View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

 

Obama Derangement Syndrome goes both ways

Posted: February 16, 2014 2:00 a.m.
Updated: February 16, 2014 2:00 a.m.
 

I am writing in response to Kevin Buck’s Feb. 11 column in The Signal (“Obama Derangement Syndrome”) in which he condemns the questioning of President Obama as nothing more than conspiracy theories and ginned-up scandals, often motivated by pure hatred.

However, to ignore the troublesome behavior of this president and attack anyone who questions it is an Obama Derangement Syndrome of a different kind.

While every movement has its extreme elements, the mainstream of conservatism doesn’t waste time talking about birth certificates, impeachment, or hatred of the president.

Mainstream conservatives spend their time discussing these kinds of questions:

  1.  If the ACA was so desperately needed, why have all the major components been pushed beyond November 2014?
  2.  Why has Obama arbitrarily changed the ACA multiple times since it was voted into law — without consulting Congress?
  3.  Why did it take Obama eight months to appoint someone to investigate the IRS?
  4.  Of the thousands of qualified trial attorneys to lead the IRS investigation, why did he choose Barbara Bosserman, who donated $6,750 to his election?
  5.  If the IRS investigation is still ongoing, why has Obama already concluded that there was no corruption?
  6.  And if Obama knew Benghazi was an organized terrorist attack the first day, why did he and his administration tell us for two weeks afterward that it was only a spontaneous reaction to an offensive video?
  7.  Considering the deception that is often at play with this administration, what can we trust?

I would find it odd if someone wouldn’t want to know the truth, but to personally attack others who do to protect their political party would be truly deranged.

 

Comments

OldReliable: Posted: February 16, 2014 6:43 a.m.

Bravo Gil Mertz for issuing Kevin Buck a does of reality.


ricketzz: Posted: February 16, 2014 7:35 a.m.

Do some research [ https://duckduckgo.com/ ] The Executive has been ceded wide latitude in administering laws, by Congress. All he has to show is that the stated goals are served by the modifications. Vague enough to drive one of those Sheriff tanks through.


therightstuff: Posted: February 16, 2014 8:24 a.m.

If you want to watch a liberal sweat, drop the word "Benghazi". Here's the question they cannot answer:

Why did Barack Obama and his administration tell the American people Benghazi was a spontaneous reaction to a video for TWO WEEKS, when they KNEW the whole time it was a terrorist attack?

Instead of answering the question, here's how Obama zealots respond:

"Duuuhhh.....you're deranged!"

"Duuuhhh....this is just a conspiracy theory!"

"Duuuhhh...get a life!"

"Duuuhhh...Fox News!"

and everyone's personal favorite from the Secretary of State in charge,

"Duuuhhh...what difference does it make!"

Is there a Democrat out there who has the intellectual honesty and personal integrity who is willing to break ranks with the Obama zealots to try to answer that question?

I'll be watching....


chico: Posted: February 16, 2014 8:47 a.m.

Not only did he lie to America, but didn't Obama tell the whole world that Benghazi was the result of a video protest in his speech at the United Nations?

Does it hurt America's standing when everyone in the world now knows its leader has a problem with the truth?


therightstuff: Posted: February 16, 2014 10:05 a.m.

Chico, TWO WEEKS after Obama said he knew Benghazi was a terrorist attack, he didn't talk about terrorism in his United Nations speech....but he mentioned the video SIX TIMES.

Remember, that was the same day Joy Behar asked Obama point blank on The View..."Hillary Clinton is calling it a terrorist attack. Was it a terrorist attack?" Obama said it was still under investigation.

I said at the time, if Obama would lie about four dead Americans in a terrorist attack, why would he be honest with the rest of the US citizens about other issues? The Obama zealots started in with their personal attacks directed at me. And what came next???

"If you like your insurance, you can keep it. Period. End of story. I guarantee it!" Barack Obama

And the Obama zealots STILL defend this guy. Obama Derangement Syndrome, indeed!


Indy: Posted: February 16, 2014 2:11 p.m.

The poster is doing great at reciting Fox talking points . . . I don’t even have to watch that channel to get this type of nonsense.

In any event, under George W Bush, we had the worst attack against America since Japan bombed Hawaii.

And you add this to Bush’s legacy ‘protecting’ America:

June 14, 2002, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide bomber kills 12 and injures 51.

February 20, 2003, international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Truck bomb kills 17.

February 28, 2003, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Gunmen on motorcycles killed two consulate guards.

July 30, 2004, U.S. embassy in Taskkent, Uzbekistan
Suicide bomber kills two.

December 6, 2004, U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Militants stormed and occupied perimeter wall. Five killed, 10 wounded.

March 2, 2006, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide car bomber killed four, including a U.S. diplomate directly targeted by the assailants.

September 12, 2006, U.S. embassy in Damascus, Syria
Gunmen attacked embassy with grenades, automatic weapons, and a car bomb (though second truck bomb failed to detonate). One killed and 13 wounded.

January 12, 2007, U.S. embassy in Athens, Greece
A rocket-propelled grenade was fired at the embassy building. No one was injured.

July 9, 2008, U.S. consulate in Istanbul, Turkey
Armed men attacked consulate with pistols and shotguns. Three policemen killed.

March 18, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Mortar attack misses embassy, hits nearby girls' school instead.

September 17, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Militants dressed as policemen attacked the embassy with RPGs, rifles, grenades and car bombs. Six Yemeni soldiers and seven civilians were killed. Sixteen more were injured.


BrianBaker: Posted: February 16, 2014 4:30 p.m.

Nobody cares about Bush, Indy. Pretty much everyone here agrees he was a lousy president, too.

Instead, let's consider Nixon, and WaterGate.

Nixon was driven from office for lying about, and covering up, a two-bit crime in which he wasn't even involved. Body count: Zero.

In the meantime, from Obama & Company, we have BenghaziGate, with a body count of 4.

Fast & Furious, with a body count of one Border Patrol agent and over 300 Mexican civilians.

The entire country being spied on by the NSA.

Tea Party groups being harassed by the IRS.

But interestingly, Nixon got hounded out of office, and Obama gets a pass, and we should all just "get over" it.

So, why is it good that Nixon was hounded out of office for WaterGate with its body count of ZERO, and your guy gets a complete pass on his actions that have left the ground littered with dead bodies everywhere, including a US Ambassador?

Hmmmm...?


BrianBaker: Posted: February 16, 2014 4:41 p.m.

Written by Jonathan Turley, a legal scholar and leftist luminary:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/03/25/nixon-has-won-watergate/2019443/

Entitled "Nixon Has Won Watergate"

From the article:

"From unilateral military actions to warrantless surveillance that were key parts of the basis for Nixon's impending impeachment, the painful fact is that Barack Obama is the president that Nixon always wanted to be."


chico: Posted: February 16, 2014 5:47 p.m.

Of all the prior terrorist attacks - in the world - not just the ones Indy listed - did anyone besides Obama blame the violence on a video?


Indy: Posted: February 16, 2014 7:31 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: Nobody cares about Bush, Indy. Pretty much everyone here agrees he was a lousy president, too.

Indy: Yep, good though to see the failures of Bush 2 just to see the relative loss of life.

BrianBaker wrote: Instead, let's consider Nixon, and WaterGate. Nixon was driven from office for lying about, and covering up, a two-bit crime in which he wasn't even involved. Body count: Zero.

Indy: Yes, I always thought Nixon was a decent president especially his overtures to China. He also got us out of View Nam . . .

BrianBaker wrote: In the meantime, from Obama & Company, we have BenghaziGate, with a body count of 4.

Indy: This is just a contrived conspriacy where conservatives assert that Obama somehow ‘knew’ of who planned the attack . . . in a nation with no government run by many factions.

Indeed, on the same date, the so called ‘movie’ was being blamed in other anti-US demonstrations. So trying to hold the State Dept. up for ‘perfect knowledge’ is ludicrous. But it does make for good conservative fodder on Fox, the only channel that seems remotely interested.

BrianBaker wrote: Fast & Furious, with a body count of one Border Patrol agent and over 300 Mexican civilians.

Indy: Yet another contrived fantasy . . .

BrianBaker wrote: The entire country being spied on by the NSA.

Indy: This is where you ignore the power of the RNC to ‘intimidate’ Obama since if he backed off the NSA activities, you’d be here criticizing him for doing so.

BrianBaker wrote: Tea Party groups being harassed by the IRS.

Indy: Yet another contrivance due to the fact that ‘more’ conservative groups were looking to hide money from the public when trying to influence the vote. ‘Liberal’ groups were also ‘targeted’.

The big issue is why the House republicans have still yet to properly define new guidelines and seem content to let Fox drive the IRS issue beyond its value and life.

Finally, comparing Nixon and Watergate to Libya is a stretch even for me . . .


BrianBaker: Posted: February 17, 2014 9:12 p.m.

Hahahahahaha!


"Finally, comparing Nixon and Watergate to Libya is a stretch even for me . . ."

I'm sure it is! It interferes with your excuse-making for your ObaMessiah.

But ya know what? Tough. Because Nixon is the standard we're gonna use for comparison. In fact, if you have a problem with that, why don't you take it up with Jonathan Turley, whom I referenced above?

Let's see... There's "Indy", some nobody hiding behind an anonymous meaningless name on the internet, claiming all kinds of questionable qualifications...

And there's Jonathan Turley, a nationally-known legal scholar and scion of the Left...

To whom shall we give credence?

A one-horse race if I ever saw one.

Wow! That was a new low in absurdity even for you, bubba.


therightstuff: Posted: February 17, 2014 10:43 p.m.

I asked if there was a Democrat out there with the intellectual honesty and personal integrity to answer the following question: "Why did Barack Obama and his administration tell the American people Benghazi was a spontaneous reaction to a video for TWO WEEKS, when they KNEW the whole time it was a terrorist attack?"

Predictably, Indy could not answer the question so chose to trash George W. Bush and Fox News. Thanks Indy but we're looking for posters with intellectual honesty and personal integrity.

Is there no Democrat out there who will break ranks with the deranged Obama zealots and answer this question?


therightstuff: Posted: February 17, 2014 11:19 p.m.

Indy: """This is just a contrived conspriacy where conservatives assert that Obama somehow ‘knew’ of who planned the attack . . . in a nation with no government run by many factions."""

Who is saying that, Indy? I've not heard anyone say your president 'knew' of who planned the attack as you allege. Once again, you're making up a narrative and then attacking it as though it's real. The real question you refuse to answer is once Obama 'knew' it was a terrorist attack, why did he tell the American people for two weeks it was about a movie? Why do you refuse to address THIS question?




MORE INDY: """Indeed, on the same date, the so called ‘movie’ was being blamed in other anti-US demonstrations. So trying to hold the State Dept. up for ‘perfect knowledge’ is ludicrous."""

Only a hapless Obama zealot would swallow the lie that a movie that was floating around on the internet since July caused a "spontaneous reaction" on September 11. Besides, Obama said he knew within 24 hours that it was a terrorist attack. So why keep telling us it was about a movie?




STILL MORE INDY: """But it does make for good conservative fodder on Fox, the only channel that seems remotely interested."""

Yes, it is revealing how quickly all of the other news networks swept Benghazi under the rug to protect Obama and Clinton while totally fascinated by a lane closure in New Jersey to hurt Christie. Thank God, there is still one news source that hasn't become a total wh0re for Obama.


CaptGene: Posted: February 17, 2014 6:26 a.m.

I was wondering the same thing TRS. The only Benghazi conspiracy theory I've heard about was in selling the "video" narrative, which was critical because, you know, Al Queda was on the run!


ricketzz: Posted: February 17, 2014 7:15 a.m.

Al Quaeda was created by the CIA. In order to justify Pentagon spending we have to have a worthy adversary. Every time you express fear of them you are proving that the "terrorists" win. By "terrorists" I mean the USA security state/ corporate axis of evil. The TV is totally controlled by corporatists. PBS and NPR are the worst offenders. You are totally clueless if you believe anything on Television that isn't from offshore.

If Obama was evil they'd talk about him more on the World Service.


therightstuff: Posted: February 17, 2014 7:45 a.m.

Capt, I fault our side for not making the video lie more of an issue. THAT'S the scandal of Benghazi. Have you noticed how no one wants to answer my question about it? Obama zealots love to stay in the weeds about what happened before and during the attack but never, ever want to talk about the video story. It was the video story that made Hillary blow up and say, "What difference does it now make!" And why did it strike such a nerve with Hillary? Because she KNEW it was a lie.

When O'Reilly was interviewing Obama before the Super Bowl, he had him right at the edge but then let him off. When Obama admitted he knew it was a terrorist attack, I wished O'Reilly would have simply asked, "Then why the video story, Mr. President?" Obama has never been asked that question and I would have LOVED to hear his answer.

Can you imagine the laughs the terrorists got when they saw how Obama and Clinton were telling the American people it was about a video?


BrianBaker: Posted: February 17, 2014 8:41 a.m.

Not just the American people. They made a commercial that ran on TV in the Middle East, apologizing for the video. Can you imagine?


projalice11: Posted: February 17, 2014 9:54 a.m.

"Can you imagine?"
Benghazi,Benghazi, Benghazi still beating a dead horse.


17trillion: Posted: February 17, 2014 10:04 a.m.

Maybe if it was your family projalice that was left to die? Oh I forgot, you don't have any. Nobody who has any family would say such an ignorant and cruel thing about 4 Americans who died doing their duty. Have you outlived all your family and now you're just a bitter old lady who would defend Obama no matter how many people die? The horse isn't dead, it's the Ambassador and 3 people who tried to save him.


BrianBaker: Posted: February 17, 2014 10:17 a.m.

Gotta laugh, 17trill.

Of COURSE the socialists want Benghazi to be a "dead horse". It's the only way they can hope to make it go away so their next idol -- Clinton -- has a hope of becoming Prez.

To quote Clinton: "What does it matter NOW??????"

Well, again going back to Watergate -- which interestingly enough, she participated in prosecuting -- I guess Nixon could have said the same thing.

It wouldn't have worked then, and it won't work now.

It matters.



17trillion: Posted: February 17, 2014 10:26 a.m.

I'm not sure it will matter or not in the 2016 elections Brian. But I do know that equating the deaths of 4 people under less than honorable actions by the US government is no reason to compare said deaths with a dead horse.


BrianBaker: Posted: February 17, 2014 10:53 a.m.

I think it can/will very much matter. Remember the old "what happens with the 3 AM phone call?" meme in 2008? I do.

That will come back to haunt her, because the 3 AM phone call came, and as far as I or anyone else can see, she hit the snooze button.

It also goes to credibility, a big issue.

But really, as is usual, I think the next election is the GOP's to lose, and they do have an absolutely uncanny ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. If they run another "moderate" idiot, they'll lose again.

Also it has to be someone with some gonads, unlike Romney, who didn't have the stones to go after Obama.


Indy: Posted: February 17, 2014 11:43 a.m.

BrianBaker wrote: "Finally, comparing Nixon and Watergate to Libya is a stretch even for me . . ."

I'm sure it is! It interferes with your excuse-making for your ObaMessiah.

Indy: Nixon was trying to ‘fix a presidential election’ that is far more significant than a small terrorist attack. I’m not surprised that Fox watchers can’t understand that but from the constant recitals of the points you made at least it’s understandable in that context.

BrianBaker wrote: Let's see... There's "Indy", some nobody hiding behind an anonymous meaningless name on the internet, claiming all kinds of questionable qualifications...

Indy: Here again, this premise is common among religious conservatives who sadly as we see on Fox use ‘innuendo and speculation’ as is being done here to diminish those they disagree with.

Notice the poster doesn’t specifically address any particular issue but just ‘overall’, if you don’t agree and march and in lock step with conservatives you get this type of comment.

The real takeaway here is that conservative ideology is failing America (witness here in CA that republican voter registration is now below 30%). The sad part is that those that follow it have become susceptible to the ‘focus group tested’ slogans that conservative leaders use to ‘control’ their flock of followers.

Best advice I can give is get ‘news’ from something other than partisan driven sites like Fox.


Indy: Posted: February 17, 2014 11:46 a.m.

therightstuff wrote: I asked if there was a Democrat out there with the intellectual honesty and personal integrity to answer the following question: "Why did Barack Obama and his administration tell the American people Benghazi was a spontaneous reaction to a video for TWO WEEKS, when they KNEW the whole time it was a terrorist attack?"

Indy: Here the poster forgets that the premise he’s using and is made up by ‘sources’ like Fox is that the ‘innuendo and speculation’ of the incident by Fox is now treated as ‘truth’ by the poster. LOL

therightstuff wrote: Predictably, Indy could not answer the question so chose to trash George W. Bush and Fox News. Thanks Indy but we're looking for posters with intellectual honesty and personal integrity.

Indy: And here again, religious conservative will always assert that you didn’t answer their question when in fact the question was misleading, contrived, and simply used to support a partisan position, again, based on ‘innuendo and speculation’.

But carry on . . .


Indy: Posted: February 17, 2014 11:53 a.m.

therightstuff wrote: MORE INDY: """Indeed, on the same date, the so called ‘movie’ was being blamed in other anti-US demonstrations. So trying to hold the State Dept. up for ‘perfect knowledge’ is ludicrous."""

Only a hapless Obama zealot would swallow the lie that a movie that was floating around on the internet since July caused a "spontaneous reaction" on September 11. Besides, Obama said he knew within 24 hours that it was a terrorist attack. So why keep telling us it was about a movie?

Indy: from: Anti-Islam film demonstration turns violent in Kabul
http://www.wfaa.com/news/world/Anti-Islam-film-demonstration-turns-violent-in-Kabul-169997156.html

Associated Press
Posted on September 17, 2012 at 1:51 AM
Updated Thursday, Dec 5 at 3:23 PM
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — Hundreds of Afghans burned cars and threw rocks at a U.S. military base as a demonstration against an anti-Islam film that ridicules the Prophet Muhammad turned violent in the Afghan capital early Monday.

Indy: Here’s another: Protests Spread Over Anti-Islam Film
http://www.voanews.com/content/muslims-protest-anti-islam-film/1509273.html
Hundreds of protesters rioting against an anti-Islam film torched a press club and a government building Monday in northwest Pakistan, sparking clashes with police that left at least one person dead.

Demonstrations also turned violent outside a U.S. military base in Afghanistan and at the U.S. Embassy in Indonesia. Meanwhile, the leader of the Shi'ite militant group Hezbollah called for sustained protests in a rare public appearance before thousands of supporters at a rally in the Lebanese capital, Beirut.

Indy: So here we have Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Lebanon . . . these are just the first several links from a search on ‘anti muslim film demonstration’.

Yet, the poste wrote: “Only a hapless Obama zealot would swallow the lie that a movie that was floating around on the internet since July caused a "spontaneous reaction" on September 11.”

Shows the power of Fox driven partisan ideology recitals . . .


Indy: Posted: February 17, 2014 11:56 a.m.

17trillion wrote: Maybe if it was your family projalice that was left to die? Oh I forgot, you don't have any. Nobody who has any family would say such an ignorant and cruel thing about 4 Americans who died doing their duty. Have you outlived all your family and now you're just a bitter old lady who would defend Obama no matter how many people die? The horse isn't dead, it's the Ambassador and 3 people who tried to save him.

Indy: The really sad and pathetic use of this incident by conservatives to discredit the President is the true tragedy in all of this . . . there is no honor in using the blood of dead Americans for partisan political gain.

Shameful.


Indy: Posted: February 17, 2014 11:58 a.m.

BrianBaker wrote: Gotta laugh, 17trill. Of COURSE the socialists . . .

Indy: Hard to find any discussion from a religious conservative without mentioning socialism . . . but here the definition:

Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.


No progressive I know of or heard in the last 35 years of my adult life promotes government ‘taking over’ the ownership of the ‘private sector’. This is a distortion.

Additionally, government ‘safety net’ programs (think unemployment insurance) designed to ‘cushion’ the harshness of ‘market fundamentalism’ by providing working people some margin of error in the swings in the economy (thing recessions) actually ‘promote’ more risk in the marketplace by giving workers some leeway in taking new jobs or making their own jobs better.

You’d never know this by the ‘quick quips’ offered up here to support ‘market fundamentalism’.

Likewise, regulating the private sector in a manner that promotes fairness, a level playing field and competition not to mention correcting areas where business ‘abuses’ its trust with its customers, is not advocating the ‘control’ of a business.

We as a society have a voice in the ways business is conducted in our nation. Our legal system is a testament to that voice. Additionally, since businesses continually try to ‘cheat’ each other for one reason or another, this is but further proof why our courts, based on laws created by society, are even beneficial to the businesses themselves by upholding contractual agreements at taxpayer expense!

In any event, we can’t solve our nation’s problems by simply reciting ‘focus group tested’ slogans that give the reader little knowledge or backstory that doesn’t provide them the intelligence to hold their elected politicians accountable for sound decisions and judgment.


17trillion: Posted: February 17, 2014 12:09 p.m.

Did Indy just say something?


BrianBaker: Posted: February 17, 2014 2:35 p.m.

I don't know, 17trill. There seems to be a noisy wInd blowing through the room, making a weird moaning sound.

Who in their right mind would ever wade through that much wasted and meaningless verbiage?


BrianBaker: Posted: February 17, 2014 2:47 p.m.

wIndy, since at a glance I see you've used my name in your endless blathering comments, I'm sure you think you've riposted successfully to what I've written.

Now all you have to do is set Jonathan Turley right... right?

I'm sure he's just waiting with bated breath to hear from you. After all, he's simply a law professor at George Washington University, holder of the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law.

A little bit more about him ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Turley ):

"His articles on legal and policy issues appear regularly in national publications; as of 2012, Professor Turley has had articles published in newspapers such as the New York Times,[6] the Washington Post,[7] USA Today,[8] the Los Angeles Times,[4] and the Wall Street Journal.[9] He frequently appears in the national media as a commentator on a multitude of subjects[10][11] ranging from the 2000 Presidential Election Controversy to the Terri Schiavo case in 2005.[12] He is often a guest on Sunday talk shows,[10] with over two-dozen appearances on Meet the Press, ABC This Week, Face the Nation, and Fox News Sunday. He served as a contributor on Countdown with Keith Olbermann from 2003 until 2011, and later on Current TV[13] in 2011 and early 2012; Professor Turley also appears occasionally on Pacifica Radio's Democracy Now!.[14]

"Since the 1990s, he has been the legal analyst for NBC News and CBS News covering stories that ranged from the Clinton impeachment to the presidential elections.[1] He is on the board of contributors of USA Today.

"Professor Turley is widely regarded as a champion of the rule of law, and his stated positions in many cases and his self-proclaimed "socially liberal agenda".[8] have led liberal and progressive thinkers to also consider him a champion for their causes, especially on issues such as separation of church and state, environmental law,[10][16] civil rights,[7][17] and the illegality of torture.[18][19][20][21] Politico has referred to Turley as a "liberal law professor and longtime civil libertarian".[22] Turley has nevertheless exhibited his disagreement with rigid ideological stances in contradiction to the established law with other stated and published opinions."

And you?

Why........ you're Indy, the famous expert on everything!

You need to get him on the horn and correct him for using "conservative talking points" and being a "Fox News watcher", and tell him he doesn't know what he's talking about. I'm sure he'd be grateful for your invaluable corrections to his misdirection and blindness to current affairs and political history.

((((((( chuckle )))))))


BrianBaker: Posted: February 17, 2014 2:49 p.m.

By the way, did you ever figure out what the Federalist Papers are?

LOL


projalice11: Posted: February 17, 2014 2:50 p.m.

Left my house to go on some errands and came back to this cruel,
Insensitive and despicable post that 17trillion responded to my Benghazi post.

Words can't describe how hurtful that post is. To be so hateful towards
another's person posts is shameful.

To Quote 17trillion:

"Maybe if it was your family projalice that was left to die? Oh I forgot, you don't have any. Nobody who has any family would say such an ignorant and cruel thing about 4 Americans who died doing their duty. Have you outlived all your family and now you're just a bitter old lady who would defend Obama no matter how many people die?"




projalice11: Posted: February 17, 2014 3:11 p.m.

The meaning of "Don't beat a dead horse."

"The phrase is often used when people want to waste time arguing a point or doing an activity that is has been resolved or is no longer relevant. It's a waste of effort and time."


Indy: Posted: February 17, 2014 3:15 p.m.

17trillion wrote: Did Indy just say something?

Indy: Why yes . . .

The F-35: Mo’ Money, Fewer Jobs
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/pat-garofalo/2014/01/23/the-f-35-fighter-boondoggle-isnt-even-creating-jobs

A new report questions claims that the over budget F-35 program is creating jobs.

“Officially the most expensive weapons system in history, the cost of manufacturing the jets has increased a whopping 75 percent from its original estimate, and is now closing in on $400 billion. Over its lifetime, the F-35 program is expected to cost U.S. taxpayers $1.5 trillion, between construction and maintenance of the jets, if they ever all materialize . . . “

And . . .

Mar 12, 2013, 1:36pm EDT Updated: Mar 12, 2013, 2:34pm EDT
FedBiz Talk
F-35 racked up $1.2 billion in cost overruns

Total investment is nearing $400 billion to develop and procure 2,457 aircraft through 2037, the GAO reported, with an average annual funding requirement of $12.6 billion.

Indy: Let’s do the math . . . $1.5 trillion divided by 2,457 aircraft is: over $450 million per plane.

From what 17trillion previsiously wrote: (Indy) "on the defense industry to build weapons like the F35, currently costing $400,000,000.00 per aircraft, so it can fly over the long term unemployed in America?"

17trillion wrote: You know Indy, you've been frequently caught lying or just making things up as you go along. Pulling "facts" out of your butt as they say. The above is a classic example. I've seen no data that shows each F35 costing anywhere near what you cite. In fact, the approximate cost is about 40% of what you say it is.

Indy: With a few minutes of searching on ‘f35 fighter over $400 million’ we can see that the numbers I’ve heard over the last year or two are indeed correct . . . yet the poster notes “just making things up as you go along.”

Doesn’t appear that way now does it . . .


BrianBaker: Posted: February 17, 2014 3:21 p.m.

The problem for you, projalice, is that person's integrity is ALWAYS relevant, and that's at the crux of the Benghazi issue.

What did they know, and when did they know it? The same question that was asked about Nixon and led to his impeachment proceedings.

Then there's the issue of LYING about that silly video that no one had even seen. That's a credibility issue, and credibility is ALWAYS relevant.

Then there's the issue of what Obama and Clinton were -- or weren't -- doing while the attack was going on. A question they REFUSE to answer to this very day.

That goes to fitness as the Commander-In-Chief, which is VERY relevant, and will remain so.

THAT is why Benghazi is, and will remain, an issue. Rightfully so.

It ain't going away.


Indy: Posted: February 17, 2014 3:37 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: The problem for you, projalice, is that person's integrity is ALWAYS relevant, and that's at the crux of the Benghazi issue.

Indy: No it’s not . . .

BrianBaker wrote: What did they know, and when did they know it? The same question that was asked about Nixon and led to his impeachment proceedings.

Indy: This for the guest readers is all about the Fox ‘innuendo and speculation’ that thrive upon at this GOP TV outlet . . . this is like the JFK conspiracies . . . they will never end since the support of the conspiracy becomes more important that the ‘reality’ that took place.

BrianBaker wrote: Then there's the issue of LYING about that silly video that no one had even seen. That's a credibility issue, and credibility is ALWAYS relevant.

Indy: Then there’s the religious conservative doctrine about ‘lying’! Listing to Fox makes you wonder if ideology blindness has effected every conservative at this site!

BrianBaker wrote: Then there's the issue of what Obama and Clinton were -- or weren't -- doing while the attack was going on. A question they REFUSE to answer to this very day.

Indy: Now we’re getting close to why the Libya incident is being championed and paraded by Fox . . .

BrianBaker wrote: That goes to fitness as the Commander-In-Chief, which is VERY relevant, and will remain so.

Indy: And George W Bush got elected twice? LOL

BrianBaker wrote: THAT is why Benghazi is, and will remain, an issue. Rightfully so.
It ain't going away.

Indy: For this poster, he speaks his own truth . . .


technologist: Posted: February 17, 2014 4:38 p.m.

It appears Indy is in his manic phase. :-D


BrianBaker: Posted: February 17, 2014 5:27 p.m.

"BrianBaker wrote: The problem for you, projalice, is that person's integrity is ALWAYS relevant, and that's at the crux of the Benghazi issue.

Indy: No it’s not . . . "


Why not? Because YOU said do?

Who do you think you are? Some kind of emperor or something?

That was hilariously arrogant. Yeah, bubba, it is.

Then back to the old George Bush stuff? Sorry, bud, that is just SO yesterday's issue. We're now comparing your ObaMessiah to Nixon.

BTW, in case you need it, here's the number at George Washington University in case you want to call Turley up and correct HIM! He thinks your ObaMessiah is worse than Nixon. HE agrees with ME. You better straighten him out pronto.

202.994.1010

Go for it, Indy! You da man! (at least in your own... mind)


(Ever figure out the Federalist Papers yet?)



therightstuff: Posted: February 17, 2014 8:39 p.m.

Indy: """So here we have Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Lebanon . . . these are just the first several links from a search on ‘anti muslim film demonstration’."""

Indy, the anti-Muslim movie your president claimed caused the Benghazi attack had been on youtube since July. The demonstrations were on September 11. "Spontaneous"? How embarrassingly naive.

But I will grant you that at first glance, it was reasonable to assume Benghazi was the result of an anti-Muslim video. However....the fact you and your fellow Obama zealots keep missing is that Obama said within 24 hours, he knew it was actually a terrorist attack. So why did your leader keep telling us it was not a terrorist attack, but it was the video? Why do you refuse to address THIS question?

And is there anyone else besides Indy who prefers Rachel Maddow to Megan Kelly?


therightstuff: Posted: February 17, 2014 8:48 p.m.

Indy: """The really sad and pathetic use of this incident by conservatives to discredit the President is the true tragedy in all of this . . ."""

Then why do you refuse to answer this question?

Why did Barack Obama and his administration tell the American people Benghazi was a spontaneous reaction to a video for TWO WEEKS, when they KNEW the whole time it was a terrorist attack?

projalice answer: """Benghazi,Benghazi, Benghazi still beating a dead horse."""

Is there no Obama supporter who can answer my question?




BrianBaker: Posted: February 18, 2014 9:46 p.m.

No, TRS, they don't want to answer those questions, any more than Obama and Clinton themselves do.

Again... what did they know, and when did they know it?

Where were they and what were they doing while the attack was taking place?


JohnnyCash: Posted: February 18, 2014 9:57 p.m.

I'd like to know why Indy has abandoned "focus group tested slogans" and implemented "Fox News talking points" as his newest generic non-answer.

My son's birthday is coming up this week, Indy. I know he'd love to see you bring that one back at least once. What do you say? And if he's really well-behaved from now 'til Thursday, how 'bout posting something using "quick quip" and "MBA" as well.


ricketzz: Posted: February 18, 2014 6:21 a.m.

TRS, that video had not been on YouTube for months. An English language version was. That was given a new Arabic soundtrack and released the week of the attacks, to radical conservative Egyptian Broadcasters. To deny this video was not the cause of mayhem from Iraq to Morocco is to deny reality.

Benghazi was a CIA operation to arm Syrian rebels. It was supposed to be a secret, (especially from Israel and Libya), and the mission got busted. War is messy.


therightstuff: Posted: February 18, 2014 7:47 a.m.

"""To deny this video was not the cause of mayhem from Iraq to Morocco is to deny reality."""

To deny that Benghazi was a planned terrorist attack TWO WEEKS after the event also denied reality. What made it worse, was that your president and his minions KNEW they were lying, even as they kept lying. They did this to cover Obama's political ass leading up to his re-election. And THIS is the reason his zealots refuse to answer the question.


UsualSuspect: Posted: February 18, 2014 4:56 p.m.

Just my 2 cents, neither side has a viable ACA plan, there are a handful of Insurance Companies, so crossing state lines to buy a policy is not viable, there is lack of competition. What both sides need to do is fix health care as a whole. Why does it cost someone in the US more than 300% more for insurance and care than the rest of the world? Until you can fix the escalating costs, nothing will work. Letting Private Insurers regulate themselves will not work, in States that have little to no regulation pay the same as States that do. I am still waiting for a plan that outlines controlling costs, neither side has one.
Benghazi was nothing more than a CIA Operation gone bad. Sad part is, Bush released the guys from Gitmo who planned it, and yet no one asks how that happened. No one is asking what the CIA was doing there anyway, and what happened to the detainees, and what them so valuable? Why would anyone think if you work for the CIA that the calvary will come and rescue you from a mess you created? Just think, back in the Cold War no one ever went into Russia to save anyone from the CIA, so nothing has changed. Anyone wonder why a certain General retired from the CIA right after this? Do you really believe it was over an affair?
Folks need to wake up, neither side is doing anything for you, not sure why anyone thinks their side is better. The only difference between the 2 sides is the bottle, one side would drink the bottle labeled drain cleaner of they were told to, and the other would drink it, but you would have to change the label so they would think they were drinking something else.


ricketzz: Posted: February 19, 2014 6:48 a.m.

"It's good to be da King". If you don't want the president using expanded wartime powers to deceive and pivot, quit starting wars.


17trillion: Posted: February 19, 2014 10:01 a.m.

"Words can't describe how hurtful that post is. To be so hateful towards
another's person posts is shameful."

If you can't swim, get out of the pool Lois. Your rank hypocrisy is well noted and the fact that you whine and moan when it comes back at you is pathetic.


Indy: Posted: February 19, 2014 1:21 p.m.

therightstuff wrote: Indy: """So here we have Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Lebanon . . . these are just the first several links from a search on ‘anti muslim film demonstration’."""

Indy, the anti-Muslim movie your president claimed caused the Benghazi attack had been on youtube since July. The demonstrations were on September 11. "Spontaneous"? How embarrassingly naive.

Indy: What I find so sad is that you can’t logically see what’s going on other than reciting Fox ‘innuendo and speculation’.

Obvious, the ‘film’ created a lot of unrest in the Middle East and you’re naive to ignore that.

You’ve got to remove your partisan blinders to see what’s going on and for starters, start getting your news from other than partisans sources that just ‘use you’ for their own political purposes.

Being ‘used’ isn’t a good thing, is it?

I can really help you out with this . . .


philellis: Posted: February 19, 2014 1:32 p.m.

I can really help you out with this . . .

Just like you help out all the "guest" readers


technologist: Posted: February 19, 2014 1:41 p.m.

"If you don't want the president using expanded wartime powers to deceive and pivot, quit starting wars."

"I've got a phone and a pen. Don't make me do it again!" - Obama


therightstuff: Posted: February 19, 2014 7:42 p.m.

Indy: """I can really help you out with this . . . """

Can you help me out with this?

Why did Barack Obama and his administration tell the American people Benghazi was a spontaneous reaction to a video for TWO WEEKS, when they KNEW the whole time it was a terrorist attack?


SingleMomOfOne: Posted: February 20, 2014 9:30 p.m.

Only history can be the judge of George W. Bush...


ricketzz: Posted: February 20, 2014 6:23 a.m.

technologist, like most of his ilk, lives in a fantasy world of half truths and massaged out of context fear.

Benghazi was two incidents at 2 different locations on two separate days. The 040013Sep12 assault on the double secret CIA spy place was a battle. (What if it was Putin who put mercs up to it? Would Obama tell us and start World War 3?) The 214012sep12 attack's motivation is less clear. "Terrorist" attacks are to un-nerve the general population. This attack had a strategic purpose; perhaps they wanted to flush out the secret CIA spy base they knew was nearby somewhere. Perhaps the 2 ex SEALs screwed the pooch by being followed back to the annex. You just don't know, and as CIA was in charge, you'll likely never know (just like Obama).


technologist: Posted: February 20, 2014 8:51 a.m.

"technologist, like most of his ilk…"

Why yes, I'm one of the "other" citizens that must be demonized according to the script, right?

“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals


Indy: Posted: February 21, 2014 5:38 p.m.

ricketzz wrote: technologist, like most of his ilk, lives in a fantasy world of half truths and massaged out of context fear.

Indy: I think the ‘fear’ thing is the real driver, fearing that their ideology really doesn’t work but being so invested in it, that rejecting it would look cowardly, weak, and violate one of the main standards of conservatism, that being ‘standing on principle’ . . . even if the principles don’t work.

The pride component of the conservative worldview is what entraps them in positions that are indefensible except using the ‘quick quips’ we see here daily that hide their ability to defend their positions.

In any event, the ‘half truths’ are mainly the statistics that are put forth out of context indicating that their support of same validates the reality that they don’t understand basic business and economics.

And sadly, that lack of knowledge is brutalizing Americans everyday . . .


ricketzz: Posted: February 22, 2014 6:15 a.m.

The Fox "News"-Drudgereport mindset is that of danger and suspicion; it is based almost totally on emotion, maybe a pinch of truth to make it easier to swallow. A person who is absorbed in this universe is perpetually angry, because the endocrines demand it in a fear based society. They crave reinforcement and peer group approval every waking hour. They need it from the radio. The TV. The internet. Anyplace they can't get reinforced is an uncomfortable place.

Technology, do you watch American Dad?


CaptGene: Posted: February 22, 2014 7:43 a.m.

"The Fox "News"-Drudgereport mindset is that of danger and suspicion; it is based almost totally on emotion, maybe a pinch of truth to make it easier to swallow"

Gee ricketzz, you sound like you're describing yourself, except for the Fox/Drudge part. Your the only one here that constantly refering to "The Corporation".

Of course, that you would condemn in other behavior you engage in is totally consistant with your hypocritical mindset.


therightstuff: Posted: February 22, 2014 8:21 a.m.

Guys, I think the mental malady of our far-left friends is known as projectionism.

Projectionism is a defense mechanism when someone puts their own issues, thoughts, feelings, and behaviors to another person or group. With no standing on the facts, they attack the person's character. It signals they have lost the argument on merit. This is why they are angry at the failures of Obama but blame Bush. They know liberalism doesn't work so they must blame conservatism. This is how they rationalize that MSNBC is unbiased by attacking Fox News.

It may also explain why Indy is always so sad. If you can keep in mind that it is a mental disorder, it will help you have compassion for our misguided friends.


ricketzz: Posted: February 24, 2014 7:12 a.m.

I have never promoted MSNBC. They are owned by fascists so I must presume they too are fascists. They sure have it in for Christy. I watch Fox News more than CNBC.

TRS, this is for you. I am offering it in the spirit of friendship in hopes you will wake up and realize who is really manipulating you and your compadres.

http://www.theocracywatch.org/yurica_weyrich_manual.htm


ricketzz: Posted: March 2, 2014 8:01 a.m.

Remember the pro Bush mob that stormed Florida courthouses in 2000? Did they strike you as scary angry? What about the winter 2009-2010 town hall meetings where all the Tea partiers wouldn't allow the candidates to speak? That was plain old rude. And that was also not by accident. The Tea party is acting like brownshirts and this is totally according to plan. See link above.



You need to be a registered user to post a comment. Please click here to register.

The Signal encourages readers to interact with one another, following the guidelines outlined in our Comment/Moderation Policy. Click here to read it.

To report offensive or inappropriate comments, e-mail abuse@signalscv.com. The content posted from readers of signalscv.com does not necessarily represent the views of The Signal or Morris Multimedia. By submitting this form you agree to the terms and conditions listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...