PDA

View Full Version : Gallup Poll: Americans Don't Give a Crap About Pet Lib/Media Issues


nyuk nyuk
05-08-2013, 10:27 PM
Surprise! (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/298423-poll-voters-want-congress-to-focus-on-jobs-not-guns-or-immigration)

Despite dominating Washington’s attention, voters say the issues of gun control and immigration reform should take a back seat to efforts to bolster the economy and create jobs, according to a new poll.

A new Gallup poll released Wednesday finds 86 percent of voters saying Congress should make its top focus job creation, with 86 percent saying Congress should prioritize work on improving the economy.

Those two issues are the top concerns for voters, with gun violence and an overhaul of the nation’s immigration reform laws at the bottom of the list of 12 priorities.

:welcome: :clown:

cutthemdown
05-08-2013, 10:30 PM
I'm not surprised. People always care most about the economy or in some cases a big war if a lot of soldiers are dying.

nyuk nyuk
05-08-2013, 10:34 PM
What we've been fed by Washington and their media lapdogs these past months (since the inauguration in specific) is a bunch of bread and circuses, though in this case minus the bread. It has allowed Washington to totally tank serious discussion of economic matters focusing instead on shifting between largely manufactured anti-gun hysteria, feel-good silliness about gay couples wanting to marry, and of course appeals to pity for illegal aliens who have come here to undercut American labor because the countless employers who prefer to exploit them get away with it scot-free.

W*GS
05-08-2013, 11:00 PM
Typical nyuk - cherry-picking the part of the data that he feels supports his dogma.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/xguq5tc7xkgvv8xvfampqg.gif

nyuk nyuk
05-08-2013, 11:45 PM
You're not all "there," are you?

Retard: What you just did was ignore the first paragraph of the original Gallup Poll page which repeats what I said about low priority.

From YOUR source, above YOUR graphic:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans put reforming immigration and reducing gun violence -- the focus of much of the attention on Capitol Hill in recent weeks -- at the bottom of a list of 12 priorities for Congress and the president to address. Americans instead say leaders in Washington should give highest priority to jobs and the economy, followed by making government work more efficiently and improving the quality of education.


While you accuse me of cherrypicking and omitting data, you repost my original statement from its original source, thus verifying what I originally said was accurate, while you accuse me of cherrypicking.

Well, now we know why you didn't explain HOW I was cherrypicking data. You just pulled that **** whole-cloth out of your ass.

What exactly IS your problem?

Rohirrim
05-09-2013, 07:48 AM
You're not all "there," are you?

Retard: What you just did was ignore the first paragraph of the original Gallup Poll page which repeats what I said about low priority.

From YOUR source, above YOUR graphic:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans put reforming immigration and reducing gun violence -- the focus of much of the attention on Capitol Hill in recent weeks -- at the bottom of a list of 12 priorities for Congress and the president to address. Americans instead say leaders in Washington should give highest priority to jobs and the economy, followed by making government work more efficiently and improving the quality of education.


While you accuse me of cherrypicking and omitting data, you repost my original statement from its original source, thus verifying what I originally said was accurate, while you accuse me of cherrypicking.

Well, now we know why you didn't explain HOW I was cherrypicking data. You just pulled that **** whole-cloth out of your ass.

What exactly IS your problem?

http://allthingsd.com/files/2011/09/oh_the_drama-225x285.png

nyuk nyuk
05-09-2013, 10:54 AM
http://allthingsd.com/files/2011/09/oh_the_drama-225x285.png

Tell me about it.

Rigs11
05-09-2013, 12:00 PM
Unlike the GOP, obama can do multiple things. That includes gun laws, immigration, and jobs. The GOP? They focus on benghazi and filibusters. yay.

Obama renews focus on jobs, economic growth with Texas trip
(Reuters) - President Barack Obama flew to Texas on Thursday to put his focus back on job creation and economic growth after concentrating on gun control legislation and immigration reform in recent months.

Obama is due to hold events around the country to draw attention to his efforts to boost economic growth through jobs that benefit the middle class, a White House official said.

The trip comes as a poll shows Americans say what they want most from politicians in Washington is job creation and action that will help the economy grow.

In a visit to the Austin, Texas, area, Obama was due to visit Applied Materials, which makes semiconductors and other technology, and a high school focused on math and science. He also will meet residents and entrepreneurs.

The jobs tour follows some policy frustrations for Obama. He failed to persuade Congress to accept expanded background checks for gun buyers, a disappointing setback to his efforts to toughen gun rules after the December murders of 20 children and six adults at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut.

He also is at an impasse with congressional Republicans over a deficit reduction deal that he insists should include higher tax revenues, which Republicans oppose.

The president does appear to be making headway in his efforts to change immigration laws to open a path to citizenship for a portion of the 11 million people who are in the United States without proper documentation. However, final legislation is months off.

In the meantime, a Gallup poll released Tuesday found 86 percent of those surveyed this month ranked creating jobs as their top priority for action by Congress and Obama, tied at 86 percent with helping the economy grow.

Lower on the priority list were reducing the federal deficit at 69 percent, reforming the tax code at 59 percent, reducing gun violence at 55 percent and reforming immigration at 50 percent.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/09/us-usa-obama-jobs-idUSBRE9480DZ20130509

Rigs11
05-09-2013, 12:04 PM
Hey yuk yuk, check out this gallup poll.

Americans' Top Critique of GOP: "Unwilling to Compromise"
Democrats criticized for spending too much
by Lydia SaadPRINCETON, NJ -- As Republican leaders openly scrutinize their party after a 2012 election that was disappointing for them, rank-and-file Republicans, independents, and Democrats voice the same primary criticism of the GOP: it is "too inflexible" or "unwilling to compromise." When asked to say what they most dislike about the Republican Party, 26% of Republicans, 17% of independents, and 22% of Democrats offer this critique -- leading all other mentions.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/zgnfrog5ukmyfzthshfpkg.gif

http://www.gallup.com/poll/161573/americans-top-critique-gop-unwilling-compromise.aspx

nyuk nyuk
05-09-2013, 12:06 PM
Rigs, then why is Obama quiet on the economy while he loudly beats the feel-good gay marriage drum and pretends that gun control and amnesty are both widely popular and supported? Why is this going on?

What about Benghazi do you find offensive? What about filibustering trash legislation do you find offensive?

cutthemdown
05-09-2013, 02:37 PM
Unlike the GOP, obama can do multiple things. That includes gun laws, immigration, and jobs. The GOP? They focus on benghazi and filibusters. yay.

Obama renews focus on jobs, economic growth with Texas trip
(Reuters) - President Barack Obama flew to Texas on Thursday to put his focus back on job creation and economic growth after concentrating on gun control legislation and immigration reform in recent months.

Obama is due to hold events around the country to draw attention to his efforts to boost economic growth through jobs that benefit the middle class, a White House official said.

The trip comes as a poll shows Americans say what they want most from politicians in Washington is job creation and action that will help the economy grow.

In a visit to the Austin, Texas, area, Obama was due to visit Applied Materials, which makes semiconductors and other technology, and a high school focused on math and science. He also will meet residents and entrepreneurs.

The jobs tour follows some policy frustrations for Obama. He failed to persuade Congress to accept expanded background checks for gun buyers, a disappointing setback to his efforts to toughen gun rules after the December murders of 20 children and six adults at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut.

He also is at an impasse with congressional Republicans over a deficit reduction deal that he insists should include higher tax revenues, which Republicans oppose.

The president does appear to be making headway in his efforts to change immigration laws to open a path to citizenship for a portion of the 11 million people who are in the United States without proper documentation. However, final legislation is months off.

In the meantime, a Gallup poll released Tuesday found 86 percent of those surveyed this month ranked creating jobs as their top priority for action by Congress and Obama, tied at 86 percent with helping the economy grow.

Lower on the priority list were reducing the federal deficit at 69 percent, reforming the tax code at 59 percent, reducing gun violence at 55 percent and reforming immigration at 50 percent.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/09/us-usa-obama-jobs-idUSBRE9480DZ20130509



LOL same ole crap. Obama talks about jobs, then says he needs another stimulus to create them. Ummm we saw that waste already and aren't going for it again. He can forget about another stimulus it ain't happening. He can forget about raising taxes again because it ain't happening. He is going to lose more seats in the midterms and become a lame duck.

You create jobs by reducing govt regulation, reducing tax on corps and small businesses. You don't create them by going to texas and giving a speach about how you want to create more jobs. What a joke.

cutthemdown
05-09-2013, 02:39 PM
Also he lost on guns = failure
immigration being hijacked by repubs = he won't get all the credit for it
Jobs = he spent 90 billion for a few thousand jobs in green energy. Wow way to go.

So at best he gets 1/3 of his agenda done. What a sucky President he is.

Requiem
05-09-2013, 02:43 PM
Congratulations Captain Obvious, most President's lose seats during mid-term elections. Considering the Democrats have way more seats up in the Senate and the Republicans already did redistricting to make sure they kept the House, that was pretty much a given.

houghtam
05-09-2013, 02:46 PM
Also he lost on guns = failure
immigration being hijacked by repubs = he won't get all the credit for it
Jobs = he spent 90 billion for a few thousand jobs in green energy. Wow way to go.

So at best he gets 1/3 of his agenda done. What a sucky President he is.

You think Bush was a good president.

Your opinion is irrelevant.

Requiem
05-09-2013, 02:52 PM
http://tagsgf.com/wp-content/uploads/deftones.png

Rigs11
05-09-2013, 03:12 PM
Rigs, then why is Obama quiet on the economy while he loudly beats the feel-good gay marriage drum and pretends that gun control and amnesty are both widely popular and supported? Why is this going on?

What about Benghazi do you find offensive? What about filibustering trash legislation do you find offensive?

it's politics. what is the GOP trying to accomplish here?

http://obamadiary.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/tumblr_mmim4w6kk41r9t0f2o1_1280.jpg

DenverBrit
05-09-2013, 03:21 PM
it's politics. what is the GOP trying to accomplish here?

http://obamadiary.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/tumblr_mmim4w6kk41r9t0f2o1_1280.jpg

Certainly could hear a pin drop during the Bush years.

nyuk nyuk
05-09-2013, 03:46 PM
it's politics. what is the GOP trying to accomplish here?


How about honesty and accountability?

This junk graphic is a total non sequitur. Can you show us where these attacks were under similar circumstances and the GOP sat on their hands? If not, you have no argument.

nyuk nyuk
05-09-2013, 03:47 PM
Certainly could hear a pin drop during the Bush years.

Kind of like how the suicide rate of soldiers was huge news under Bush but hush-hush under Obama - especially since rates are higher?

You mean like that?

nyuk nyuk
05-09-2013, 03:48 PM
You think Bush was a good president.

Your opinion is irrelevant.

Better than Obama.

W*GS
05-09-2013, 03:54 PM
Better than Obama.

By what measure?

Oh yeah - your twisted dogma.

Never mind.

houghtam
05-09-2013, 03:58 PM
Certainly could hear a pin drop during the Bush years.

Don't forget how they always preface any argument of that sort with "since 9/11", as if it never happened.

DenverBrit
05-09-2013, 04:01 PM
Kind of like how the suicide rate of soldiers was huge news under Bush but hush-hush under Obama - especially since rates are higher?

You mean like that?

Stupid deflection, but typical.

They obviously need to work on the "hush-hush" thingy.

So you're ok with the zero outrage when Bush was in office and 60 embassy personnel were killed?

DenverBrit
05-09-2013, 04:02 PM
Don't forget how they always preface any argument of that sort with "since 9/11", as if it never happened.

....or avoid debating the issue by deflecting.

houghtam
05-09-2013, 04:08 PM
Kind of like how the suicide rate of soldiers was huge news under Bush but hush-hush under Obama - especially since rates are higher?

You mean like that?

Oh, yes...HUSH HUSH!

You must not get out much...

Top 7 Search Results (edit: search results are for "nbc military suicides" - no quotes):

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/14/16510852-military-suicide-rate-hit-record-high-in-2012?lite

Military suicide rate hit record high in 2012

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/05/17933953-red-flags-army-takes-note-as-vet-rapper-soldier-hards-lyrics-tackle-suicide?lite

'Red Flags': Army takes note as vet rapper Soldier Hard's lyrics tackle suicide

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/05/17197076-are-brain-injuries-from-ied-blasts-causing-the-military-suicide-crisis?lite

Are brain injuries from IED blasts causing the military suicide crisis?

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/47726225/

Pentagon reports 154 suicides in first 155 days of 2012

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/02/17148761-why-modern-soldiers-are-more-susceptible-to-suicide?lite

Why modern soldiers are more susceptible to suicide

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/28/16540098-like-an-airborne-disease-concern-grows-about-military-suicides-spreading-within-families?lite

'Like an airborne disease': Concern grows about military suicides spreading within families

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/01/16811249-22-veterans-commit-suicide-each-day-va-report?lite

22 veterans commit suicide each day: VA report

DenverBrit
05-09-2013, 04:10 PM
How about honesty and accountability?

This junk graphic is a total non sequitur. Can you show us where these attacks were under similar circumstances and the GOP sat on their hands? If not, you have no argument.

Far worse, but keep spinning.

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al-Qaida attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of “Bali Bombings.” No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al-Qaida terrorists storm the diplomatic compound killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaida terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name “David Foy.” This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what’s considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting “Allahu akbar” storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

houghtam
05-09-2013, 04:15 PM
Far worse, but keep spinning.

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al-Qaida attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of “Bali Bombings.” No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al-Qaida terrorists storm the diplomatic compound killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaida terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name “David Foy.” This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what’s considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting “Allahu akbar” storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

Nope, none of those were on September 11th. You can be forgiven for attacks on Americans on any other day except September 11th.

Oh, and September 11th, 2001. :thumbs:

DenverBrit
05-09-2013, 04:20 PM
Nope, none of those were on September 11th. You can be forgiven for attacks on Americans on any other day except September 11th.

Oh, and September 11th, 2001. :thumbs:

What was I thinking. ;D

Rohirrim
05-09-2013, 04:34 PM
Go read Darrell Issa's Wiki write-up. He's a bigger criminal than Delay was. Goddamn convicted car thief and professional liar. Worthless piece of crap shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the Congress. Only the Republicans could stand up for that pos. The media loves to go after Hillary, but I never hear them bring up Issa's past. Why is that?

nyuk nyuk
05-09-2013, 05:43 PM
Far worse, but keep spinning.

I didn't ask for attacks; I asked for attacks under similar questionable/scandalous circumstances. Two different things and you clearly cannot provide the latter.

nyuk nyuk
05-09-2013, 05:48 PM
Go read Darrell Issa's Wiki write-up. He's a bigger criminal than Delay was. Goddamn convicted car thief and professional liar. Worthless piece of crap shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the Congress. Only the Republicans could stand up for that pos. The media loves to go after Hillary, but I never hear them bring up Issa's past. Why is that?

Uhm, two words: Marion Barry. His dirt was done IN office, not some crap from way before. Further, you can differentiate between convictions and dropped charges I hope? Looks like you can't.

Double standards much?

DenverBrit
05-09-2013, 06:30 PM
I didn't ask for attacks; I asked for attacks under similar questionable/scandalous circumstances. Two different things and you clearly cannot provide the latter.

Another typical deflect and avoid response.

You're not here to debate, you're nothing more than an argumentative Troll.

gunns
05-09-2013, 06:36 PM
Kind of like how the suicide rate of soldiers was huge news under Bush but hush-hush under Obama - especially since rates are higher?

You mean like that?

I heard that on the news just the other day. Extremely sad.

My biggest gripe when Obama was running for office the first time were the right evangelist pushing gay marriage, abortion, and yes, gun control to the forefront and making those the biggest platforms. Sandy Hook made gun control the big issue it has become and the polls indicate most Americans are for background checks. We should implement it and move on. And that they are for some kind of immigration law that helps the "good" immigrants get citizenship while paying for it, just like Bush did with amnesty in 2001. Then let's move on.

TonyR
05-10-2013, 07:17 AM
You create jobs by reducing govt regulation, reducing tax on corps and small businesses. You don't create them by going to texas and giving a speach about how you want to create more jobs. What a joke.

Speaking of jokes, you idiot, corporate profits are strong and the stock market is soaring. The lack of jobs has very little to do with the things you mentioned in your I-like-to-pretend-I-know-what-I'm-talking-about post.

houghtam
05-10-2013, 08:07 AM
Deregulation created about 15 or so new jobs last month in West, Texas.

DenverBrit
05-10-2013, 08:09 AM
Speaking of jokes, you idiot, corporate profits are strong and the stock market is soaring. The lack of jobs has very little to do with the things you mentioned in your I-like-to-pretend-I-know-what-I'm-talking-about post.

It's amazing how much of the current right wing mantra of 'don't tax the job creators' has morphed from fantasy into fact. No matter how obvious the bs, they keep on repeating it, until they actually believe it. Anyone who has taken the risks of starting a business understands who creates the jobs, and it's not the wealthy investor class. It's the entrepreneur and consumer demand.

Here's The Real Problem With Mitt Romney's Economic Plan: 'Rich People' Don't Create The Jobs


Specifically, Romney's policies are designed to give more money to wealthy Americans and companies, on the theory that they will then use this cash to invest in other companies and create jobs.

This treatment plan ignores two important things:

The wealthiest Americans and corporations already have plenty of cash to invest. The reason they are not investing it aggressively is not that they don't have it--it's that the investments won't produce a compelling return (because the customers of the companies they would be investing in, average Americans, are strapped).
Contrary to common wisdom, rich people do not create the jobs in this country. Rich people (investors) help create jobs, but no sustainable job is created without the help of a healthy economic ecosystem--one that depends heavily on the financial health of hundreds of millions of American consumers.

The argument that "rich people create the jobs" is repeated so often that many people regard it as fact.
http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romney-economic-plan-jobs-2012-8

houghtam
05-10-2013, 08:19 AM
It's amazing how much of the current right wing mantra of 'don't tax the job creators' has morphed from fantasy into fact. No matter how obvious the bs, they keep on repeating it, until they actually believe it. Anyone who has taken the risks of starting a business understands who creates the jobs, and it's not the wealthy investor class. It's the entrepreneur and consumer demand.

Here's The Real Problem With Mitt Romney's Economic Plan: 'Rich People' Don't Create The Jobs



http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romney-economic-plan-jobs-2012-8

"There is nothing so absurd that it cannot be believed as truth if you repeat it often enough."

- William James

ant1999e
05-10-2013, 09:37 AM
it's politics. what is the GOP trying to accomplish here?

http://obamadiary.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/tumblr_mmim4w6kk41r9t0f2o1_1280.jpg

January 22 , 2002: Gunmen attack a U.S. government information center in Calcutta, India, near the U.S. Consulate. NO AMERICANS KILLED.

June 13, 2002: The US consulate in Karachi is a prime target for terrorists; in June 2002 a dozen people were killed when a car bomb exploded outside it. NO AMERICANS WERE KILLED.

September 17, 2008: Heavily armed fighters attack the U.S. Embassy in Yemen. A car bomb is detonated. At least 16 people die, including six attackers. No Americans are reportedly killed.

July 9, 2008: The U.S. Consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, is attacked in what the American ambassador to the country calls "an obvious act of terrorism" aimed at the U.S. NO AMERICANS KILLED.

September 12, 2006: Syrian authorities kill three attackers and apprehend a suspect outside the U.S. Embassy after a car explodes near the walls of the Damascus building. Three of the four KILLED were attackers. NO AMERICANS KILLED.

December 7, 2004: An attack on the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, kills nine people. The U.S. Embassy said no Americans were killed or seriously injured.

Congratulations king of false equivalencies. What's sad is most Obama nut huggers want to dismiss the facts in Benghazi for political reasons. The fact that people want to know why they were denied extra security and then left to die when they came under attack is undeniable. I don't know who's worse, those in the government who are covering it up or those citizens who help them cover it up. Quite frankly, you disgust me.

DenverBrit
05-10-2013, 11:10 AM
January 22 , 2002: Gunmen attack a U.S. government information center in Calcutta, India, near the U.S. Consulate. NO AMERICANS KILLED.

June 13, 2002: The US consulate in Karachi is a prime target for terrorists; in June 2002 a dozen people were killed when a car bomb exploded outside it. NO AMERICANS WERE KILLED.

September 17, 2008: Heavily armed fighters attack the U.S. Embassy in Yemen. A car bomb is detonated. At least 16 people die, including six attackers. No Americans are reportedly killed.

July 9, 2008: The U.S. Consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, is attacked in what the American ambassador to the country calls "an obvious act of terrorism" aimed at the U.S. NO AMERICANS KILLED.

September 12, 2006: Syrian authorities kill three attackers and apprehend a suspect outside the U.S. Embassy after a car explodes near the walls of the Damascus building. Three of the four KILLED were attackers. NO AMERICANS KILLED.

December 7, 2004: An attack on the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, kills nine people. The U.S. Embassy said no Americans were killed or seriously injured.

Congratulations king of false equivalencies. What's sad is most Obama nut huggers want to dismiss the facts in Benghazi for political reasons. The fact that people want to know why they were denied extra security and then left to die when they came under attack is undeniable. I don't know who's worse, those in the government who are covering it up or those citizens who help them cover it up. Quite frankly, you disgust me.


The terrorists are attacking US soil and in some instances, we were fortunate enough that "no Americans were killed." In other attacks, many "Americans WERE killed."

But only Benghazi matters.

How about putting your partisan devotion aside and looking at the whole picture?

Rigs11
05-10-2013, 11:23 AM
January 22 , 2002: Gunmen attack a U.S. government information center in Calcutta, India, near the U.S. Consulate. NO AMERICANS KILLED.

June 13, 2002: The US consulate in Karachi is a prime target for terrorists; in June 2002 a dozen people were killed when a car bomb exploded outside it. NO AMERICANS WERE KILLED.

September 17, 2008: Heavily armed fighters attack the U.S. Embassy in Yemen. A car bomb is detonated. At least 16 people die, including six attackers. No Americans are reportedly killed.

July 9, 2008: The U.S. Consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, is attacked in what the American ambassador to the country calls "an obvious act of terrorism" aimed at the U.S. NO AMERICANS KILLED.

September 12, 2006: Syrian authorities kill three attackers and apprehend a suspect outside the U.S. Embassy after a car explodes near the walls of the Damascus building. Three of the four KILLED were attackers. NO AMERICANS KILLED.

December 7, 2004: An attack on the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, kills nine people. The U.S. Embassy said no Americans were killed or seriously injured.

Congratulations king of false equivalencies. What's sad is most Obama nut huggers want to dismiss the facts in Benghazi for political reasons. The fact that people want to know why they were denied extra security and then left to die when they came under attack is undeniable. I don't know who's worse, those in the government who are covering it up or those citizens who help them cover it up. Quite frankly, you disgust me.

Oh now I get it, it only matters if americans are killed, then I wont bring up 911.:thumbs:

BroncoBeavis
05-10-2013, 11:32 AM
January 22 , 2002: Gunmen attack a U.S. government information center in Calcutta, India, near the U.S. Consulate. NO AMERICANS KILLED.

June 13, 2002: The US consulate in Karachi is a prime target for terrorists; in June 2002 a dozen people were killed when a car bomb exploded outside it. NO AMERICANS WERE KILLED.

September 17, 2008: Heavily armed fighters attack the U.S. Embassy in Yemen. A car bomb is detonated. At least 16 people die, including six attackers. No Americans are reportedly killed.

July 9, 2008: The U.S. Consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, is attacked in what the American ambassador to the country calls "an obvious act of terrorism" aimed at the U.S. NO AMERICANS KILLED.

September 12, 2006: Syrian authorities kill three attackers and apprehend a suspect outside the U.S. Embassy after a car explodes near the walls of the Damascus building. Three of the four KILLED were attackers. NO AMERICANS KILLED.

December 7, 2004: An attack on the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, kills nine people. The U.S. Embassy said no Americans were killed or seriously injured.

Congratulations king of false equivalencies. What's sad is most Obama nut huggers want to dismiss the facts in Benghazi for political reasons. The fact that people want to know why they were denied extra security and then left to die when they came under attack is undeniable. I don't know who's worse, those in the government who are covering it up or those citizens who help them cover it up. Quite frankly, you disgust me.

It's sad when they'll twist things this far for the team, isn't it. What wouldn't they do?

There's so many levels to this thing, I'm not sure which is the most disgusting.

The outright lies about issues of national security to the American people and press.

The government-sponsored random harassment, public shaming, scapegoating, and finally arrest of a civilian engaged in an act of (maybe distasteful) speech.

Officials at the highest level of government instructing Victims' families to aim their anger at that same civilian who they absolutely knew had nothing to do with the reason those families' sons were killed.

The constant suppression of any effort to bring these facts out, followed by the "this is old news" reaction once the evidence trickles out from behind the"transparency" firewall.

If this was a Bush scandal, every one of these clowns would be screaming Impeachment.

ant1999e
05-10-2013, 11:45 AM
The terrorists are attacking US soil and in some instances, we were fortunate enough that "no Americans were killed." In other attacks, many "Americans WERE killed."

But only Benghazi matters.

How about putting your partisan devotion aside and looking at the whole picture?

What part of "we left people there to die" do you not comprehend? This was unlike any other attack overseas. We left them under manned and then did absolutely nothing when they reported that they were under attack. And then to add insult to injury attempted to cover it up by blaming an anti Islamic video. And continued the insult by ordering State Dept officials not to talk to investigators.
So tell me, wanting answers/justice for these murdered Americans is being partisan but acting like it's not a big deal to protect the administration isn't?

houghtam
05-10-2013, 11:48 AM
Oh now I get it, it only matters if americans are killed, then I wont bring up 911.:thumbs:

It's sad when they'll twist things this far for the team, isn't it. What wouldn't they do?

There's so many levels to this thing, I'm not sure which is the most disgusting.

The outright lies about weapons of mass destruction to the American people and press.

The government-sponsored random harassment, public killing, scapegoating, and invasion of a sovereign state on trumped up charges.

Officials at the highest level of government skewing intelligence to misrepresent facts.

The constant suppression and even making light of any effort to bring to justice the people responsible for perpetrating the biggest lie in the 21st century.

If this had been a Clinton scandal, every one of these clowns would have been screaming Impeachment.

Oh wait, they did.

houghtam
05-10-2013, 11:59 AM
What part of "we left people there to die" do you not comprehend? This was unlike any other attack overseas. We left them under manned and then did absolutely nothing when they reported that they were under attack. And then to add insult to injury attempted to cover it up by blaming an anti Islamic video. And continued the insult by ordering State Dept officials not to talk to investigators.
So tell me, wanting answers/justice for these murdered Americans is being partisan but acting like it's not a big deal to protect the administration isn't?

Did you watch any of the actual hearing the other day?

There were three different people (Hicks, Chaffetz, Pickering) who all said that even if the order to move had been given, they wouldn't have arrived in time.

ant1999e
05-10-2013, 12:05 PM
Did you watch any of the actual hearing the other day?

There were three different people (Hicks, Chaffetz, Pickering) who all said that even if the order to move had been given, they wouldn't have arrived in time.

Hindsight is 20/20. There was no way for them to know this at the time. They did have enough time to save the former Seals.
We did nothing and then tried to cover so many of the facts up...

nyuk nyuk
05-10-2013, 12:05 PM
Did you watch any of the actual hearing the other day?

There were three different people (Hicks, Chaffetz, Pickering) who all said that even if the order to move had been given, they wouldn't have arrived in time.

So it's okay to let them rot?

nyuk nyuk
05-10-2013, 12:06 PM
Another typical deflect and avoid response.

You're not here to debate, you're nothing more than an argumentative Troll.

Don't blame me because your sources suck. Stick to the damned topic, Red Coat.

nyuk nyuk
05-10-2013, 12:08 PM
Hindsight is 20/20. There was no way for them to know this at the time. They did have enough time to save the former Seals.
We did nothing and then tried to cover so many of the facts up...

Democrats have the ability to brush this under the carpet and that's what they'll do.

BroncoBeavis
05-10-2013, 12:08 PM
So tell me, wanting answers/justice for these murdered Americans is being partisan but acting like it's not a big deal to protect the administration isn't?

Life comes second to political service. At least when it's political service to the right team.

DenverBrit
05-10-2013, 12:10 PM
What part of "we left people there to die" do you not comprehend? This was unlike any other attack overseas. We left them under manned and then did absolutely nothing when they reported that they were under attack. And then to add insult to injury attempted to cover it up by blaming an anti Islamic video. And continued the insult by ordering State Dept officials not to talk to investigators.
So tell me, wanting answers/justice for these murdered Americans is being partisan but acting like it's not a big deal to protect the administration isn't?

Benghazi is a cluster**** and needs to be aired out. But ignoring years of embassy attacks where even more Americans died is also a disgrace.

This investigative process should have began years ago. Yemen and Karachi embassies were attacked multiple times, yet there were no congressional investigations to determine if those attacks were preventable. All attacks by terrorists should be carefully examined and lessons learned. We give billions to the military, intelligence agencies, homeland security etc. Yet here we are, discussing only what happened after the attack, and not how it should never have happened. This shouldn't be about partisan politics, but until all incidents are similarity scrutinized, it feels that way.

Protecting ANY administration is unacceptable, and that's my point.

houghtam
05-10-2013, 12:12 PM
Benghazi is a cluster**** and needs to be aired out. But ignoring years of embassy attacks where even more Americans died is also a disgrace.

This investigative process should have began years ago. Yemen and Karachi embassies were attacked multiple times, yet there were no congressional investigations to determine if those attacks were preventable. All attacks by terrorists should be carefully examined and lessons learned without first coming up with a conspiracy theory and then frantically searching for facts to substantiate it. We give billions to the military, intelligence agencies, homeland security etc. Yet here we are, discussing only what happened after the attack, and not how it should never have happened. This shouldn't be about partisan politics, but until all incidents are similarity scrutinized, it feels that way.

Protecting ANY administration is unacceptable, and that's my point.

FYP, but pretty much spot on.

nyuk nyuk
05-10-2013, 12:19 PM
I don't think this case involves much conspiracy theorizing. I was one of several on this forum at the time saying it was obvious Islamic terrorism when the White House was going on about demonstrations over a cheesy video, even while we were seeing live footage of hundreds of people with Al Qaeda flags on the grounds of the US Embassy in Cairo. Then we find out that indeed that an Al Qaeda sympathizing (or member?) group claimed responsibility early on.

I think ultimately this is a coverup to hide epic incompetence.

nyuk nyuk
05-10-2013, 12:20 PM
Benghazi is a cluster**** and needs to be aired out. But ignoring years of embassy attacks where even more Americans died is also a disgrace.

How were they ignored and how do you know they were ignored? Was anyone told to stand down?

TonyR
05-10-2013, 12:22 PM
I was one of several on this forum at the time saying...

LOL Which screen name were you using at that time? Were you epicsocialism4tw or had you already had your supposed sex change and morphed into nyuk nyuk?

DenverBrit
05-10-2013, 12:26 PM
How were they ignored and how do you know they were ignored? Was anyone told to stand down?

If they weren't ignored, why were there so many incidents? If our intelligence agencies are so incompetent, we should be looking much deeper. It's easy to investigate AFTER the incident, do you have any knowledge of SIMILAR investigations to PREVENT such incidents??

Dozens of Americans have been killed in Embassy attacks by terrorists over the years. How many Congressional investigations were held to determine what happened??

nyuk nyuk
05-10-2013, 12:28 PM
LOL Which screen name were you using at that time? Were you epicsocialism4tw or had you already had your supposed sex change and morphed into nyuk nyuk?

Wow, you sound like a 10 year old. Congrats - you've hit double digits. You get today's golf clap!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v164/punisher898/GolfClap.gif

nyuk nyuk
05-10-2013, 12:31 PM
If they weren't ignored, why were there so many incidents? If our intelligence agencies are so incompetent, we should be looking much deeper. It's easy to investigate AFTER the incident, do you have any knowledge of SIMILAR investigations to PREVENT such incidents??

Dozens of Americans have been killed in Embassy attacks by terrorists over the years. How many Congressional investigations were held to determine what happened??

You're asking me to prove your assertion for you. I think not.

TonyR
05-10-2013, 12:35 PM
Dozens of Americans have been killed in Embassy attacks by terrorists over the years. How many Congressional investigations were held to determine what happened??

This couldn't possibly have anything to do with damaging Hillary's potential 2016 candidacy, could it?!?

DenverBrit
05-10-2013, 12:35 PM
You're asking me to prove your assertion for you. I think not.

Assertion? No, those were questions. Once again, you duck and deflect.

I'll simplify it for you.

"How many previous attacks on US Embassies were investigated by Congress??"

nyuk nyuk
05-10-2013, 12:38 PM
Assertion? No, those were questions. Once again, you duck and deflect.

I'll simplify it for you.

"How many previous attacks on US Embassies were investigated by Congress??"

You assert they weren't investigated, so state your case. Answer your own questions. Don't drop blobs out of your backside because others won't do the work for you.

How is ME ducking and deflecting that I won't do your research for you?

nyuk nyuk
05-10-2013, 12:39 PM
This couldn't possibly have anything to do with damaging Hillary's potential 2016 candidacy, could it?!?

I don't think the Republicans are responsible for making her act like a deflective jackass on the topic of Benghazi.

B-Large
05-10-2013, 12:39 PM
What we've been fed by Washington and their media lapdogs these past months (since the inauguration in specific) is a bunch of bread and circuses, though in this case minus the bread. It has allowed Washington to totally tank serious discussion of economic matters focusing instead on shifting between largely manufactured anti-gun hysteria, feel-good silliness about gay couples wanting to marry, and of course appeals to pity for illegal aliens who have come here to undercut American labor because the countless employers who prefer to exploit them get away with it scot-free.

They've taken action on the economy, the stimulus, QE, Fed buying Long Term Assets... all of them worked in some shape of form, but lets be honest, things that would really help the economy like tax reform are entitlememts reforms are not going to happen is this hyper-partisan environment....

People do care about Gun measures, the background check bill shoud have passed if it did not have amendment to it- but that what you get when politicans play game instead of putting out clean Bills.

Gay Right is only "silliness" if you are straight and have full rights as an American.

Immigration is an issue that needs to be dealt with, especialy if you expect the GOP to survive. GOP strongholds in many States will be begin to buckle as minorities and immigrants vote democrat, there is just no doubt R will have the egg on their face of an immigratiion fall out. What I find ironic about the GOP distaste for Mexican immigrant expecially, the are typically family oriented, anti-abortion Christians.... they should be locks for the GOP, but they continue to kick that voting block in the marbles... I don't get it, but then again that's why I don't generally vote for R's.

**and to add, Americans don't really care about Benghazi- they don't understand what happened, lost interest long ago, apparently only R'sd continue to carry that torch- I am not saying it is right, but Americans don't care anymore

DenverBrit
05-10-2013, 12:51 PM
You assert they weren't investigated, so state your case. Answer your own questions. Don't drop blobs out of your backside because others won't do the work for you.

How is ME ducking and deflecting that I won't do your research for you?

LOL

I just did. :rofl:

Only Benghazi is being investigated by Congress. End of story.

If you have information to show that other Embassy attacks were investigated by Congress, post it.

Are you really this obtuse, or just being an argumentative Troll, as usual?

nyuk nyuk
05-10-2013, 12:52 PM
The only "dealing with" immigration is enforcing border law and stopping the environment of undercutting American wages with cheaper foreign labor. You, like all too many on the far left of the Democratic party, especially, conflate legal immigration with illegal aliens who not only displace American workers but also lower wages across the board. Is there some reason other than vote purchasing that you think these people should be legalized? As I said, American workers are being screwed by their presence, not counting the tax base and infrastructure being burdened.

I guess it all boils down to who you represent: Americans or illegal aliens? The Democratic Party, especially, seems to increasingly prefer illegals over Americans. They have all but totally abandoned the American working class.

Some people ("people" in a general sense as you used it is a gross exaggeration) care about gun measures and gay marriage, but not nearly to the level you think they do and not nearly to the level you see matching the nearly endless loud clamoring and white knighting in Washington. As I said, this issue is being presented NOW because it's a feel-good distraction from the bad economy which is far higher on the list of concerns for Americans. If they're taking on the economy, why don't they talk about it instead of whispering about the economy and screaming loudly about gay people and illegal aliens? Why no also discuss how enforcing immigration law would free up millions of jobs for unemployed Americans? Notice how that is conspicuously absent from the discussion? We can give illegal aliens food stamps but we can't enforce laws to encourage self-deportation? REALLY?

If you think marriage "rights" (never has been a right) is a mark of equality, then I can only hope you want incestuous marriages, child marriages, harems, and triad marriages, because after all, if you're going to insist that all comers marrying is a right, you'd better be consistent enough and apply it everywhere. Marriage has never been a universal right nor should it be, nor does it mean that everyone denied a state-recognized marriage certificate is "oppressed." That's utter garbage.

Democrats were intelligent enough to kill their own gun bills, yet Obama and others loudly got on TV and blamed it on an NRA conspiracy, citing like a mantra a single outdated poll of questionable reliability about the alleged 90% figure and telling the GOP "You should be ashamed!"

nyuk nyuk
05-10-2013, 12:55 PM
LOL

I just did. :rofl:

Only Benghazi is being investigated by Congress. End of story.

If you have information to show that other Embassy attacks were investigated by Congress, post it.

Are you really this obtuse, or just being an argumentative Troll, as usual?

Again, I asked for other attacks under similar circumstances which would warrant such an investigation, and you'd provided zilch.

I already asked if there were other attacks in which help was called for and support was told to stand down. You have nothing. Nada.

Go on ruffling your feathers and strutting in grandeur, Mr. Peacock, after all it's mating season, and with any luck you'll get a piece of ass.

B-Large
05-10-2013, 12:59 PM
The only "dealing with" immigration is enforcing border law and stopping the environment of undercutting American wages with cheaper foreign labor. You, like all too many on the far left of the Democratic party, especially, conflate legal immigration with illegal aliens who not only displace American workers but also lower wages across the board. Is there some reason other than vote purchasing that you think these people should be legalized? As I said, American workers are being screwed by their presence, not counting the tax base and infrastructure being burdened.

I guess it all boils down to who you represent: Americans or illegal aliens? The Democratic Party, especially, seems to increasingly prefer illegals over Americans. They have all but totally abandoned the American working class.

Some people ("people" in a general sense as you used it is a gross exaggeration) care about gun measures and gay marriage, but not nearly to the level you think they do and not nearly to the level you see matching the nearly endless loud clamoring and white knighting in Washington. As I said, this issue is being presented NOW because it's a feel-good distraction from the bad economy which is far higher on the list of concerns for Americans. If they're taking on the economy, why don't they talk about it instead of whispering about the economy and screaming loudly about gay people and illegal aliens? Why no also discuss how enforcing immigration law would free up millions of jobs for unemployed Americans? Notice how that is conspicuously absent from the discussion? We can give illegal aliens food stamps but we can't enforce laws to encourage self-deportation? REALLY?

If you think marriage "rights" (never has been a right) is a mark of equality, then I can only hope you want incestuous marriages, child marriages, harems, and triad marriages, because after all, if you're going to insist that all comers marrying is a right, you'd better be consistent enough and apply it everywhere. Marriage has never been a universal right nor should it be, nor does it mean that everyone denied a state-recognized marriage certificate is "oppressed." That's utter garbage.

Democrats were intelligent enough to kill their own gun bills, yet Obama and others loudly got on TV and blamed it on an NRA conspiracy, citing like a mantra a single outdated poll of questionable reliability about the alleged 90% figure and telling the GOP "You should be ashamed!"

I just don't see where the bad economy is these days. Market over 15K, houses in Park Hill and Stapleton sells before they are listed... I don't know anybody that is unemployed unless they have chosen to be. Yes, unemployment is still relatively high historically, but lets be honest here, that has to so more with a economic cycle than is does with anything the Government is doing- maybe the economy is on the mend, and there is no doom and gloom anymore so politicans have abandoned it to issues they feel they can achieve something on?

cutthemdown
05-10-2013, 01:14 PM
Economy isn't bad for people with money and good jobs. I think the worry is that because the fed pumps so much money in that its just another bubble for rich people to get richer. They did bring housing back by bailing out all the banks and keeping interest rates low but that sort of hurts the lower/middle class also because now they can't get loans to by houses and the prices are still high and inflated. New job claims down only because people not elgible for unemployment anymore so its a mixed bag.

I'm saving about 2 grand a month though so I can't complain too much. I have noticed tips for the band are creeping up again and that usually means people have more money.

nyuk nyuk
05-10-2013, 03:12 PM
I just don't see where the bad economy is these days. Market over 15K, houses in Park Hill and Stapleton sells before they are listed... I don't know anybody that is unemployed unless they have chosen to be. Yes, unemployment is still relatively high historically, but lets be honest here, that has to so more with a economic cycle than is does with anything the Government is doing- maybe the economy is on the mend, and there is no doom and gloom anymore so politicans have abandoned it to issues they feel they can achieve something on?

I take it you live in a fish bowl?

Start here

Source (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000)

http://i38.tinypic.com/2s7ufy8.png

Rigs11
05-10-2013, 03:20 PM
Gotta love the tired old immigration argument that yuk yuk uses.this country needs low wage workers.that is a fact.the problem with many Americans is that they feel they are too good for low wage paying jobs and so instead they complain that immigrants are stealing all their jobs or that they don't pay enough.for a member of the GOP,who is always claiming that people should take responsibility for themselves,you sure do whine a lot.

Rigs11
05-10-2013, 03:24 PM
I take it you live in a fish bowl?

Start here

Source (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000)

http://i38.tinypic.com/2s7ufy8.png

How many jobs were we losing per month when your daddy Dubya left office?

ant1999e
05-10-2013, 03:32 PM
Benghazi is a cluster**** and needs to be aired out. But ignoring years of embassy attacks where even more Americans died is also a disgrace.

This investigative process should have began years ago. Yemen and Karachi embassies were attacked multiple times, yet there were no congressional investigations to determine if those attacks were preventable. All attacks by terrorists should be carefully examined and lessons learned. We give billions to the military, intelligence agencies, homeland security etc. Yet here we are, discussing only what happened after the attack, and not how it should never have happened. This shouldn't be about partisan politics, but until all incidents are similarity scrutinized, it feels that way.

Protecting ANY administration is unacceptable, and that's my point.

I agree with your point for the most point. However, if you research most of these attacks they were for the most part stopped outside of the target.

The problem is that this incident is completely different than the others. There are levels of ****edupedness. The many attacks prior to to 9-11, the denial of additional security, the non action during the attacks, the changing of the talking points and then the blaming a video, the ordering of State Department personnel not to talk to the investigators.

nyuk nyuk
05-10-2013, 03:39 PM
Gotta love the tired old immigration argument that yuk yuk uses.this country needs low wage workers.that is a fact.the problem with many Americans is that they feel they are too good for low wage paying jobs and so instead they complain that immigrants are stealing all their jobs or that they don't pay enough.for a member of the GOP,who is always claiming that people should take responsibility for themselves,you sure do whine a lot.

Fact: We have low-wage workers. They're called blue-collar Americans. Greedy pigs would rather subvert federal law and hire people who are vulnerable and less likely to fight back against exploitation so they prefer illegal aliens. It's not that hard to figure out. I saw it more than once years ago when I worked unskilled labor myself. The "need" crap is propaganda either from corporate fat cats or illegal alien lobbying groups (probably funded by Mexico City). It's also no secret that the presence of these laborers lower the wages of unskilled labor in general. Supply and demand. Oversupply of cheap labor lowers wages, period.

I don't belong to the GOP btw, I'm not registered with any party.

From the Clinton Administration's Jordan Commission --

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/TMywOal05s0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

nyuk nyuk
05-10-2013, 03:41 PM
How many jobs were we losing per month when your daddy Dubya left office?

You tell us since you're making the assertion.

It's been over 4 years. It's time to stop playing the Bush card, don't you think?

Rigs11
05-10-2013, 03:42 PM
I agree with your point for the most point. However, if you research most of these attacks they were for the most part stopped outside of the target.

The problem is that this incident is completely different than the others. There are levels of ****edupedness. The many attacks prior to to 9-11, the denial of additional security, the non action during the attacks, the changing of the talking points and then the blaming a video, the ordering of State Department personnel not to talk to the investigators.

oops..

The Benghazi "Whistleblower" Cover-Up That Wasn't
Leading up to yesterday's House Oversight Committee hearing on Benghazi, the conservative media worked diligently to drive home the idea that the "whistleblowers" who testified had been silenced and were unable to make their voices heard to Congress or other investigative authorities. Much of that narrative was driven by Republican attorney Victoria Toensing, who portrayed her own struggles with bureaucratic red tape as evidence of an administration cover-up. Fox News' Special Report cited Toensing on April 29 in reporting on allegations that "the Obama administration is trying to intimidate potential whistleblowers into silence."

But the testimony of Gregory Hicks, one of the three witnesses at yesterday's hearing, put lie to the notion that the administration was suppressing his voice and opinion. Hicks, we learned, had already spoken with Congressional investigators in Libya. And he had been interviewed -- twice -- as part of the State Department's independent internal investigation. That, combined with the fact that other Benghazi survivors and witnesses have spoken to the FBI, the State Department, and Congress, dismantles the idea that the administration worked to keep Hicks or his cohorts from being heard.

Hicks caused a brief stir yesterday when he testified to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) that he had been told by the State Department "not to allow the [regional security officer], the acting deputy chief of mission, and myself to be personally interviewed" by Rep. Jason Chaffetz when the Utah Republican led a Congressional delegation to Libya to investigate the Benghazi attacks. Some conservatives misinterpreted Hicks' testimony to mean that Hicks had been ordered not to speak to Chaffetz, period. Hicks, however, later clarified his remarks when questioned by Rep. Jackie Speier (D-NY), explaining that he had been told not to speak to Chaffetz without a State Department attorney present.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/09/the-benghazi-whistleblower-cover-up-that-wasnt/193984

Rigs11
05-10-2013, 03:44 PM
You tell us since you're making the assertion.

It's been over 4 years. It's time to stop playing the Bush card, don't you think?

700,000 on average were being lost. How many are we adding now on average a month? Do the math

nyuk nyuk
05-10-2013, 03:46 PM
700,000 on average were being lost. How many are we adding now on average a month? Do the math

No source, too vague. Try again. How is this all Bush's fault? Those job levels are dropping or stagnant at best, not rising. Obama is in year #5. Will you wait to year 8 to take a bit of blame?

Rigs11
05-10-2013, 03:47 PM
Fact: We have low-wage workers. They're called blue-collar Americans. Greedy pigs would rather subvert federal law and hire people who are vulnerable and less likely to fight back against exploitation so they prefer illegal aliens. It's not that hard to figure out. I saw it more than once years ago when I worked unskilled labor myself. The "need" crap is propaganda either from corporate fat cats or illegal alien lobbying groups (probably funded by Mexico City). It's also no secret that the presence of these laborers lower the wages of unskilled labor in general. Supply and demand. Oversupply of cheap labor lowers wages, period.

I don't belong to the GOP btw, I'm not registered with any party.

From the Clinton Administration's Jordan Commission --

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/TMywOal05s0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Wow really? so every year farmers don't need a certain number of workers to pick their crops? Interesting.

nyuk nyuk
05-10-2013, 04:01 PM
Wow really? so every year farmers don't need a certain number of workers to pick their crops? Interesting.

And here is a display of your wanton ignorance for all.

You see child, when Reagan stupidly signed the 1986 amnesty, part of that bill included a package for agricultural visas for farm labor called the H-2A Agricultural Visa. Indeed, very few illegal aliens work farms, and the farms that hire illegal labor do so to avoid the minimum labor and wage standards in the H-2A legislation. Illegals go for the blue collar jobs; janitors, fast food, hotels, meatpacking, landscaping, construction. Stuff Americans historically have done.

We don't have farms that require 12 million laborers, dude.

And you know what the H-2B visa is for? Importing cheapo foreign tech and non-agricultural workers who will work for less than Americans. Do we "need" them too? No - they are "needed" by those who wish to make a killing on saving labor costs.

ant1999e
05-10-2013, 05:05 PM
oops..

The Benghazi "Whistleblower" Cover-Up That Wasn't
Leading up to yesterday's House Oversight Committee hearing on Benghazi, the conservative media worked diligently to drive home the idea that the "whistleblowers" who testified had been silenced and were unable to make their voices heard to Congress or other investigative authorities. Much of that narrative was driven by Republican attorney Victoria Toensing, who portrayed her own struggles with bureaucratic red tape as evidence of an administration cover-up. Fox News' Special Report cited Toensing on April 29 in reporting on allegations that "the Obama administration is trying to intimidate potential whistleblowers into silence."

But the testimony of Gregory Hicks, one of the three witnesses at yesterday's hearing, put lie to the notion that the administration was suppressing his voice and opinion. Hicks, we learned, had already spoken with Congressional investigators in Libya. And he had been interviewed -- twice -- as part of the State Department's independent internal investigation. That, combined with the fact that other Benghazi survivors and witnesses have spoken to the FBI, the State Department, and Congress, dismantles the idea that the administration worked to keep Hicks or his cohorts from being heard.

Hicks caused a brief stir yesterday when he testified to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) that he had been told by the State Department "not to allow the [regional security officer], the acting deputy chief of mission, and myself to be personally interviewed" by Rep. Jason Chaffetz when the Utah Republican led a Congressional delegation to Libya to investigate the Benghazi attacks. Some conservatives misinterpreted Hicks' testimony to mean that Hicks had been ordered not to speak to Chaffetz, period. Hicks, however, later clarified his remarks when questioned by Rep. Jackie Speier (D-NY), explaining that he had been told not to speak to Chaffetz without a State Department attorney present.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/09/the-benghazi-whistleblower-cover-up-that-wasnt/193984

And he got demoted. It's obvious you don't read any posts or didn't watch any of the testimony. Your sorry attempt of a point but has already been debunked in this thread. Do yourself and us all a favor and do some research before attempting a gotcha Post.

DenverBrit
05-10-2013, 05:38 PM
Again, I asked for other attacks under similar circumstances which would warrant such an investigation, and you'd provided zilch.

I already asked if there were other attacks in which help was called for and support was told to stand down. You have nothing. Nada.


Anytime an Embassy is attacked, it's an attack upon sovereign soil.

If terrorists are repeatedly hitting US embassies....sometimes 2 or 3 times attacking the same embassy.

That, IMHO, should be grounds for an investigation into protection, intelligence and response.

Don't agree? Couldn't care less.

DenverBrit
05-10-2013, 05:47 PM
I agree with your point for the most point. However, if you research most of these attacks they were for the most part stopped outside of the target.

The problem is that this incident is completely different than the others. There are levels of ****edupedness. The many attacks prior to to 9-11, the denial of additional security, the non action during the attacks, the changing of the talking points and then the blaming a video, the ordering of State Department personnel not to talk to the investigators.

Many were stopped short, others were fatal. I find it curious that only the Benghazi attack is considered worthy of a Congregational investigation.

It stinks of politics at a time when divisive partisan politics are polarizing the country.
The investigation is warranted in light of the whistle-blowing, but I'm tired of the partisanship at a time when we need, amongst other things, a balanced budget......and I mean 'balanced.'

DC has become a cesspool and they really don't care how glaringly obvious it has become.

ant1999e
05-10-2013, 05:52 PM
Anytime an Embassy is attacked, it's an attack upon sovereign soil.

If terrorists are repeatedly hitting US embassies....sometimes 2 or 3 times attacking the same embassy.

That, IMHO, should be grounds for an investigation into protection, intelligence and response.

Don't agree? Couldn't care less.

So you don't think investigations were held? I'm pretty sure it's protocol for an investigation after an attack. That's how we improve our defenses. Root cause analysis, lessons learned, intelligence shortfalls etc.

The problem here is the lies and misinformation started right out of the gate. There may be some partisan motivation here by some but there is zero doubt that this deserves a thorough investigation because of all the misinformation and other shortfalls i've pointed out a few posts ago.

ant1999e
05-10-2013, 05:59 PM
Many were stopped short, others were fatal. I find it curious that only the Benghazi attack is considered worthy of a Congregational investigation.

It stinks of politics at a time when divisive partisan politics are polarizing the country.
The investigation is warranted in light of the whistle-blowing, but I'm tired of the partisanship at a time when we need, amongst other things, a balanced budget......and I mean 'balanced.'

DC has become a cesspool and they really don't care how glaringly obvious it has become.

I agree with everything you said. Especially in bold.

DenverBrit
05-10-2013, 06:07 PM
So you don't think investigations were held? I'm pretty sure it's protocol for an investigation after an attack. That's how we improve our defenses. Root cause analysis, lessons learned, intelligence shortfalls etc.

The problem here is the lies and misinformation started right out of the gate. There may be some partisan motivation here by some but there is zero doubt that this deserves a thorough investigation because of all the misinformation and other shortfalls i've pointed out a few posts ago.

I'm sure they were, just as they were in the case of Benghazi.

But, IMO, it shouldn't just take a whistle-blower when the sheer number of attacks warrant at least the same attention as Benghazi.

As I mentioned, the partisan politics being played in DC are the main reason we are seeing this air out at a Congressional level in a circus atmosphere.

ant1999e
05-10-2013, 06:09 PM
oops..

The Benghazi "Whistleblower" Cover-Up That Wasn't
Leading up to yesterday's House Oversight Committee hearing on Benghazi, the conservative media worked diligently to drive home the idea that the "whistleblowers" who testified had been silenced and were unable to make their voices heard to Congress or other investigative authorities. Much of that narrative was driven by Republican attorney Victoria Toensing, who portrayed her own struggles with bureaucratic red tape as evidence of an administration cover-up. Fox News' Special Report cited Toensing on April 29 in reporting on allegations that "the Obama administration is trying to intimidate potential whistleblowers into silence."

But the testimony of Gregory Hicks, one of the three witnesses at yesterday's hearing, put lie to the notion that the administration was suppressing his voice and opinion. Hicks, we learned, had already spoken with Congressional investigators in Libya. And he had been interviewed -- twice -- as part of the State Department's independent internal investigation. That, combined with the fact that other Benghazi survivors and witnesses have spoken to the FBI, the State Department, and Congress, dismantles the idea that the administration worked to keep Hicks or his cohorts from being heard.

Hicks caused a brief stir yesterday when he testified to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) that he had been told by the State Department "not to allow the [regional security officer], the acting deputy chief of mission, and myself to be personally interviewed" by Rep. Jason Chaffetz when the Utah Republican led a Congressional delegation to Libya to investigate the Benghazi attacks. Some conservatives misinterpreted Hicks' testimony to mean that Hicks had been ordered not to speak to Chaffetz, period. Hicks, however, later clarified his remarks when questioned by Rep. Jackie Speier (D-NY), explaining that he had been told not to speak to Chaffetz without a State Department attorney present.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/09/the-benghazi-whistleblower-cover-up-that-wasnt/193984

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/__-30BFfwcE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

nyuk nyuk
05-10-2013, 06:09 PM
Anytime an Embassy is attacked, it's an attack upon sovereign soil.

If terrorists are repeatedly hitting US embassies....sometimes 2 or 3 times attacking the same embassy.

That, IMHO, should be grounds for an investigation into protection, intelligence and response.

Don't agree? Couldn't care less.

Yes, that's lovely, and meaningless. How do you know it never happened? You're making all these statements with nothing behind them and getting mad at me that there's nothing behind them.

DenverBrit
05-10-2013, 06:12 PM
Yes, that's lovely, and meaningless. How do you know it never happened? You're making all these statements with nothing behind them and getting mad at me that there's nothing behind them.

Can you remember or find a Congregational investigation into any of those attacks?

Nor can I.

The rest of your post....wtf?? :rofl: