Who do you support for U.S. Senate in...
OMTE

Sycamore, GA

#10165 May 10, 2013
danger zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, it matters, it should matter to all Americans.
I'm not they type to contemplate jumping off a cliff for anyone or anything. If I were that unstable, I'd jumped the day Obama won the FIRST election.
Who said anything about suicide? I said you appeared as if you were outraged and you follow by saying you were weren't. I was glad you cleared it up. Now you're talking about jumping off of cliffs. I don't follow you.
Informed Opinion

Sunapee, NH

#10166 May 10, 2013
danger zone wrote:
And....Nixon was republican, up against a most liberal news media.
Wow- the Right Wing Wackos must have demanded Ronnie Ray-Gun and Bush resigns hundreds of times. All those Marines killed in Lebanon under Ray-Gun for absolutely no reason and serving no purpose, and all the American Civilians and Troops killed by Bush's incompetence and lunacy - there's no way the RWW would let that insanity slide.
danger zone

Macon, GA

#10167 May 10, 2013
A history lesson,
Nixon was ALMOST impeached, he resigned, then pardoned by Gerald Ford.
danger zone

Macon, GA

#10168 May 10, 2013
OMTE wrote:
<quoted text>Who said anything about suicide? I said you appeared as if you were outraged and you follow by saying you were weren't. I was glad you cleared it up. Now you're talking about jumping off of cliffs. I don't follow you.
It's okay. It really is.
OMTE

Sycamore, GA

#10169 May 10, 2013
danger zone wrote:
A history lesson,
Nixon was ALMOST impeached, he resigned, then pardoned by Gerald Ford.
You need to tell that to your buddies. They're the ones that keep screaming Nixon was impeached. I just agree with them as it was almost a certainty that he would have been.
OMTE

Sycamore, GA

#10170 May 10, 2013
danger zone wrote:
<quoted text>
It's okay. It really is.
Not being mean, but your stupid is beginning to shine through.
Informed Opinion

Sunapee, NH

#10171 May 10, 2013
danger zone wrote:
And....Nixon was republican, up against a most liberal news media.
By the way...

Do people still by that Right Wing Wacko crap about the "Media" being "Liberal".

Ever look at who owns the "Media":

Today, ownership of the news media has been concentrated in the hands of just six incredibly powerful media corporations.

These corporate behemoths control most of what we watch, hear and read every single day. They own television networks, cable channels, movie studios, newspapers, magazines, publishing houses, music labels and even many of our favorite websites.

The six corporations that collectively control U.S. media today are:
- Time Warner,
- Walt Disney,
- Viacom, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.,
CBS Corporation, and
NBC Universal.

Together, the "big six" absolutely dominate news and entertainment in the United States. But even those areas of the media that the "big six" do not completely control are becoming increasingly concentrated. For example, Clear Channel now owns over 1000 radio stations across the United States.

In 1983, fifty corporations dominated most of every mass medium and the biggest media merger in history was a $340 million deal.…[I]n 1987, the fifty companies had shrunk to twenty-nine.…[I]n 1990, the twenty-nine had shrunk to twenty three.…[I]n 1997, the biggest firms numbered ten and involved the $19 billion Disney-ABC deal, at the time the biggest media merger ever.…[In 2000] AOL Time Warner’s $350 billion merged corporation [was] more than 1,000 times larger [than the biggest deal of 1983].

--Ben H. Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly, Sixth Edition,(Beacon Press, 2000), pp. xx—xxi

Does anyone actually think these multinational, multibillion and trillion dollar corporations are "Liberal" ?

Please - thats not on true on Planet Earth.

Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#10172 May 10, 2013
Republicans lead a witch hunt on Benghazi
By Eugene Robinson
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene...

Those who are trying to make the Benghazi tragedy into a scandal for the Obama administration really ought to decide what story line they want to sell.

Actually, by “those” I mean Republicans, and by “the Obama administration” I mean Hillary Clinton. The only coherent purpose I can discern in all of this is to sully Clinton’s record as secretary of state in case she runs for president in 2016.

...The hearing convened Wednesday by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) produced a riveting narrative of the chaotic events in Libya last September. But what was the supposedly unforgivable crime?

Did Clinton’s State Department fail to provide adequate security for the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi? In retrospect, obviously so. But the three diplomats who testified at the hearing gave no evidence that this failure sprang from anything other than the need to use limited resources as efficiently as possible.

House Republicans who voted to cut funding for State Department security should understand that their philosophy — small government is always better — has consequences. Bureaucrats have to make judgment calls. Sometimes they will be wrong.

Is the scandal supposed to be that a four-man Special Forces team was not sent from Tripoli to help defend the Benghazi compound?

...But the decision not to dispatch troops was made by the military chain of command, not by Clinton or anyone who reported to her. Superior officers decided this team was needed to help evacuate the embassy in Tripoli, which was seen as a potential target for a Benghazi-style attack.

The Pentagon has concluded that the team, in any event, could not have arrived in Benghazi in time to make a difference. Hicks testified that he disagrees.

...Well, then, maybe the transgression is that administration officials, for some unfathomable reason, willfully lied when they said the attack was in reaction to an anti-Islam video produced in the United States and disseminated on the Internet.

The problem is that there were, in fact, tumultuous anti-American demonstrations taking place in cities throughout the Muslim world because of the video. President Obama labeled the Benghazi assault an act of terror almost immediately — as Mitt Romney learned in the second presidential debate — but it was hard to imagine that the attack was completely unrelated to what was happening in Cairo, Tunis, Khartoum and Jakarta.

...Maybe that’s it: a cover-up. Perhaps the administration conspired to hide Clinton’s failure to protect our diplomats overseas. But she commissioned an independent report by former ambassador Thomas Pickering that said — well, I’ll just quote Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee:“The Pickering Report appears to make clear what we already knew: that there was strategic warning from the intelligence community of a dangerous security environment in Benghazi and that our diplomats were failed by the bureaucracy at the State Department.”

Some cover-up.

Was Hicks “demoted” for blowing the whistle on Benghazi, as he testified? He asked to come home, understandably, and the department parked him in a desk job — with the same pay and rank — until something more to his liking comes open. Has he been muzzled? Hardly, as evidenced by his testimony Wednesday.
Bored

Dawsonville, GA

#10173 May 10, 2013
OMTE wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not following you.

Dense, really dense.
OMTE

Sycamore, GA

#10174 May 10, 2013
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
If that is sarcasm then disregard the following:
What a T-total crock of bullsh*t. Maybe you should change the 'o' to a 'c' or maybe just change to 'ricky' as in ricky santorum.
I reread your post and I see what you'e saying. You think I have a closed mind when it comes to queers. Don't you? If I did I'd be saying they need to lock their sick a$$es up. I think they are sick, but not criminals. That's about as open minded as I can get on that subject. If you want your children to be queers that's fine too. Oh yeah and I do like Rick Santorum. If you had been posting for sometime you'd know that I already stated that months ago.
OMTE

Sycamore, GA

#10175 May 10, 2013
Bored wrote:
<quoted text>
Dense, really dense.
Useless, really useless.
danger zone

Macon, GA

#10176 May 10, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
By the way...
Do people still by that Right Wing Wacko crap about the "Media" being "Liberal".
Ever look at who owns the "Media":
Today, ownership of the news media has been concentrated in the hands of just six incredibly powerful media corporations.
These corporate behemoths control most of what we watch, hear and read every single day. They own television networks, cable channels, movie studios, newspapers, magazines, publishing houses, music labels and even many of our favorite websites.
The six corporations that collectively control U.S. media today are:
- Time Warner,
- Walt Disney,
- Viacom, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.,
CBS Corporation, and
NBC Universal.
Together, the "big six" absolutely dominate news and entertainment in the United States. But even those areas of the media that the "big six" do not completely control are becoming increasingly concentrated. For example, Clear Channel now owns over 1000 radio stations across the United States.
In 1983, fifty corporations dominated most of every mass medium and the biggest media merger in history was a $340 million deal.…[I]n 1987, the fifty companies had shrunk to twenty-nine.…[I]n 1990, the twenty-nine had shrunk to twenty three.…[I]n 1997, the biggest firms numbered ten and involved the $19 billion Disney-ABC deal, at the time the biggest media merger ever.…[In 2000] AOL Time Warner’s $350 billion merged corporation [was] more than 1,000 times larger [than the biggest deal of 1983].
--Ben H. Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly, Sixth Edition,(Beacon Press, 2000), pp. xx—xxi
Does anyone actually think these multinational, multibillion and trillion dollar corporations are "Liberal" ?
Please - thats not on true on Planet Earth.
Considering there has been not ONE word on the House of Horrors story from MMS, I'd vote YES, they are most liberal.
Bored

Dawsonville, GA

#10177 May 10, 2013
Oh my wrote:
Republicans lead a witch hunt on Benghazi
By Eugene Robinson
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene...
Those who are trying to make the Benghazi tragedy into a scandal for the Obama administration really ought to decide what story line they want to sell.
Actually, by “those” I mean Republicans, and by “the Obama administration” I mean Hillary Clinton. The only coherent purpose I can discern in all of this is to sully Clinton’s record as secretary of state in case she runs for president in 2016.
...The hearing convened Wednesday by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) produced a riveting narrative of the chaotic events in Libya last September. But what was the supposedly unforgivable crime?
Did Clinton’s State Department fail to provide adequate security for the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi? In retrospect, obviously so. But the three diplomats who testified at the hearing gave no evidence that this failure sprang from anything other than the need to use limited resources as efficiently as possible.
House Republicans who voted to cut funding for State Department security should understand that their philosophy — small government is always better — has consequences. Bureaucrats have to make judgment calls. Sometimes they will be wrong.
Is the scandal supposed to be that a four-man Special Forces team was not sent from Tripoli to help defend the Benghazi compound?
...But the decision not to dispatch troops was made by the military chain of command, not by Clinton or anyone who reported to her. Superior officers decided this team was needed to help evacuate the embassy in Tripoli, which was seen as a potential target for a Benghazi-style attack.
The Pentagon has concluded that the team, in any event, could not have arrived in Benghazi in time to make a difference. Hicks testified that he disagrees.
...Well, then, maybe the transgression is that administration officials, for some unfathomable reason, willfully lied when they said the attack was in reaction to an anti-Islam video produced in the United States and disseminated on the Internet.
The problem is that there were, in fact, tumultuous anti-American demonstrations taking place in cities throughout the Muslim world because of the video. President Obama labeled the Benghazi assault an act of terror almost immediately — as Mitt Romney learned in the second presidential debate — but it was hard to imagine that the attack was completely unrelated to what was happening in Cairo, Tunis, Khartoum and Jakarta.
...Maybe that’s it: a cover-up. Perhaps the administration conspired to hide Clinton’s failure to protect our diplomats overseas. But she commissioned an independent report by former ambassador Thomas Pickering that said — well, I’ll just quote Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee:“The Pickering Report appears to make clear what we already knew: that there was strategic warning from the intelligence community of a dangerous security environment in Benghazi and that our diplomats were failed by the bureaucracy at the State Department.”
Some cover-up.
Was Hicks “demoted” for blowing the whistle on Benghazi, as he testified? He asked to come home, understandably, and the department parked him in a desk job — with the same pay and rank — until something more to his liking comes open. Has he been muzzled? Hardly, as evidenced by his testimony Wednesday.

Useless, really useless.
Informed Opinion

Sunapee, NH

#10178 May 10, 2013
danger zone wrote:
A history lesson,
Nixon was ALMOST impeached, he resigned, then pardoned by Gerald Ford.
Good points.

They almost always take care of each other.

Ford kept Nixon out of jail for all the felonies Nixon committed.

Clinton kept Ray-Gun out of jail for all the felonies he and his Right Ring Wacko band of traitors committed.

They Right Wing Wackos, when not hiding from their wives to bang their mistresses - tried to impeach Clinton for getting a BJ.

(Republicans know this ain't a game and play hardball).

Obama protected Bush for kidnapping, torture, and murder, and numerous war crimes - so he could continue doing it on his own.
Bored

Dawsonville, GA

#10179 May 10, 2013
OMTE wrote:
<quoted text>I reread your post and I see what you'e saying. You think I have a closed mind when it comes to queers. Don't you? If I did I'd be saying they need to lock their sick a$$es up. I think they are sick, but not criminals. That's about as open minded as I can get on that subject. If you want your children to be queers that's fine too. Oh yeah and I do like Rick Santorum. If you had been posting for sometime you'd know that I already stated that months ago.

The neanderthal's light bulb is dim, but occasionally works.
OMTE

Sycamore, GA

#10180 May 10, 2013
What is MMS??? Just asking.
guest

United States

#10181 May 10, 2013
OMTE wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not following you.
The implication from your post is that homosexuality/same sex marriage is somehow a threat to your children's souls. Otherwise why the "concern"? I can only conclude, based on your other posts of a rather progressive nature, that there may be some sarcasm involved. Even if you don't condone homosexuality, an open mind would be amenable to a live and let live attitude rather than the former. So sarcasm would be my first guess. However your use of homophobic epithets certainly gives one pause. So maybe the other statement fits. Concern for your children's "soul" because of homosexuality and/or same sex marriage is exactly the kind of thinking that ricky santorum espouses. There is no threat to a child's "soul" from gays or same sex marriage.
danger zone

Macon, GA

#10182 May 10, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
What's amazing is how these Right Wing Wackos never catch on to how they are being used by their corporate masters using fear, envy and hatred.
The truly powerful have their eye on the ball - power and money.
The RWWs are easily distracted looking at shiny objects - never even wondering why the guys behind the curtain are pulling their strings.
While the money is traveling into the hands of the very few, RWWs are co-opted as tools helping the überrich get richer.
Here's more boring facts:
.... While inequality has risen among most developed countries, and especially English-speaking ones, it is highest in the United States.
Most of the growth has been between the middle class and top earners, with the disparity becoming more extreme the further one goes up in the income distribution.
Upward redistribution of income is responsible for about 43% of the projected Social Security shortfall over the next 75 years.
The Brookings Institution said in 2013 that income inequality was increasing and becoming permanent, reducing social mobility in the US.
A 2011 study by the CBO found that the top earning 1 percent of households gained about 275% after federal taxes and income transfers over a period between 1979 and 2007.
Yep ... The Middle Class is being destroyed to make the überrich even richer.
But don't worry about your kids living and dying as serfs to their feudal lords.
Noooooo.
Let's all fight about how many rounds a rifle magazine should hold, whether or not Elizabeth should marry Karen, and whether Obama should have played golf with Chambliss.
Ever wonder if the Average American will catch on before 100% of America is owned by the top .5%?
Let's see, 8 years of Bush, 8 years of Clinton, 8 years of Bush, almost 8 years of Obama. We're running in place, don't you think?
OMTE

Sycamore, GA

#10183 May 10, 2013
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
The implication from your post is that homosexuality/same sex marriage is somehow a threat to your children's souls. Otherwise why the "concern"? I can only conclude, based on your other posts of a rather progressive nature, that there may be some sarcasm involved. Even if you don't condone homosexuality, an open mind would be amenable to a live and let live attitude rather than the former. So sarcasm would be my first guess. However your use of homophobic epithets certainly gives one pause. So maybe the other statement fits. Concern for your children's "soul" because of homosexuality and/or same sex marriage is exactly the kind of thinking that ricky santorum espouses. There is no threat to a child's "soul" from gays or same sex marriage.
Keep reading. It took you to long to type that. I've already responded to that ages ago.
danger zone

Macon, GA

#10184 May 10, 2013
OMTE wrote:
What is MMS??? Just asking.
MSM, innocent error. Sorry for the confusion. I'm not a coffee drinker.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Savannah Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
dead beet shit head cops in port wentworth GA (Jul '08) 7 hr Lewis findley 78
Beautiful woman at Georgia Eye next to Memorial... Jun 25 Planes6767 1
Review: Abbott, Greg DDS - Greg Abbott DDS (Jul '10) Jun 22 Celeste symthe 17
Stop the Illegal Alien Train Jun 20 Anthony Scarpuzzi... 20
Winn Dixie is owned and operated by the klu klu... Jun 16 Sandra Day 2
The Sanctuary 4584 Cox Rd. Evans GA., RACIST & ... Jun 16 Johnnnie 2
Libertarians Hate Trump Jun 16 so you know 18
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Savannah Mortgages