For Tom... Benghazi...

[500bbc]

I have to believe that this article is in direct response to my teammates explanation. Maybe we are getting the word out there...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/05/29/Blame-the-President-for-Benghazi

The word is already out to those who listen, the other 50% are brain dead and don't give a rats ass. Look how Tom responded to you initial post, he blew it off as biased. The MSM will do the same to the brain washed masses. Truth will fall on deaf ears.

 

[was thatguy]

You fucks are so narrow minded you have me considering a move to Democrat so I don't have to admit I share your party affiliation...

What if they released all the docs (which I don't support) and he was working his ass off all night? You wouldn't change your mind about him or the event.

People in the far right are more deplorable to me than hyper-libs because they smack of this righteous, indignant "'cause god said" attitude.

I don't know who Regor is... But I'm not proud to share our community with him based on what I've seen here.

You guys come off like dumb, asshole jocks.

Well, you would be like all the other Dems lumping all Reps into one group.
I have already told you that you have me and my coworkers thinking a little deeper about this, and not just reacting to what we see on the surface.
But congrats to you if that's the path you take.
Another "win" for the dividers.

 

[Outdrive1]

I have to believe that this article is in direct response to my teammates explanation. Maybe we are getting the word out there...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/05/29/Blame-the-President-for-Benghazi

So this basically puts all the blame on Obama. That's takes Hillary out of the equation and makes her a shoe-in to the Oval Office in the next election.

Game, set and match for the Democrats. Lol.

 

[Paul65k]

So this basically puts all the blame on Obama. That's takes Hillary out of the equation and makes her a shoe-in to the Oval Office in the next election.

Probably...........but for all the rest of us if we had a charge in our care (Ambassador and his mission in the case of Hillary) and your boss said no...........wouldn't you hope that you would have the backbone to go to the mat for them......regardless of the cost??:eek

We do know that at least "Crazy Ross Perot" would have......and did when he was at the helm of EDS

 

[Old Texan]

So this basically puts all the blame on Obama. That's takes Hillary out of the equation and makes her a shoe-in to the Oval Office in the next election.

Game, set and match for the Democrats. Lol.

Kind of a lame duck falling on sword for the team deal, eh? I honestly don't think the head narcissist has that in him. Hildabeast best keep her guard up and an eye on her big ass......But the other perspective is O best watch out for SlickWillie who ain't about to let opportunity slip out of the family hands. Might be a stalemate here making things look bad for others in the way. Petreous already took some fallout. Who or what is next remains to be seen.:hmm

 

[Outdrive1]

Probably...........but for all the rest of us if we had a charge in our care (Ambassador and his mission in the case of Hillary) and your boss said no...........wouldn't you hope that you would have the backbone to go to the mat for them......regardless of the cost??:eek

We do know that at least "Crazy Ross Perot" would have......and did when he was at the helm of EDS

Honestly Paul, we will never know who went to mat and who didn't. Would you believe them if they said she did?

At the end of the day though, being ex military, nobody should question his decision. It's not her place to go to mat, and it weakens the office. It's her place to follow orders and keep her mouth shut.

 

[Paul65k]

Honestly Paul, we will never know who went to mat and who didn't. Would you believe them if they said she did?

At the end of the day though, being ex military, nobody should question his decision. It's not her place to go to mat, and it weakens the office. It's her place to follow orders and keep her mouth shut.

My point was probably not well made.......IMHO I doubt Hillary even blinked once O said we're not going in. I agree it will likely never come out but I just can't see her thinking of this as anything but a political chess game when it was happening.......my .02

 

[500bbc]

So this basically puts all the blame on Obama. That's takes Hillary out of the equation and makes her a shoe-in to the Oval Office in the next election.

Game, set and match for the Democrats. Lol.

Naw, they're gonna run moochelly, if you don't vote for her you're racist and misogynist.

Tom will cross the border weeks in advance to vote early and often just as he has in the last two elections.

 

[Froggystyle]

The word is already out to those who listen, the other 50% are brain dead and don't give a rats ass. Look how Tom responded to you initial post, he blew it off as biased. The MSM will do the same to the brain washed masses. Truth will fall on deaf ears.

Here's the thing... It was biased. It was clearly from one perspective. Just because I share that perspective doesn't mean I can't see the clear bias.

The perspective I presented was one man's opinion, and from about ten steps down the food chain from the president. It is speculation, sprinkled with fact.

There is definitely two sides of the story... Which was Tom's point.

 

[regor]

Here's the thing... It was biased. It was clearly from one perspective. Just because I share that perspective doesn't mean I can't see the clear bias.

The perspective I presented was one man's opinion, and from about ten steps down the food chain from the president. It is speculation, sprinkled with fact.

There is definitely two sides of the story... Which was Tom's point.

Yeah we get that. Is the other side of the story a "protest"?

 

[Froggystyle]

So this basically puts all the blame on Obama. That's takes Hillary out of the equation and makes her a shoe-in to the Oval Office in the next election.

Game, set and match for the Democrats. Lol.

Someone is reading the tea leaves...

 

[Tom Brown]

Here's the thing... It was biased. It was clearly from one perspective. Just because I share that perspective doesn't mean I can't see the clear bias.

As best I can tell, it comes down to a portion of the Republican base being so ignorant (some stupid and some surprisingly intelligent in the group I speak of, but all ignorant) and obstinate in their view they reject everything that does not support their position as a lie. "Obama did something good? Obama could never do anything good, therefore, you lie."

If you point out they are incorrect on an issue, such as their assertion that Obama is a Muslim, they attack you as being a pro-Obama radical.

This group, to which most of the daily posters in here belong, require life to be boiled down to shirts versus skins. They need to be told who to support blindly and who to hate.

Look at how offended the Republican base was when Candy Crawley injected into one of the debates her agreement with the president that terrorism was mentioned the day after Benghazi. The group comes off as being pissed off that Candy did not support Mitt's incorrect statement. They could give two shits about what is right. "Oh the ego!"

I don't have a lot of support for Mitt's position but I know that Mitt was most likely mistaken about Obama's post Benghazi narrative and less likely to be attempting to redefine history that is undoubtedly stored in a few hundred thousand media archives.

The point here is that if an incident can be explained by ignorance, this is most likely the case. Sure, conspiracies happen but they aren't that common. If you think conspiracy 100% of the time you disagree with something, you are not objective.

... so most of this group is not necessarily stupid but is definitely myopic and obstinate. That makes you enjoyable to toy with, like the pleasure that can be had by using a laser pointer to make a cat look stupid.

 

[Tom Brown]

The word is already out to those who listen, the other 50% are brain dead and don't give a rats ass. Look how Tom responded to you initial post, he blew it off as biased.

Look at how you lie about my position. I took great pains to point out that I appreciated the perspective and information and that I was not suggesting it is incorrect. Point being, I neither agreed nor disagreed but found it interesting. The only thing blown off is the lid on your boil meter when I point out what a lying douchebag you are.

 

[was thatguy]

As best I can tell, it comes down to a portion of the Republican base being so ignorant (some stupid and some surprisingly intelligent in the group I speak of, but all ignorant) and obstinate in their view they reject everything that does not support their position as a lie. "Obama did something good? Obama could never do anything good, therefore, you lie."

If you point out they are incorrect on an issue, such as their assertion that Obama is a Muslim, they attack you as being a pro-Obama radical.

This group, to which most of the daily posters in here belong, require life to be boiled down to shirts versus skins. They need to be told who to support blindly and who to hate.

Look at how offended the Republican base was when Candy Crawley injected into one of the debates her agreement with the president that terrorism was mentioned the day after Benghazi. The group comes off as being pissed off that Candy did not support Mitt's incorrect statement. They could give two shits about what is right. "Oh the ego!"

I don't have a lot of support for Mitt's position but I know that Mitt was most likely mistaken about Obama's post Benghazi narrative and less likely to be attempting to redefine history that is undoubtedly stored in a few hundred thousand media archives.

The point here is that if an incident that can be explained by ignorance, this is most likely the case. Sure, conspiracies happen but they aren't that common. If you think conspiracy 100% of the time you disagree with something, you are not objective.

... so most of this group is not necessarily stupid but is definitely myopic and obstinate. That makes you enjoyable to toy with, like the pleasure that can be had by using a laser pointer to make a cat look stupid.

Until the cat bites your hand......

 

[Tom Brown]

Until the cat bites your hand......

I've taken some pretty nasty gashes from cat's teeth and claws. It's always worth the pain and suffering to demonstrate my mental superiority to the cat.

 

[Froggystyle]

Where should it go from here Froggy? Should the Republicans continue their witch hunt?

Here is our biggest disagreement point frankly... And one that is causing all the problems...

I don't think it is the Republicans responsibility to do anything. They are an "ism"... A party... Not a watchdog group.

If the Dodgers are overspending on salary and have members taking steroids, it isn't the Giants' (competing team) responsibility to pursue it. The league has investigators and resources to bring to bear for this purpose. It would be a massive conflict of interest IMO if you tasked the Giants with policing the Dodgers.

Same deal. If something illegal was done, "they" should investigate and act upon it. If not... It is a policy failure, and only the polls will tell if America gives a shit.

America won't...

But standing in the corner and shouting like a maniac will only make you look like a maniac.

If Reps/Dems think they are responsible for policing each other... There's your problem...

 

[Paul65k]

Here is our biggest disagreement point frankly... And one that is causing all the problems...

I don't think it is the Republicans responsibility to do anything. They are an "ism"... A party... Not a watchdog group.

If the Dodgers are overspending on salary and have members taking steroids, it isn't the Giants' (competing team) responsibility to pursue it. The league has investigators and resources to bring to bear for this purpose. It would be a massive conflict of interest IMO if you tasked the Giants with policing the Dodgers.

Same deal. If something illegal was done, "they" should investigate and act upon it. If not... It is a policy failure, and only the polls will tell if America gives a shit.

America won't...

But standing in the corner and shouting like a maniac will only make you look like a maniac.

If Reps/Dems think they are responsible for policing each other... There's your problem...

Froggy....this is a clear and concise statement of the situation.....the question then becomes who and where is this "Group of which you speak that will do the investigating". The way the deck is stacked in DC right now the only previously "Independent" watchdog group has been the Press......and we all know how polarized they are at the moment.

We have Holder investigating Holder and The State Department investigating the State department.......just as it was with the previous Republican controlled Executive Branch before them.

Just to be clear I feel more in tune with the position you profess than anything else here......the problem is if anyone here (or anywhere else) has a viewpoint or position on anything contrary to one party or the other they are immediately branded as a Conservative/Liberal/Left wing Whacko/Right wing Whacko, etc....

Where is this independent position of which you speak or would like to see......cuz honestly other than folks here like Racey who seems to make the most cogent points and back them up with facts we are as polarized here as the rest of the electorate seems to be??

BTW Brown trying to be an uninterested bystander is such a thin veil that even Helen Keller could see through it.....he posts whatever will stir up the group at a given time. His convictions are only designed to drive more discourse not solutions either.....but at least it gives us something to talk about and most know it :rant


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Tom Brown]

But standing in the corner and shouting like a maniac will only make you look like a maniac.

Interesting post. We do not share the same position, as per external policing.

I applaud the Republican party for taking on these issues. The failure, in my opinion, is the technique with which they are pursuing the issue makes them look like clowns and whackos. Sure, the Republican base loves the theater but someone like myself, and I assume a large portion of the American voting public, watch the situation and lose respect for the Republican position based on a perception of complete lack of objectivity and the rhetoric and hyperbole are definitely playing positively for Obama.

Shame on federal Republican for not doing a better job of getting to the bottom of this issue.

The opposition power exists to keep the governing power in check.

 

[Froggystyle]

Froggy....this is a clear and concise statement of the situation.....the question then becomes who and where is this "Group of which you speak that will do the investigating". The way the deck is stacked in DC right now the only previously "Independent" watchdog group has been the Press......and we all know how polarized they are at the moment.

Perhaps this is indeed the root of the problem...

The Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches were designed to check each other. With the political appointees in each, the internal checks can be fuzzy...

Which brings me to my overwhelmingly largest gripe about today's society... The lack of repercussion.

People are getting away with it... So why not?

Solve this first... Who is the new "they" if not the parties? Who is the "league"? There is little doubt we need it.

Where is this independent position of which you speak or would like to see......

We keep pussing out and vote a party line we don't support as the lesser of two evils... Like they know we will. [/QUOTE]

 

[was thatguy]

I've taken some pretty nasty gashes from cat's teeth and claws. It's always worth the pain and suffering to demonstrate my mental superiority to the cat.

Hmmm, guess that depends on the cat......sounds to me like you been playing with kittens??
It is disconcerting that you feel threatened by a cats intelligence, and have to demonstrate it to the cat...though, ironically, it is one of the more revealing and open statements you have made.

BTW, this cat would take your hand up to the wrist.
He has 2 squirrels, and a few full size gophers notched as confirmed kills, with a small dog, and 2 juvenile racoons credited but unconfirmed.

The bandage is from a partial tail amputation from an adult raccoon. We heard the commotion and saw him on surveillance in full combat mode defending his food dish.

 

[500bbc]

Here's the thing... It was biased. It was clearly from one perspective. Just because I share that perspective doesn't mean I can't see the clear bias.

The perspective I presented was one man's opinion, and from about ten steps down the food chain from the president. It is speculation, sprinkled with fact.

There is definitely two sides of the story... Which was Tom's point.

We've been listening to the "other side" of the story since September.

It's been nothing but lies and obfuscation, Tom missed that point.

 

[500bbc]

Look at how offended the Republican base was when Candy Crawley injected into one of the debates her agreement with the president that terrorism was mentioned the day after Benghazi. The group comes off as being pissed off that Candy did not support Mitt's incorrect statement. They could give two shits about what is right. "Oh the ego!"



.

Which is why she later apologized for not only lying but opening her fat piehole when a MODERATOR is supposed to keep said pie hole shut when it comes to her political opinion.

The rest of you post was just your usual exercise in fecal tainted mental masturbation.

 

[regor]

Here is our biggest disagreement point frankly... And one that is causing all the problems...

I don't think it is the Republicans responsibility to do anything. They are an "ism"... A party... Not a watchdog group.

If the Dodgers are overspending on salary and have members taking steroids, it isn't the Giants' (competing team) responsibility to pursue it. The league has investigators and resources to bring to bear for this purpose. It would be a massive conflict of interest IMO if you tasked the Giants with policing the Dodgers.

Same deal. If something illegal was done, "they" should investigate and act upon it. If not... It is a policy failure, and only the polls will tell if America gives a shit.

America won't...

But standing in the corner and shouting like a maniac will only make you look like a maniac.

If Reps/Dems think they are responsible for policing each other... There's your problem...

Where in the world are you going to find this so called non partisan "watchdog group"?

 

[Froggystyle]

Where in the world are you going to find this so called non partisan "watchdog group"?

Canada... Apparently...

 

[regor]

Canada... Apparently...

Hell no :thumbsdown

He will have everyone smelling their own ass up on the hill

Where will this "watchdog group" come from?

 

[Froggystyle]

Hell no :thumbsdown

He will have everyone smelling their own ass up on the hill

An improvement requiring them to pull their heads out of them first.

 

[Tom Brown]

Which is why she later apologized for not only lying but opening her fat piehole when a MODERATOR is supposed to keep said pie hole shut when it comes to her political opinion.

Political opinion? About the record of what was said? That's awesome. :thumbsup

 

[regor]

An improvement requiring them to pull their heads out of them first.

That was good. :thumbsup

This "watchdog group" does not exist (for the Republicans).

So, should the Repubics back off?

 

[500bbc]

Political opinion? About the record of what was said? That's awesome. :thumbsup

She's the moderator dumb ass she doesn't get to take sides as moderator of a debate, the record BTW, was why she apologized for talking out of her ass when it was proven to her that the TIC didn't call Benghazi an act of terrorism.

Just a simple fact ole tommy boy, nothing you've ever shown any interest in.

 

[Froggystyle]

We've been listening to the "other side" of the story since September.

It's been nothing but lies and obfuscation, Tom missed that point.

I'm going to humbly suggest that the "other side" is saying the same thing right now.

 

[Outdrive1]

She's the moderator dumb ass she doesn't get to take sides as moderator of a debate, the record BTW, was why she apologized for talking out of her ass when it was proven to her that the TIC didn't call Benghazi an act of terrorism.

Just a simple fact ole tommy boy, nothing you've ever shown any interest in.

I may be naive, but what would using the term "terrorism" have done to change the outcome of said event?

 

[Froggystyle]

That was good. :thumbsup

This "watchdog group" does not exist (for the Republicans).

So, should the Repubics back off?

Absolutely. Not their job, and the consistent whining, griping and horseshit back and forth is destroying anyone who could loosely be described as moderate.

In order to chase this shit down... you need to inspire an agency with purview. The Republican party is not it. Neither is the Democratic party.

It is killing our country. The parties aren't really that far apart ideologically... It isn't like one is really fascist... we just say that for rhetoric. At the end of the day, they are all in essence well meaning Americans who would be a lot more moderate if they didn't have to gain the support of the super fucking whacko extreme wings.

 

[500bbc]

I may be naive, but what would using the term "terrorism" have done to change the outcome of said event?

Nothing, just would have been the truth for a change.

Tom's babbling about that sow Candy Crowley during the debate where Romney brought up the fact that Bobo wouldn't call the assassination of our ambassador a terrorist act and in fact continued to blame it on a youtube video trailer that fifteen people had viewed prior to the admins ludicrous claim.

 

[Tom Brown]

I may be naive, but what would using the term "terrorism" have done to change the outcome of said event?

Obama used the phrase "act of terror" in the rose garden speech.

Darrell Issa criticized Obama's speech as downplaying the killings by using the phrase "act of terror" rather than a "terrorist attack."

That's the kind of shit that makes it easy to dismiss the noise coming from the Republican blow hole. The strategy of making a large number of claims and hoping one of them sticks eliminates the party's credibility with some.


... but keep beating the drum. When Fox News runs a news article that Obama may have sent a personal letter on white house stationary, you guys need to blast everyone you know with aggressive rhetoric proclaiming the outlandish ego and thievery of your confirmed reports of Obama ripping off the American people. That's the kind of help the party needs to get a Republican elected in 2016. Which Republican? It doesn't matter. You don't care. He will be great! :thumbsup

 

[500bbc]

I'm going to humbly suggest that the "other side" is saying the same thing right now.

Where do you get your news?
Serious question, all I've seen is questions from the right asking what happened and why.
I don't see the lies in that. Pushing the point for political gain? Hell yeah, they damn well better be.

Everything I've read, watched on TV and talked to friends about this issue all point to they could have been saved, all of them.

 

[Outdrive1]

Nothing, just would have been the truth for a change.

Tom's babbling about that sow Candy Crowley during the debate where Romney brought up the fact that Bobo wouldn't call the assassination of our ambassador a terrorist act and in fact continued to blame it on a youtube video trailer that fifteen people had viewed prior to the admins ludicrous claim.

Semantics in my opinion. It's not like they denied the attack happened at all. He called it an act of terror. Which is not so far off from calling it terrorism. It seems to be such a trivial item to debate.

 

[regor]

Absolutely. Not their job, and the consistent whining, griping and horseshit back and forth is destroying anyone who could loosely be described as moderate.

In order to chase this shit down... you need to inspire an agency with purview. The Republican party is not it. Neither is the Democratic party.

It is killing our country. The parties aren't really that far apart ideologically... It isn't like one is really fascist... we just say that for rhetoric. At the end of the day, they are all in essence well meaning Americans who would be a lot more moderate if they didn't have to gain the support of the super fucking whacko extreme wings.

An agency kinda like the IRS?

Essentially, you're saying to let it go and take the word of the Pres as the end all? For some reason, I'm thinking the constitution wouldn't agree with that.

 

[Outdrive1]

An agency kinda like the IRS?

Essentially, you're saying to let it go and take the word of the Pres as the end all? For some reason, I'm thinking the constitution wouldn't agree with that.

What specifically was unconstitutional with what happened in Benghazi?

 

[500bbc]

Obama used the phrase "act of terror" in the rose garden speech.

Darrell Issa criticized Obama's speech as downplaying the killings by using the phrase "act of terror" rather than a "terrorist attack."

That's the kind of shit that makes it easy to dismiss the noise coming from the Republican blow hole. The strategy of making a large number of claims and hoping one of them sticks eliminates the party's credibility with some.


... but keep beating the drum. When Fox News runs a news article that Obama may have sent a personal letter on white house stationary, you guys need to blast everyone you know with aggressive rhetoric proclaiming the outlandish ego and thievery of your confirmed reports of Obama ripping off the American people. That's the kind of help the party needs to get a Republican elected in 2016. Which Republican? It doesn't matter. You don't care. He will be great! :thumbsup

So why did the sow apologize?

 

[500bbc]

Semantics in my opinion. It's not like they denied the attack happened at all. He called it an act of terror. Which is not so far off from calling it terrorism. It seems to be such a trivial item to debate.

Umm that's not what I was "debating".

 

[Tom Brown]

It seems to be such a trivial item to debate.

That's what's so great about this situation for the Democrats. They don't have to get up in anyone's face about anything. They just have to sit back and watch the Republicans melt down in the house and in the media. The louder they scream about this, the more they come across like wackos to all but their base.

Keep screaming, 500bbc. It keeps me warm.

 

[Outdrive1]

So why did the sow apologize?

For backing Obamas miss quote. She should have corrected him and said you office called it an act of terror.

 

[regor]

Obama used the phrase "act of terror" in the rose garden speech.

Darrell Issa criticized Obama's speech as downplaying the killings by using the phrase "act of terror" rather than a "terrorist attack."

That's the kind of shit that makes it easy to dismiss the noise coming from the Republican blow hole. The strategy of making a large number of claims and hoping one of them sticks eliminates the party's credibility with some.


... but keep beating the drum. When Fox News runs a news article that Obama may have sent a personal letter on white house stationary, you guys need to blast everyone you know with aggressive rhetoric proclaiming the outlandish ego and thievery of your confirmed reports of Obama ripping off the American people. That's the kind of help the party needs to get a Republican elected in 2016. Which Republican? It doesn't matter. You don't care. He will be great! :thumbsup

The thing that trumps the Pres on this is, if you called it an "Act of Terror" and STUCK to that, they would have been fine, with the other side. They can't have it both ways Tommy. They continue to play to the brain dead, about the facts that were available at the time and the narrative they pursued.

 

[Outdrive1]

The thing that trumps the Pres on this is, if you called it an "Act of Terror" and STUCK to that, they would have been fine, with the other side. They can't have it both ways Tommy. They continue to play to the brain dead, about the facts that were available at the time and the narrative they pursued.

Maybe in the legal sense act of terror and terrorism mean different things. To myself I hear the same thing.

 

[Tom Brown]

For backing Obamas miss quote. She should have corrected him and said you office called it an act of terror.

Keep reasoning with him. I'm sure you'll be on the same page soon. :thumbsup


Obama could clear his throat and 500bbc would hear, "I'm a terrorist!" ... and you're trying to reason with him. You are the rosetta stone of optimism, my friend. :thumbsup

Good for you. No kidding. good for you. :cool

 

[Froggystyle]

...skidmark...scumbag

... jackass ...scumbags ...pricks

... jackass ...excrement

...piehole ...fecal tainted mental masturbation

...sow

Do you guys have ANY idea how badly you ruin your own argument by describing people like this? Opposition or not, by describing the President, Secretary of State, Vice President etc... in this manner, it absolutely cuts your statements off at the knees, and reduces them to juvenile banter.

It is impossible to take someone's point seriously if you can't control your anger/disgust enough to make a point without casting aspersions...

It is one of the reasons I value OT's opinion more than most... it comes across as valid and well thought out... as opposed to locker room drivel

 

[Tom Brown]

They continue to play to the brain dead, about the facts that were available at the time and the narrative they pursued.

Hey, you know what Democrats are like. They will believe anything that portrays their side as good and Republicans as evil.

What's more, you can't reason with those dipshits.

 

[Paul65k]

Do you guys have ANY idea how badly you ruin your own argument by describing people like this? Opposition or not, by describing the President, Secretary of State, Vice President etc... in this manner, it absolutely cuts your statements off at the knees, and reduces them to juvenile banter.

It is impossible to take someone's point seriously if you can't control your anger/disgust enough to make a point without casting aspersions...

It is one of the reasons I value OT's opinion more than most... it comes across as valid and well thought out... as opposed to locker room drivel

Thanks jerkface :rolleyes


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[was thatguy]

Hey, you know what Democrats are like. They will believe anything that portrays their side as good and Republicans as evil.

What's more, you can't reason with those dipshits.

Your right. Goodbye.

 

[regor]

Do you guys have ANY idea how badly you ruin your own argument by describing people like this? Opposition or not, by describing the President, Secretary of State, Vice President etc... in this manner, it absolutely cuts your statements off at the knees, and reduces them to juvenile banter.

It is impossible to take someone's point seriously if you can't control your anger/disgust enough to make a point without casting aspersions...

It is one of the reasons I value OT's opinion more than most... it comes across as valid and well thought out... as opposed to locker room drivel

Those are perfectly good adjectives, I feel fucking good when I use them. You better go back and check OT's adjectives a little better.

Hey, you know what Democrats are like. They will believe anything that portrays their side as good and Republicans as evil.

What's more, you can't reason with those dipshits.

The dipshit is the man that lays down and takes the lies as status quo. I don't care if it's a Rep. or Dem., if they lie, fuck them. Which means, fuck em all, I know.