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

Jefferson, GA

#17132 Jul 3, 2013
"Rubio to Introduce Senate Bill to Ban Abortions After 20 Weeks."

Rubio trying to mend the fences with conservatives. I wouldn't vote this dog catcher.

“Liberals are closet raaacists!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#17133 Jul 3, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Translation:
Dang, they tore that chain mail to shreds, I'll call 'em all names to get even.
Care to comment on this issue?

http://washingtonexaminer.com/report-obamacar...

Now. If this source doesn't suit you, there are others.
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#17134 Jul 3, 2013
Who wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
Thanks for the link, another link within that link provides this info:
"Drone strikes — billed by President Barack Obama as tactically surgical and less deadly to civilians than conventional air power — are 10 times more likely to cause innocent casualties than bombs or missiles unleashed from U.S. jets, according to a new study based on classified military documents."
Obama, the mass murderer, that only the libroids love. Good thing he's only allowed 8 years for his murdering spree.
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/...
Who coulda imagined....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_fo...
The Authorization for Use of Military Force[1](AUMF) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001.

House Vote 420/1
Senate Vote 98/0

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in...
The United States government has made hundreds of attacks on targets in northwest Pakistan since 2004 using drones (unmanned aerial vehicles) controlled by the American Central Intelligence Agency's Special Activities Division.[3] Most of these attacks are on targets in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas along the Afghan border in Northwest Pakistan. These strikes were begun by President George W. Bush and have increased substantially under President Barack Obama.

...George W. Bush vastly accelerated the drone strikes during the final year of his presidency. A list of the high-ranking victims of the drones was provided to Pakistan in 2009.[28] Obama has broadened these attacks to include targets seeking to destabilize Pakistani civilian government

...Messages recovered from Osama bin Laden's home after his death in 2011, including one from then al Qaeda No. 3, Atiyah Abd al-Rahman reportedly, according to the Agence France-Presse and the Washington Post, expressed frustration with the drone strikes in Pakistan. According to an unnamed U.S. Government official, in his message al-Rahman complained that drone-launched missiles were killing al Qaeda operatives faster than they could be replaced.
Who

Jefferson, GA

#17135 Jul 3, 2013
I wouldn't vote this guy dog catcher.
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#17136 Jul 3, 2013
Synergy wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
lol Politifact is NOT reliable due to biasness. How many different ways do you need to read that?????? SURELY you will respond to the MANY other links provided for other issues. SURELY.
This is taken directly from the wikipedia article that YOU referenced...

"PolitiFact has been both praised and criticized by independent observers, conservatives, and liberals alike. Conservative bias and liberal bias have been alleged, and criticisms have been made of attempts to fact-check statements that cannot be truly "fact-checked". "

Judging from your response it obvious that you cannot refute any of the PolitiFact articles that I referenced, instead you must change the subject. Typical and understandable.
Who

Jefferson, GA

#17137 Jul 3, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Who coulda imagined....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_fo...
The Authorization for Use of Military Force[1](AUMF) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001.
House Vote 420/1
Senate Vote 98/0
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in...
The United States government has made hundreds of attacks on targets in northwest Pakistan since 2004 using drones (unmanned aerial vehicles) controlled by the American Central Intelligence Agency's Special Activities Division.[3] Most of these attacks are on targets in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas along the Afghan border in Northwest Pakistan. These strikes were begun by President George W. Bush and have increased substantially under President Barack Obama.
...George W. Bush vastly accelerated the drone strikes during the final year of his presidency. A list of the high-ranking victims of the drones was provided to Pakistan in 2009.[28] Obama has broadened these attacks to include targets seeking to destabilize Pakistani civilian government
...Messages recovered from Osama bin Laden's home after his death in 2011, including one from then al Qaeda No. 3, Atiyah Abd al-Rahman reportedly, according to the Agence France-Presse and the Washington Post, expressed frustration with the drone strikes in Pakistan. According to an unnamed U.S. Government official, in his message al-Rahman complained that drone-launched missiles were killing al Qaeda operatives faster than they could be replaced.

And for libroids, it's ok for Obama to do it but not for Bush to have done it.

Thanks for that clarification.
Who

Jefferson, GA

#17138 Jul 3, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
This is taken directly from the wikipedia article that YOU referenced...
"PolitiFact has been both praised and criticized by independent observers, conservatives, and liberals alike. Conservative bias and liberal bias have been alleged, and criticisms have been made of attempts to fact-check statements that cannot be truly "fact-checked". "
Judging from your response it obvious that you cannot refute any of the PolitiFact articles that I referenced, instead you must change the subject. Typical and understandable.

And you only have politifact to use to dispute the quoted source.
thanks again for showing us the biased source of your post.

“Liberals are closet raaacists!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#17139 Jul 3, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
This is taken directly from the wikipedia article that YOU referenced...
"PolitiFact has been both praised and criticized by independent observers, conservatives, and liberals alike. Conservative bias and liberal bias have been alleged, and criticisms have been made of attempts to fact-check statements that cannot be truly "fact-checked". "
Judging from your response it obvious that you cannot refute any of the PolitiFact articles that I referenced, instead you must change the subject. Typical and understandable.
I did not change the subject. Also, that is not ALL that Politifact has been critcized for. It has ALSO been criticized for political BIASNESS on "facts" that CAN be checked. I provided an article that basically refutes the lack of credibility of your post right out of the gate. The source YOU used to TRY and prove some random points has been criticized for being bias. Use another source. Snopes?? rotfl Another left wing bias worthless site.
Who

Jefferson, GA

#17140 Jul 3, 2013
clueless moron

Jefferson, GA

#17141 Jul 3, 2013
Who wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the link, another link within that link provides this info:
"Drone strikes — billed by President Barack Obama as tactically surgical and less deadly to civilians than conventional air power — are 10 times more likely to cause innocent casualties than bombs or missiles unleashed from U.S. jets, according to a new study based on classified military documents."
Obama, the mass murderer, that only the libroids love. Good thing he's only allowed 8 years for his murdering spree.
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/...
You are truly clueless calling Obama a mass murder. Both the Bush and Obama administrations were and are strong supports of drones
You are the reason I don't like some conservatives, you are nothing more than a clueless moron. You can find a "study" to back up almost anything, you can find one that supports all the lies you believe.
Who

Jefferson, GA

#17142 Jul 3, 2013
clueless moron wrote:
<quoted text>
You are truly clueless calling Obama a mass murder. Both the Bush and Obama administrations were and are strong supports of drones
You are the reason I don't like some conservatives, you are nothing more than a clueless moron. You can find a "study" to back up almost anything, you can find one that supports all the lies you believe.
your post name fits you well.
danger zone

Sylacauga, AL

#17143 Jul 3, 2013
Who wrote:
<quoted text>
Not hardly, but we do have you. And take a guess how many here on topix put any stock in your posts. Ok, maybe "guest" and "IO", the other 2 ramblers who rely on your fiction to lead them down the dusty trail into confusion, obfuscation, and neglect of their children.
Truth or pants on fire????
daikykos- mother jones?
Good grief. rotfl
danger zone

Sylacauga, AL

#17144 Jul 3, 2013
clueless moron wrote:
<quoted text>
You are truly clueless calling Obama a mass murder. Both the Bush and Obama administrations were and are strong supports of drones
You are the reason I don't like some conservatives, you are nothing more than a clueless moron. You can find a "study" to back up almost anything, you can find one that supports all the lies you believe.
Guess you missed the cold hard facts presented about Bush drone strike casualties vs Obama drone strike casulaties. Several links from reputable, reliable news sources presented the numbers you libs refuse to read & believe. No "study" about it. You lose.
danger zone

Sylacauga, AL

#17145 Jul 3, 2013
Who wrote:
<quoted text>
your post name fits you well.
You are soooo right!
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#17146 Jul 3, 2013
Synergy wrote:
<quoted text> http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
I did not change the subject. Also, that is not ALL that Politifact has been critcized for. It has ALSO been criticized for political BIASNESS on "facts" that CAN be checked. I provided an article that basically refutes the lack of credibility of your post right out of the gate. The source YOU used to TRY and prove some random points has been criticized for being bias. Use another source. Snopes?? rotfl Another left wing bias worthless site.
"I provided an article that basically refutes the lack of credibility of your post right out of the gate."

No, you provided a link to a wikipedia article, here is your post:
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...

That wikipedia article had this to say about Politifact,
"PolitiFact has been both praised and criticized by independent observers, conservatives, and liberals alike. Conservative bias and liberal bias have been alleged, and criticisms have been made of attempts to fact-check statements that cannot be truly "fact-checked". "

then it goes on to describe "Criticism of specific fact checks". The bias you claim that is so prevalant is actually specific claims of bias for specific articles, but of course in your mind this translates into a systemic bias.

Now, I wonder which is more credilbe, an anonymous chain mail without references to support any of its claims, or these links that clearly refute the claims made in the chain mail.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/20...

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/...
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#17147 Jul 3, 2013
Who wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
And for libroids, it's ok for Obama to do it but not for Bush to have done it.
Thanks for that clarification.
Nope, the Authorization to use Military Force Against Terrorists was a direct response to the events of 9/11. This Authorization was widely supported by Congress and the populus, and gave the President a blank check in how he deals with terrorists and terrorist states.

That blank check is available to any President until Congress repeals the Authorization.

Did you oppose this Authorization when it was passed, are you now activitly seeking its repeal.

Did you oppose Bush's use of Drones, or has your opposition only been since Obama has continued and expanded the program into areas that Bush feared to tread.

If you oppose the use of Drones, what is your solution for combating terrorists in regions that the host country can not, or will not, police themselves.

“Liberals are closet raaacists!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#17148 Jul 3, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
"I provided an article that basically refutes the lack of credibility of your post right out of the gate."
No, you provided a link to a wikipedia article, here is your post:
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
That wikipedia article had this to say about Politifact,
"PolitiFact has been both praised and criticized by independent observers, conservatives, and liberals alike. Conservative bias and liberal bias have been alleged, and criticisms have been made of attempts to fact-check statements that cannot be truly "fact-checked". "
then it goes on to describe "Criticism of specific fact checks". The bias you claim that is so prevalant is actually specific claims of bias for specific articles, but of course in your mind this translates into a systemic bias.
Now, I wonder which is more credilbe, an anonymous chain mail without references to support any of its claims, or these links that clearly refute the claims made in the chain mail.
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/20...
http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/...
lol YOU are cracking me up. Perhaps NEITHER of them are reliable. You called the chain mail unreliable and you posted an ALSO UNRELIABLE source that claims the chain mail is unreliable. YOU are obsessing on something that is now probably 10 pages back. How about addressing some of the current links on current issues??????

“Liberals are closet raaacists!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#17149 Jul 3, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
"I provided an article that basically refutes the lack of credibility of your post right out of the gate."
No, you provided a link to a wikipedia article, here is your post:
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
That wikipedia article had this to say about Politifact,
"PolitiFact has been both praised and criticized by independent observers, conservatives, and liberals alike. Conservative bias and liberal bias have been alleged, and criticisms have been made of attempts to fact-check statements that cannot be truly "fact-checked". "
then it goes on to describe "Criticism of specific fact checks". The bias you claim that is so prevalant is actually specific claims of bias for specific articles, but of course in your mind this translates into a systemic bias.
Now, I wonder which is more credilbe, an anonymous chain mail without references to support any of its claims, or these links that clearly refute the claims made in the chain mail.
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/20...
http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/...
Guess you are going to ignore the question that I've asked you twice/three times? What has Obama done specifically that has helped you?(This should be good.)
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#17150 Jul 3, 2013
Synergy wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
lol YOU are cracking me up. Perhaps NEITHER of them are reliable. You called the chain mail unreliable and you posted an ALSO UNRELIABLE source that claims the chain mail is unreliable. YOU are obsessing on something that is now probably 10 pages back. How about addressing some of the current links on current issues??????
You have failed to show that any of the links I provided are unreliable, what you have done is simply declare them unreliable, and pronounce the issue resolved.

Your behavior is predictable,
the entertainment value priceless.
Oh my

Braselton, GA

#17151 Jul 3, 2013
Synergy wrote:
<quoted text>
Guess you are going to ignore the question that I've asked you twice/three times? What has Obama done specifically that has helped you?(This should be good.)
What was the question?

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
Interracial Dating (Feb '13) 2 hr jtr304 51
The Devil Fled Down to GA (Dec '09) 17 hr jeoY 435
Jay’s dispen-sary. A d d y s IRs n XR etc Jun 20 westly jones 3
In need of xänax/ädderall/Öxy/H/Tär?etc Jun 20 Reliable and james 1
Hebrew Israelites In Savannah GA: True Heroes! Jun 14 Israelitessaintso... 1
michael donaldson Jun 11 Savannah 3
News Food Truck Friday kicks off Lunch at the Libert... Jun 4 General Zod 1

Savannah Jobs

Personal Finance

Savannah Mortgages