Liberal Forum

You running a political debate thread or a puppet show here, girlie? Suck it up.I'm a little distracted with things going on IRL right now.Me: He never said Al Qaeda was finished. That would be a ridiculous statement.You: On the run, on the ropes, on their last legs, lookin at it... take your pick.I believe he did say they were 'on the run'.That doesn't mean finished or even 'about finished'.Kinda like when Dick Cheney said the insurgency in Iraq was 'in it's last throes'. ROFL

I'm a little distracted with things going on IRL right now.Well, cents you're a girl I could cut you some slack.I believe he did say they were 'on the run'.That doesn't mean finished or even 'about finished'.I thought we just went over that?Don't insult my intelligence, which is vast, by trying to play words games here.Yep.Kinda like when Dick Cheney said the insurgency in Iraq was 'in it's last throes'. ROFLAnd I thought we just went over that, too?I know you are a liberal and will excuse any behavior by your guys, and I know for a fact that in a case like this, where your guys a dead caught lying that you will point to someone else, Bush and his, usually, with "the other guy did it too" defence, but you know, Misty, this ain't Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, in this one there is dead people and Slow is lying about it.Yep.And one more thing, and I'm actually gonna side with you sme one this one. From your other thread...http://liberalforum....11#entry2876111My point is that Susan Rice has been hammered for going on TV and relaying the intelligence she was given.I posted this the day she was on the Sunday shows...This was all planned. It's like i can see the future.

I posted this the day she was on the Sunday shows...This was all planned. It's like i can see the future.I'm still not buying this whole cover-up thing.Nobody in their right mind would ever believe that Obama has destroyed all the terrorists in the world.And he would never try to convince us that he did that.That would be ludicrous.

I'm still not buying this whole cover-up thing.That's some quality debating right there.So, what do you think of ol' teach's big welcome to you as our newest senior moderator? (Got you some views too, I bet)

That's some quality debating right there.So, what do you think of ol' teach's big welcome to you as our newest senior moderator? (Got you some views too, I bet)I haven't seen it. Where?I was hoping to fly below the radar on this one.

Hostess Blames Union For Bankruptcy After Tripling CEOs PayToday, Hostess Brands inc. the company famed for its sickly sweet desert snacks like Twinkies and Sno Balls announced theyd be shuttering after more than eighty years of production. But while headlines have been quick to blame unions for the downfall of the company theres actually more to the story: While the company was filing for bankruptcy, for the second time, earlier this year, it actually tripled its CEOs pay, and increased other executives compensation by as much as 80 percent. At the time, creditors warned that the decision signaled an attempt to sidestep bankruptcy rules, potentially as a means for trying to keep the executive at a failing company. The Confectionery, Tobacco Workers & Grain Millers International Union pointed this out in their written reaction to the news that the business is closing:BCTGM members are well aware that as the company was preparing to file for bankruptcy earlier this year, the then CEO of Hostess was awarded a 300 percent raise (from approximately $750,000 to $2,550,000) and at least nine other top executives of the company received massive pay raises. One such executive received a pay increase from $500,000 to $900,000 and another received one taking his salary from $375,000 to $656,256.Certainly, the company agreed to an out-sized pension debt, but the decision to pay executives more while scorning employee contracts during a bankruptcy reflects a lack of good managerial judgement. It also follows a trend of rising CEO pay in times of economic difficulty. At the manufacturing company Caterpillar, for example, they froze workers pay while boosting their CEOs pay to $17 million. And at Citigroup, CEO Vikram Pandit received $6.7 million for crashing his company, walking off with $260 million after the business lost 88 percent of its value.

I haven't seen it. Where?I was hoping to fly below the radar on this one.Good one.

I love it!

Top Georgia GOP Lawmakers Host Briefing On Secret Obama Mind-Control PlotPresident Obama is using a Cold War-era mind-control technique known as "Delphi" to coerce Americans into accepting his plan for a United Nations-run communist dictatorship in which suburbanites will be forcibly relocated to cities. That's according to a four-hour briefing delivered to Republican state senators at the Georgia state Capitol last month.On October 11, at a closed-door meeting of the Republican caucus convened by the body's majority leader, Chip Rogers, a tea party activist told Republican lawmakers that Obama was mounting this most diabolical conspiracy. The eventcaptured on tape by a member of the Athens-based watchdog Better Georgia (who was removed from the room after 52 minutes)had been billed as an information session on Agenda 21, a nonbinding UN agreement that commits member nations to promote sustainable development. In the eyes of conservative activists, Agenda 21 is a nefarious plot that includes forcibly relocating non-urban-dwellers and prescribing mandatory contraception as a means of curbing population growth. The invitation to the Georgia state Senate event noted the presentation would explain: "How pleasant sounding names are fostering a Socialist plan to change the way we live, eat, learn, and communicate to 'save the earth.'"The meeting consisted of a PowerPoint presentation followed by a 90-minute screening of the anti-Agenda 21 documentary, Agenda: Grinding America Down. It was emceed by Field Searcy, a local conservative activist who was forced out of the Georgia Tea Party in April due to his endorsement of conspiracy theories about the president's birth certificate and the collapse of World Trade Center Tower 7. The presentation also featured a special video cameo from conservative talking-head Dick Morris in which the former Clinton aide warns that Obama "wants to force everyone into the cities from whence our ancestors fled."About 23 minutes into the briefing, Searcy explained how President Obama, aided by liberal organizations like the Center for American Progress and business groups like local chambers of commerce, are secretly using mind-control techniques to push their plan for forcible relocation on the gullible public: They do that by a process known as the Delphi technique. The Delphi technique was developed by the Rand Corporation during the Cold War as a mind-control technique. It's also known as "consensive process." But basically the goal of the Delphi technique is to lead a targeted group of people to a pre-determined outcome while keeping the illusion of being open to public input. How perilous is the situation? Here's a slide from the presentation comparing Obama's record to that of Mao and Stalin:(Read more and watch the video at the link in the title.)This presentation didn't take place in someone's basement, it took place in the Georgia State Senate, and the video featured a cameo appearance by Dick Morris of FOX News.

Arizona Gun Store Refuses To Sell Guns To Anyone Who Voted For ObamaThe owner of the Southwest Shooting Authority in Pinetop, Arizona is testing out a new business strategy: banning anyone who voted for President Obama from the store. Owner Cope Reynolds took out an ad in the local newspaper announcing his new policy, writing If you voted for Barack Obama, your business is not welcome at Southwest Shooting Authority. A similar sign is posted on the front door of the shop as well. Reynolds prefaced his ad campaign with a letter posted to firearm news website AmmoLand: Effective immediately, if you voted for Obama, your money is no good here. You have proven beyond a doubt that you are not responsible enough to own a firearm. We have just put a sign up on the front door to save you the trouble of walking all the way in here.Gun advocates have been notoriously critical of the Obama administration for its perceived slights of the second amendment, this despite overseeing the expansion of gun rights during Obamas first four years in the White House. Reynolds feelings about a second Obama administration were hardly a secret before his ad appeared, taking to Facebook to lend his support for the fringe secessionist movement that has sprung up in reaction to Obamas reelection as well as the notion that President Obama is coming for conservatives guns.Maybe Obama should 'gift' the people who voted for him with guns.

I love it!Good deal.Okay, warm and fuzzy time is over, back to our topic of contention...Today a white house advisor said that the white house was not the entity that took the "Benghazi was a terroist attack" language out of the brief that originated in the CIA.Assuming the white house is not lying (hehe) that means that somewhere between the CIA and the white house somebody took that language out of the brief. This shouldn't be quite so hard to identify, yet this information is not forthcoming.Can you make the case, however lame, Misty, as to how this can not be constured as stonewalling?(Also, I could be ranting about this in The Mighty Horse Thread, but as part of my gracious welcome to the new (again) senior moderater, I chooose to do this here. The paty hat image was a bonus. There ya go.)

Good deal.Okay, warm and fuzzy time is over, back to our topic of contention...Today a white house advisor said that the white house was not the entity that took the "Benghazi was a terroist attack" language out of the brief that originated in the CIA.Assuming the white house is not lying (hehe) that means that somewhere between the CIA and the white house somebody took that language out of the brief. This shouldn't be quite so hard to identify, yet this information is not forthcoming.Can you make the case, however lame, Misty, as to how this can not be constured as stonewalling?(Also, I could be ranting about this in The Mighty Horse Thread, but as part of my gracious welcome to the new (again) senior moderater, I chooose to do this here. The party hat image was a bonus. There ya go.)They didn't take the 'Benghazi was a terroist attack' language out of the brief.From what I read they just changed 'Al Qaeda' to 'extremists'.And here is why:The first draft of the CIA unclassified talking points stated there were indications the attack was linked to al Qaeda, but during the interagency process when the talking points were reviewed, al Qaeda was changed to extremists. The official said the change was not a political decision. "The points were not, as has been insinuated by some, edited to minimize the role of extremists, diminish terrorist affiliations, or play down that this was an attack. There were legitimate intelligence and legal issues to consider, as is almost always the case when explaining classified assessments publicly." the official explained. "First, the information about individuals linked to al-Qaeda was derived from classified sources. Second, when links were so tenuousas they still areit makes sense to be cautious before pointing fingers so you dont set off a chain of circular and self-reinforcing assumptions. Third, it is important to be careful not to prejudice a criminal investigation in its early stages.The official said the controversy over the word "terrorist" caught the intelligence community by "surprise." Most people understand that saying extremists were involved in a direct assault on the mission isnt shying away from the idea of terrorist involvement," the official said. "People assumed that it was apparent in this context that extremists who attack US facilities and kill Americans are, by definition, terrorists. Because of the various elements involved in the attack, the term extremist was meant to capture the range of participants." The talking points, the senior U.S. official explained, "were a reflection of the understanding at the time that could be provided at an unclassified level. They were preliminary and were never meant to be the final word on the issue." On who authorized the final version of the talking points, a US intelligence official said, "We're reviewing the coordination trail."CNNSo the term 'Al Qaeda' was taken out during what they call the 'interagency process'. These talking points apparently were reviewed by several of our intelligence agencies, not just the CIA.I'm still puzzled by this whole 'did they call it a terrorist attack or not' controversy.Instead of arguing over who called it what and when, shouldn't we be trying to find out what went wrong, and how we can prevent this from happening again? I think our time would be much better spent on that, then on this silly argument over semantics.(Also, I could be ranting about this in The Mighty Horse Thread, but as part of my gracious welcome to the new (again) senior moderater, I chooose to do this here. The paty hat image was a bonus. There ya go.)(I do appreciate that. Unfortunately I may not be able to play much this weekend. I have a lot to do to get ready for Thanksgiving, so forgive me if I am lax in my responses.)

They didn't take the 'Benghazi was a terroist attack' language out of the brief.From what I read they just changed 'Al Qaeda' to 'extremists'.And here is why:So the term 'Al Qaeda' was taken out during what they call the 'interagency process'. These talking points apparently were reviewed by several of our intelligence agencies, not just the CIA.I'm still puzzled by this whole 'did they call it a terrorist attack or not' controversy.Instead of arguing over who called it what and when, shouldn't we be trying to find out what went wrong, and how we can prevent this from happening again? I think our time would be much better spent on that, then on this silly argument over semantics.I want to know who denied backup to the boots on the ground when there was an ongoing firefight and why. Ain't no semantics about that.

I want to know who denied backup to the boots on the ground when there was an ongoing firefight and why. Ain't no semantics about that.If someone did deny backup, then that is a much better question than who used the words 'terrorist attack' or not.I'll have to do a little more research into that one.

Misty: I'll have to do a little more research into that one.I've been Googling my *** off, and have only been able to find anything about this so-called stand down order on right wing websites.Do you have a more mainstream source teacher?Hmmmmm...I just found this. It seems this 'stand down order' story originated at FOX News.But it seems like they mangled some important facts in the story.Fox News mangled huge Benghazi story.If Fox News cannot nail the proper location for a key player in the conflict, then how can we possibly trust it to nail particulars like stand down orders and the like?Found this:The CIA is refuting a report by Fox News that said the CIA officers at the annex were told to stand down with a new timeline.And this:Intelligence officials have disclosed a new detailed timeline of the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, acknowledging the CIA played a greater role in responding to the attack than has previously been disclosed. A senior U.S. intelligence official also insisted that the CIA security team that initially responded to the attack was not given orders to stand down in providing support, as had been suggested in media reports.[...]There were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support, said the official. The officials comments appeared to be a direct rebuttal of a Fox News report that CIA teams on the ground had been told by superior officers to stand down from providing security support to the consulate.http://abcnews.go.co...quick-response/

If someone did deny backup, then that is a much better question than who used the words 'terrorist attack' or not.I'll have to do a little more research into that one.You do that, I'll leave you be to ferret this one out on your own, but I gotta tell ya, it doesn't look good.Start with what SecDef Panetta has said on the matter so far, find out what our assets were and how far away they were. Learn what the boots on the ground had to help those assets, and if you have any general military type quesyions, well, I'm sure you know who you can ask about such things.

I've been Googling my *** off, and have only been able to find anything about this so-called stand down order on right wing websites.First of all if you want news that's not so good for Slow try a different search engine than google. Google maipulates their pages.And why are you lookin at right wing web sites? They are gonna be biased from the get go. Do you have a more mainstream source teacher?Yea, me.http://liberalforum....ost__p__2846050http://liberalforum....ost__p__28465860:15-0:35

MistyBlue, on 17 November 2012 - 04:23 PM, said:I've been Googling my *** off, and have only been able to find anything about this so-called stand down order on right wing websites.First of all if you want news that's not so good for Slow try a different search engine than google. Google maipulates their pages. And why are you lookin at right wing web sites? They are gonna be biased from the get go. I wasn't looking for right wing websites. That's what comes up when you search for stories on the 'stand down' order.The story about someone giving a 'stand down' order seems to have originated on FOX news and been picked up by a bunch of right wing blogs.The CIA disputes it. They say no 'stand down' order was ever given.So now our choice is, who do we believe? FOX news or the CIA?What a choice.

Do you have a more mainstream source teacher?Yea, me.Not quite what I had in mind when I said, 'mainstream'. LOLThe DOD is saying that there was no way they could have gotten there in time to make any difference in the deaths of the four Americans.Read more: http://www.politico....l#ixzz2CbWNccsPHopefully we will learn something from this tragedy.But it seems to me that some people are only interested in using it to bring down a president.I remember in 1983, 241 American servicemen were killed in Beirut under Reagan's watch, after Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger had advised the administration against stationing U.S. Marines in Lebanon.In 2002, the Presidential Oral History Program at the University of Virginias Miller Center of Public Affairs interviewed Caspar Weinberger about the six years (1981-1987) he spent as Ronald Reagans Secretary of Defense. Stephen Knott, the interviewer, asked him about the bombing of the U.S. Marines barracks in Beirut on Oct. 23, 1983, which killed 241 Marines. Heres his answer:Weinberger: Well, thats one of my saddest memories. I was not persuasive enough to persuade the President that the Marines were there on an impossible mission. They were very lightly armed. They were not permitted to take the high ground in front of them or the flanks on either side. They had no mission except to sit at the airport, which is just like sitting in a bulls eye. Theoretically, their presence was supposed to support the idea of disengagement and ultimate peace. I said, Theyre in a position of extraordinary danger. They have no mission. They have no capability of carrying out a mission, and theyre terribly vulnerable. It didnt take any gift of prophecy or anything to see how vulnerable they were.When that horrible tragedy came, why, as I say, I took it very personally and still feel responsible in not having been persuasive enough to overcome the arguments that Marines dont cut and run, and We cant leave because were there, and all of that. I begged the President at least to pull them back and put them back on their transports as a more defensible position. That ultimately, of course, was done after the tragedy.http://middleeast.ab...qt/me081022.htmDid Dems attack Reagan after the bombing in Beirut?I don't remember that being the case.

Okay Ms. Blue, I'm gonna take it easy on you today, gonna tidy up a loose end here before I move on to your last couple of posts there, which are begging for a pounding.Because Slow has been going around saying that Al Qaeda is about finished.I believe he did say they were 'on the run'.That doesn't mean finished or even 'about finished'.0:13This one is put to bed, right? Or would you like to quibble over the definition of "decimated?"