:

@Bill in Dville
You're absolutely right on all points. And I recognize half the time (if not more), I am wasting my time, but it is difficult to see such willing ignorance go unchallenged.
I have sent a follow -up and was going to give it until Wednesday, after which I probably will just try to re-register.

Aggie, it's wasted effort. The thing that I've continued to find amusing is that the libs accuse the conservatives of being spoonfed false information, however, they continue to spout the same old left wing talking points(MSNBC) as if they've come up with THEIR information from some world class legitimate source. I've determined that the libs will just have to wait and see the error of their ways. BTW, Bill is correct. You are most likely responding to the same person who has several IDs. That is their MO. Apparently, that is the only way the left can garner support. Don't give up on registering.

[Tellin the truth]

Where there's Bill, there's Synergy, coming along to parrot him.

[Synergy]

Tellin the truth wrote:

Where there's Bill, there's Synergy, coming along to parrot him.

Why don't you quit switching IDs, get registered and have a legitimate discussion? Every single thing I posted is absolutely true. You libs have trouble with the truth.

[Tellin the truth]

Synergy wrote:

<quoted text>
You libs have trouble with the truth.

No we don't. You don't care about facts, you hate Obama, and you like insulting people. That's the truth. We don't have any trouble at all understanding that.