IntenseDebate - walongloop

11 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - John Pavelich: Events ... · 3 replies · +2 points

Well, for starters, your excuse is at odds with what the CIA said: "We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi. Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate."

So like I said: if there were legit reasons for denials, why won't President explain what those reasons were, and who gave those orders?

And FYI, Obama himself has called the questions "legitimate". So anyone calling this "laughable" can do so only out of ignorance or flat-out denial.

11 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - John Pavelich: Events ... · 11 replies · 0 points

> ... the most laughable of conspiracy theories ...

Please tell me exactly what you find so "laughable" about four dead Americans and President who won't explain why their requests for help were denied.

11 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - Marsh Riggs: President... · 3 replies · -3 points

> Seriously, free state-run health care (with NO out of pocket expenses or
> premiums), free child care, free university education (or dirt cheap), 6-8
> weeks of vacation a year, generous unemployment benefits, all with good
> cheap beer and wine and GMO-free food, to boot.

That's right, vote for Obama if you want "free stuff" from the government.

Except that conservatives get criticized for pointing out exactly what you just said.

11 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - John Pavelich: Events ... · 13 replies · +3 points

> Wankers like you and the echo-chamber crowd don't care one iota
> about the truth.

Here we go again with the juvenile ranting and name-calling. That didn't take long to begin.

11 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - John Pavelich: Events ... · 21 replies · +6 points

You folks blaming Fox News are so off-base that it's sad. All it takes is a little common sense to realize that if these were lies, then the President could easily torpedo all of it by simply telling the truth, instead of obfuscating things. And doing so would certainly elevate him in the view of voters.

Yet he has chosen not done so. Have you asked yourselves why?

11 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - Marsh Riggs: President... · 0 replies · -6 points

> Spiking the football on bin Laden doesn't seem so glorious in the face of his utter
> failure to protect our consulate ...

He just tried to spike it again:

"My number 1 responsibility is to go after the folks who did this, and we’re going to make sure we get them. I’ve got a pretty good track record of doing that." - Barack Obama, Oct 29, 2012

11 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - John Pavelich: Events ... · 26 replies · +16 points

> Whichever explanation you accept we need to have the story covered.

What amazes me is that our President talks about "trust" and is taking great pains to impugn the trustworthiness of his opponent, yet in all these weeks still has failed to come clean about what actually happened. And as more details emerge, it keeps looking worse.

And the way the media ignores the story is unconscionable. Abu Ghraib was front page for weeks, yet the first murdered US ambassador in decades is somehow not newsworthy? That does not speak well of putting trust in the media.

11 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - Obama cancels Colorado... · 7 replies · +18 points

Maybe he will tell us why Americans under attack in Libya were denied help three times.

Then again, maybe not.

11 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - Political tensions mou... · 1 reply · -1 points

> "We're trying to teach our children the lesson of agreeing to disagree."

Yet the President himself has recently used the word "bulls----er' to refer to his opponent. What kind of a lesson is that?

11 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - Crowds gather in Denve... · 4 replies · +2 points

> "When you choose a president, you don't know what's going to come up ... Trust matters."

Yes it does. And here is what Barack Obama said in 2009:

"we have to get to the point where we can have a conversation about big, important issues that matter to the American people without vitriol, without name-calling without the assumption of the worst in other people’s motives."

But now Mr. Obama is himself stooping to name-calling like "Romnesia", and even referring to Romney as a "bulls----er":

"We arrived at the Oval Office for our 45-minute interview … on the morning of October 11th. … As we left the Oval Office, executive editor Eric Bates told Obama that he had asked his six-year-old if there was anything she wanted him to say to the president. … [S]he said, ‘Tell him: You can do it.' Obama grinned. … ‘You know, kids have good instincts,' Obama offered. ‘They look at the other guy and say, "Well, that's a bullsh---er, I can tell."'"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/25/1150028/....

So much for "without vitriol, without name-calling". How can Mr Obama expect anyone to trust him when he lectures us one way, but then says whatever he wants?

IntenseDebate Comment System

Description

Connect with walongloop

People I'm following

walongloop