The President has failed us

[Republican Honey]

Conservative Democrat wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, implementing the current level of security before 9/11, would have been sufficient.
And they did close all the airports for a bit. The only exception was to let the Saudis out, while American citizens were stuck in foreign countries, not able to return.

Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have “dramatic consequences,” including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but “will occur soon.” Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the... ;
----------

Point is they did not know what would happen or where. An attack of "dramatic consequences" tells us what? Bombs in Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, New York City, Miami, New Orleans, Houston? How do you prepare for an attack which could occur anywhere, any time, by any method?

Obama failed to protect our Americans in Benghazi. They knew the location and the anniversary of 9/11 was a very likely date.

[whatthey]

Jaxxon wrote:

<quoted text>
That's an easy one.
First of all, we aren't as divided as someone seeing the world from your perspective thinks we are.
The division that does exist is extreme because too many far right wing (white) people can't accept that America is changing and they would rather bring the whole thing down on all of us than deal with the fact that they aren't going to have things their way.
:)

..."that's an easy one." Nice try buddy!

Hey, Jax "first of all", the house divided judgement was not my perspective! That call was made from YOUR side in thinking And a biblical quote was brought into the conversation in a VERY dangerous manner for a so called christian to do in that judging! You should not judge others BEFORE first judging yourself! See the post above in a reply where I referred to THAT quote and how it WAS misrepresented!

Now you have a most wonderful day, sir!

[whatthehey]

sorry...whatthehey not whatthey! posting from my i-pad today!

[marlowe44]

sun wrote:

<quoted text>adolf would not respect neutral he new only one thing take,

good thing he lost

[marlowe44]

_White American_ wrote:

<quoted text>I never said it didn't go both ways. But like I did say I've seen far more coming from the right. Either way hate isn't a good thing.

the difference is that the hate from the left all too frequently results in violence and destruction, even deaths. Take OWS for example, crimes, assaults, property damage. When conservative groups like the Tea Party demonstrate they clean up the park before they leave. That tells me all i need to know about which side can claim moral superiority

[positronium]

Jaxxon wrote:

<quoted text>
You go ahead and cling to that one online survey Posit. it's all you've got.
Refuse to see the truth and refuse to be part of a workable solution and we'll end up with a mass amnesty an a path toward citizenship and just like I tried to warn you before the 2012 election that the "anybody but Obama" mantra was a mistake I'll blame you and people like you for this lost opportunity too.

I thought it was worth presenting. Was it not, Jax?
Btw I don't cling. My opinions are different than what was presented. Why do you assume so much, especially in regards to "truth"?
Again, was that "online survey" not worth presenting here for the benefit of others besides me?

[Republican Honey]

Jaxxon wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't think you were even posting when I made that post so you probably weren't one of the people I was talking about, unless you want to include yourself in that small group on here that call children who are not pure Caucasian racial slurs.
You're looking for a fight in the wrong place and including yourself in a group of people that I would have assumed you would rather not associate with.
My mistake.
BTW...several of the profiles being used to spread hate, personal attacks and racial prejudice when I made that post were banned shortly after and their posts were taken down. I didn't say anything at the time, but they are on "your side" of the political spectrum and they are gone.
It's a good thing.
:)

I am not "looking for a fight" at all Jax. I just thought it was a very broad statement. Not everyone on "my side" of the political spectrum "spread hate, personal attacks, and racial prejudice" just as everyone on "your side" do not.

[marlowe44]

Obama is an idiot, so are those who say we don't want illegals sent home:

#
Majority of Americans want illegals deported
www.wnd.com/2013/02/majority-of-americans-wan... ?...
2 hours ago ... WND Exclusive:'Orwellian' bill allows search of gun-owner homes. < >.
INVASION USA. Majority of Americans want illegals deported ...

#
New Poll: Majority of Americans Want Illegal Immigrants to Head ...
townhall.com/.../new-poll-majority-of-america... - Cached
Feb 7, 2013 ... illegal immigrants to head home feeling much stronger about that option than ... it
seems the majority of Americans want illegals to head home but .... Additionally to
encourage them to go back offer to send them back at NO ...

#
Survey: Majority of Americans want illegal aliens to ...- NumbersUSA
https://www.numbersusa.com/.../survey-majorit... - Cached
Survey: Majority of Americans want illegal aliens to return home. Thursday,
February 7, 2013, 11:18 AM EST - posted on NumbersUSA. The Center for ...

#
Survey: Majority of Americans want illegal aliens to return home
www.sodahead.com/...americans-want-illegal-al... - Cached
Feb 12, 2013 ... Survey: Majority of Americans want illegal aliens to return home .... yes send
them home and let them apply for a visa like everyone else in the ...
#
CIS poll: Most want illegals to go home
www.onenewsnow.com/.../cis-poll-most-want-ill... - Cached
Feb 8, 2013... activist claims that Americans support "a pathway to citizenship" for millions ...
The people who want the illegals to head home, they really feel ...

#
The Majority of Americans Want Illegals Deported… Dear Leader ...
theconservativetreehouse.com/.../the-majority... - Cached
11 hours ago ... 9 Responses to The Majority of Americans Want Illegals Deported… Dear Leader
... They also send almost all of their pay to family back home.

[Pok Guy]

Republican Honey wrote:

<quoted text>
In FY2009, Congress did not complete work by September 30, 2008. President Bush did sign some appropriations bills and a continuing resolution to keep the government running into President Obama’s first term, yet a Democrat controlled Congress purposely held off on the big spending portions of the appropriations bills until Obama took office. They did so for the purposes of jacking up spending. President Obama signed the final FY2009 spending bills on March 11, 2009.
President Bush signed only three of the twelve appropriations bills for FY 2009: Defense; Military Construction/Veterans Affairs; and, Homeland Security. President Bush also signed a continuing resolution that kept the government running until March 6, 2009 that level of funding the remaining nine appropriations bills at FY 2008 levels. President Bush and his spending should only be judged on these three appropriations bills and FY 2008 levels of funding for the remaining nine appropriations bills. Bush never consented to the dramatic increase in spending for FY 2009 and he should not be blamed for that spending spree.
So how can Nutting attribute spending to President Bush that he expressly vowed to veto? Also, some of the mandatory spending has been wrongly attributed to President Bush in Nutting’s analysis. Finally, TARP spending under Bush and the recovery of TARP money under Obama further distorts these numbers.
This is unethical and fuzzy math. The Truth-O-Meter may want to consider these facts when further analyzing the complications and distortions in analysis used by Nutting to argue that Obama is more fiscally responsible than his predecessors.
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/24/the-truth...

Using the Heritage Foundation website for data to support your conservative position is analogous to a Christian using the bible to support their beliefs.

Try being a critical thinker.

[Republican Honey]

Conservative Democrat wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course. And he didn't go AWOL during Vietnam. He just called in sick. Right?
Of course he got bad intelligence then. It's always someone else's fault. Like when he got out of Harken Energy, just before the SEC would investigate him for insider trading, notwithstanding that Osama Bin Laden's cousin was one of the biggest investors of Arbusto oil, owned by your beloved Dubya.
I suppose that also was someone else's fault.
Interesting track record; Bush goes AWOL, and is joined together at the hip with the family if this country's enemy #1, and is responsible for the real estate bubble, but it is all Obama's fault; right?
You should stop drinking that turd tea.

The Butler report's conclusion that British intelligence was "credible" clearly doesn't square with what US intelligence now believes. But these new reports show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said, even if British intelligence is eventually shown to be mistaken.

http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_ir ...
----------

This is based on two Commissions' findings. I didn't blame Obama for anything in my post. You are really reaching.

[Jaxxon]

Republican Honey wrote:

<quoted text>
I am not "looking for a fight" at all Jax. I just thought it was a very broad statement. Not everyone on "my side" of the political spectrum "spread hate, personal attacks, and racial prejudice" just as everyone on "your side" do not.

I said "some" and I said it in light of comments made by several profiles and posts that have since been banned. It was not a broad statement, it was very specific and limited to those individuals that do in fact post such racist material.

Do you think it's wrong to call a child racial slurs Honey?

If you do then I wasn't talking about you and I'm not sure why you seem to have taken offense or why you would be so determined to broaden the scope of what I actually said.

I don't have a side. I'm just me and sooner or later that irritates the hell out of both "sides".

Today it seems to be your turn.

[Liberals Own It]

Big Three Network Double Standard on Labeling Scandalous Politicians

By Geoffrey Dickens | February 21, 2013 | 11:33

All too often when reporters are discussing Democrats caught in scandals, they develop a peculiar speech impediment that prevents them from uttering the "D" word. However, when members of the GOP stumble, the word "Republican" cascades out of the mouths of reporters.

When news broke on February 15 that former Democratic Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. was charged with improperly spending campaign funds on (among other items) Michael Jackson and Bruce Lee memorabilia, the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) network anchors and reporters struggled to get their lips to form the word "Democrat." In 15 total stories on Jackson, reporters failed to utter the "D" word in 11 of them (73 percent). On the February 21 CBS This Morning Jackson was labeled a Democrat, but only in an on-screen graphic.

When word got out that the FBI was investigating New Jersey Democratic Senator Bob Menendez's jaunts (that may have included solicitation of prostitutes) with a campaign contributor to the Dominican Republic, the Big Three networks whistled past the scandal by airing a total of just eight stories since the story broke on January 24.

The reluctance to attach the "D" label to Jackson and give limited coverage to Menendez are typical examples of the liberal media's reluctance to tarnish the Democratic Party with its more ethically- challenged members. It's a courtesy that they have not extended to scandalized members of the GOP.

Over the years, the MRC has chronicled the vast disparity in how GOP politicians embroiled in scandals are covered compared to how sullied Democrats are covered, or in some cases, not covered.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens...

[Jaxxon]

positronium wrote:

<quoted text>I thought it was worth presenting. Was it not, Jax?
Btw I don't cling. My opinions are different than what was presented. Why do you assume so much, especially in regards to "truth"?
Again, was that "online survey" not worth presenting here for the benefit of others besides me?

I simply thought it was worth presenting the truth about recent polls in regards to that one anomalous online survey so that's what I did.

No reason to get all bent out of shape about it.

Maybe you should just stick to harassing and insulting female posters you don't like.

[sun]

marlowe44 wrote:

<quoted text>
the difference is that the hate from the left all too frequently results in violence and destruction, even deaths. Take OWS for example, crimes, assaults, property damage. When conservative groups like the Tea Party demonstrate they clean up the park before they leave. That tells me all i need to know about which side can claim moral superiority

completely agree with ya,lelf reminds me of lift over 60s hippies

[Liberals Own It]

Former Striking Hostess Workers' Eligibility For Govt.'Trade Adjustment Assistance' Not a National Story

By Tom Blumer | February 21, 2013 | 09:36

Yesterday, the Department of Labor announced that it had certified "more than 18,000 former Hostess workers around the country as eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance." I'll save excerpts from DOL's inane announcement for after the jump.

The story has garnered some local coverage in areas affected by Hostess plant closures late last year, including a couple of regional Associated Press stories. But the AP, based on a search on "hostess," did not have a story at its national site as of 9 a.m. today, even though former Hostess workers in 48 states are affected. Additionally, virtually every story found in a Google News search on "Hostess trade adjustment" (not in quotes) is local in nature. Could this possibly be because doling out tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars to workers whose unions thought the company was bluffing when it said it would throw in the towel without acceptable labor contracts is more than a little embarrassing, especially when President Barack Obama is simultaneously claiming that the federal government will have no choice but to lay off and furlough employees if sequestration takes place?

Here is most of DOL's announcement (bolds are mine throughout this post):

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2013/...

[-Dont Panic-]

Jaxxon wrote:

<quoted text>
Not here, but we're expecting freezing rain this afternoon and tonight.
Supposed to get into the 50's tomorrow though so it won't last long.
I've already got a bad case of cabin fever this winter. One more round of being snowed in and I'll probably end up on the evening news.
;)

It's been so dry around here that I really don't mind being snowed in. It's good weather for baking.

[Lock N Load]

Gun Control Was – Historically – About Repressing Blacks

Washington’s Blog
Feb 21, 2013

Preface: I was raised to be against guns. My parents hated guns, and believed that they only lead to crime and accidental shootings.

I was raised in a blue state, and I have long been deeply influenced by leading voices for non-violence, such as Gandhi and King. So – until recently – I was pro gun-control.

As such, I was stunned to learn about the historical background behind gun control campaigns.

The Real History of Gun Control

Read more: http://www.infowars.com/gun-control-was-histo...

[Liberals Own It]

DMV says Iraq war veteran's personalized license plate ICUHAJI encourages violence and is vulgar

By Daily Mail Reporter

PUBLISHED: 13:00 EST, 20 February 2013 | UPDATED: 13:02 EST, 20 February 2013

An Iraq war veteran's ongoing fight to get his personalized license plate back entered a new phase after the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles ruled that the plate encourages violence and is vulgar.

Sean Bujno's plate reads:‘ICUHAJI,’ which can be read to state:‘I See You, Haji.’ Some Arab-Americans object to that phrase.

A circuit court judge ruled last November that the DMV couldn't deny the Chesapeake man's license on the basis that it denigrated individuals of a particular nationality.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-22818...
Follow us:@MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[Republican Honey]

_White American_ wrote:

<quoted text>It's simple RH so much of the talk that has been coming from the radical right.....note I said radical right, is nothing more then hate talk. They hated the illegals, they hated Muslims, they hated liberals, they hated President Obama...hate....hate....hate.

Most radicals on either side seem to hate specific groups of people. Most of the radical left hate religious groups, those against abortion, the NRA, etc. It is definitely a two-way street.

Although there are posters from the radical right and radical left, I believe the vast majority of posters just feel very strongly about their specific ideologies. Disagreeing on policies, methodologies, opinions, etc. does not necessarily involve hate.

[Liberals Own It]

Tea Party 2.0: Focus On The Four R’s & Fight Back
Rebrand. Retool. Recruit. Re-engage.

By: LaborUnionReport (Diary)| February 5th, 2013 at 10:00 AM

Last Monday evening, I had the privilege and disappointment of speaking with yet another Tea Party group that had come to hear a message on How to Become a Force Multiplier.

I say it was a privilege to speak to this group (and others like it) because, as always, I found the group comprised of Americans concerned about the future direction of America and highly desirous to hear a message on how to save and restore it.

Yet, it was also a disappointment because, after nearly four years of this upstart movement—this “beautiful chaos” called the Tea Party Movement—after all the demonization by the institutional Left and its media apparatchik; the backstabbing by the Republican establishment; after millions of dollars of donations from large and small donors alike, last Monday’s group (like so many others) were largely unaware of the size of the behemoth we face and, worse, have never been given the basic tools necessary to lead a movement.

As a former mobilization coordinator for the other side, I was disappointed to meet yet another Tea Party group that, after nearly four years, had not even formed a committee to recruit more people into their ranks—something that is absolutely essential to building a movement.[Worse is the fact that, given the age of many Tea Party activists, attrition in the movement is a very real problem.]

While their naivete is not their fault, I was left wondering: Where has all the money gone from all the donations given to the legacy groups? Though it is, in many cases, too late now, why didn’t anyone teach these amateur leaders of a movement how to lead a movement?

It is for all of the above reasons, we (collectively) need to re-evaluate the direction of this hybrid movement called the Tea Party.

Each and every individual that remains associated with the Tea Party movement, needs to look closer at what has gone well and, more importantly, what hasn’t gone well with the Tea Party.

Below are recommendations, for your consideration, to help rebuild a movement that has been attacked (unjustly) by its enemies as well as its alleged “allies.”

Before you can begin to focus on How to Become A Force Multiplier, as I observed (again) last Monday, there must be a re-examination of the Tea Party and where it is going.

Let’s start with some basic needs:

Read more:http://www.redstate.com/2 013/02/05/tea-party-2-0-focus- on-the-four-rs-fight-back/