The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-26-2012, 03:48 PM   #26
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 
United In Orange

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 9,047
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
...
I will pose the question one more time: WHAT makes Romney/Ryan "far right neocons" in any regard whatsoever? That was your statement, so answer the question.
pricejj is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 03:51 PM   #27
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 
United In Orange

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 9,047
Default

Anyone who is against Obama's Socialist take-over, are "far right neocons" in your Marxian fantasy land, is that right tonyr the extremist?
pricejj is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 03:52 PM   #28
baja
Happy camper
 
baja's Avatar
 
Sweet

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 60,013

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ware
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricejj View Post
It's a failed foreign policy, is what it is.


I can't believe people still support Obama after fast and furious. I would never support a President who sold guns to terrorist groups, who used those guns to kill Americans on U.S. soil. That's outrageous...I don't care what party they represent.
The world of apple pie cooling on the window ledge and dad hugging the aproned misses standing in the kitchen before he saunters off the work are gone.

The world has become a more complicated place. Well it's always been complicated but now the stakes are higher.

In my youth if you crossed with someone a poke in the nose was the likely extent of it now flip someone off in traffic you risk getting shot. That's a lot of stress to pack around.
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 03:55 PM   #29
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,095
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricejj View Post
I will pose the question one more time: WHAT makes Romney/Ryan "far right neocons" in any regard whatsoever? That was your statement, so answer the question.
Did you read the article I posted?
TonyR is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 03:59 PM   #30
Spider
Mr Diplomacy
 
Spider's Avatar
 
I survived Tebow Mania at the Mane

Join Date: May 2001
Location: Elway was just an arm =MacGruder
Posts: 84,163

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Von Miller
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricejj View Post
Obama sold guns to the Libyan rebels, and as usual, they ended up in the wrong hands (i.e. Muslim Brotherhood/Al Qaeda), and were used to kill Americans.

Sounds eerily familiar to Fast and Furious.
dont you ever get tired of being an idiot ?
Spider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 04:39 PM   #31
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
All hail Hercules!

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 54,992

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricejj View Post
Anyone who is against Obama's Socialist take-over, are "far right neocons" in your Marxian fantasy land, is that right tonyr the extremist?
Socialist takeover? Do you ever get within smelling distance of reality?
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 05:56 PM   #32
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 
United In Orange

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 9,047
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
Did you read the article I posted?
I read the Obama propaganda piece disguised as an article you posted. It's hogwash, considering Obama has killed plenty innocent civilians.

Obama expanded the war on terror, he expanded drone surveillance into drone bombings, he expanded the debt by $5T (which is a record), and he signed into law a mandate which would require all of us to purchase an overpriced, unnecessary private product.

Why do you fail to mention of the FAR more dangerous neo-liberal agenda? I see you are not a fan of Dick Cheney, but you do realize the U.S. was attacked on 9/11 right? What would you have done? Sit idly by?

What did Eritrea ever do? What did Somalia ever do? What did Yemen ever do? Why would Obama destabilize or invade them? What did he hope to gain by supplying guns to the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya? What did he hope to gain by supplying guns to Mexican drug gangs? Not only were all those decisions pre-emptive in nature, but they were all misguided, and irresponsible.
pricejj is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 05:59 PM   #33
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 
United In Orange

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 9,047
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Socialist takeover? Do you ever get within smelling distance of reality?
What would you call the individual mandate, the taxpayer-funded bailouts of too big to fail banks, and the unionized auto industry?

What would you call Obama's support of government ran healthcare?

Denial is not a river in Egypt.
pricejj is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 08:48 PM   #34
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,095
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricejj View Post
I read the Obama propaganda piece disguised as an article you posted. It's hogwash, considering Obama has killed plenty innocent civilians.

Obama expanded the war on terror, he expanded drone surveillance into drone bombings, he expanded the debt by $5T (which is a record), and he signed into law a mandate which would require all of us to purchase an overpriced, unnecessary private product.

Why do you fail to mention of the FAR more dangerous neo-liberal agenda? I see you are not a fan of Dick Cheney, but you do realize the U.S. was attacked on 9/11 right? What would you have done? Sit idly by?

What did Eritrea ever do? What did Somalia ever do? What did Yemen ever do? Why would Obama destabilize or invade them? What did he hope to gain by supplying guns to the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya? What did he hope to gain by supplying guns to Mexican drug gangs? Not only were all those decisions pre-emptive in nature, but they were all misguided, and irresponsible.
Dear lord you're unhinged...

A "propaganda piece"? Why, because you don't agree with it?

Yes, Obama "expanded" the "war on terror" in some respects. Why? Because that's the war this country was/is actually fighting.

What should Dick Cheney and the rest of the neocons done? Hmm, how about understanding Iraq and the middle east, and having a plan for the occupation, before the invasion.

As for comparing Eritrea, Somalia, Libya, and Mexico with Iraq, and what might go down with Iran, well, that's just silly and stupid. As are you.
TonyR is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 09:00 PM   #35
Vegas_Bronco
Ring of Famer
 
Vegas_Bronco's Avatar
 
Fear is a lack of preparation.

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Now 64 Yards Out
Posts: 5,203

Adopt-a-Bronco:
1 Elam 1
Default

Hilary wants to kick Baraq's azz right now...this is going to get messy. Sad story - one of the toughest decisions they have made today. This really makes us look weak and passive on terror....exact opposite to Obama's statements in the debates.
Vegas_Bronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 09:02 PM   #36
Vegas_Bronco
Ring of Famer
 
Vegas_Bronco's Avatar
 
Fear is a lack of preparation.

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Now 64 Yards Out
Posts: 5,203

Adopt-a-Bronco:
1 Elam 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricejj View Post
I will pose the question one more time: WHAT makes Romney/Ryan "far right neocons" in any regard whatsoever? That was your statement, so answer the question.
It gives them something to argue...simply because there isn't much to show for the past 4 years. Their president has tried, but failed to bring forward a respectable term...guess he was too transparent with his real priorities and not wise enough to hide them amongst other motions.
Vegas_Bronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 05:08 AM   #37
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla!
 
L.A. BRONCOS FAN's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location
Posts: 53,915
Default

Bengahzi story = just another fail by the usual right-wing swift boat goons...

GOP's Benghazi Smoking Gun Goes Up in Smoke


—By Adam Serwer
Thu Oct. 25, 2012 8:12 AM PDT



A set of State Department emails were released Wednesday, one reporting that a local Islamist militia had claimed responsibility for the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including the US ambassador to Libya, conservatives thought they had the smoking gun that the Obama administration had lied about what had occurred.

Reuters reported Wednesday that on September 11—the day of the attack—a State Department email with the subject header "Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack" was sent to the White House. The message stated that "Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli." Case closed, conservatives said: The White House had engaged in a cover-up.

"[T]he president and his advisers repeatedly told us the attack was spontaneous reaction to the anti-Muslim video and that it lacked information suggesting it was a terrorist assault," wrote Jennifer Rubin, president of the Washington Post's Mitt Romney fan club.

"Bottom line? Barack Obama was willfully and knowingly lying to the American people," wrote Danielle Pletka, vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. (Of course, the idea that the video played a role is not inconsistent with the idea that the attack was an "act of terror," a phrase the president himself used to describe the attack in the days following the incident.)

There's only one problem—well, actually, there are many, but one big one: The email appears to have been incorrect. Ansar al-Sharia in Benghazi, the group suspected of attacking the consulate, never claimed responsibility for the assault. In fact, according to Aaron Zelin, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who monitors jihadist activity online, Ansar al-Sharia in Benghazi didn't post about the attack on its Facebook or Twitter page until September 12, the day after the attack. They expressed their approval of the incident, but they didn't take credit; they did imply members of the group might have been involved, according to Zelin, stating, "Katibat Ansar al-Sharia [in Benghazi] as a military did not participate formally/officially and not by direct orders." The statement also justifies the attack by implicitly alluding to the anti-Islam video linked to unrest in other parts of the Middle East, saying, "We commend the Libyan Muslim people in Benghazi [that were] against the attack on the [Muslim] Prophet [Muhammad]."

"It is possible staffers were mistaken in the heat of the moment," wrote Zelin in an email to Mother Jones. "Not only was there no statement from ASB until the following morning, but it did not claim responsibility." (Zelin provided Mother Jones with screenshots of AAS's Twitter feed and Facebook page, which he also provided to CNN. It's possible the posts could have been deleted, but there's no way to prove that.)

Even if the State Department email had been accurate, conservatives pounced on it eagerly without underlying corroboration, thereby providing a pretty good example of how complicated intelligence analysis can be and why it's a bad idea to simply jump on a piece of information that fits your preconceived biases. The email was just one piece of information gathered in the aftermath of the attack. While the White House's initial explanation that the attack had begun as a protest turned out to be wrong, the email itself doesn't bear on two of the major remaining questions: what role the video played and whether the attack was planned or spontaneous.

You'd think that this would be obvious, but in the future it's a good idea to remember that just because someone posts something on Facebook, that doesn't necessarily mean it's true. Even better: Just because someone said someone posted something on Facebook doesn't mean it's true. Even if you really, really want it to be.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 05:42 AM   #38
elsid13
Lost In Space
 
elsid13's Avatar
 
Bóg, Honor, Ojczyzna

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 19,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
I hope this proves to be untrue. Not responding when fellow Americans are under fire is a treasonous act, AFAIC.
No it wasn't a treasonous act but the correct tactical decision. Only in the movies does a undermanned lightly armed force attack and "win" against prepared larger force. The on the ground American response force didn't have either surprise, support fire or preparation to engage or win against this terrorist force. The correct action was to regroup, consolidate defense positions and prepare for follow-on attack (which they did). If they attempted to rush to the rescue of 4 Americans left at the other facility we would most likely be grieving over the lost of 26 additional American lives.
elsid13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 05:48 AM   #39
Spider
Mr Diplomacy
 
Spider's Avatar
 
I survived Tebow Mania at the Mane

Join Date: May 2001
Location: Elway was just an arm =MacGruder
Posts: 84,163

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Von Miller
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elsid13 View Post
No it wasn't a treasonous act but the correct tactical decision. Only in the movies does a undermanned lightly armed force attack and "win" against prepared larger force. The on the ground American response force didn't have either surprise, support fire or preparation to engage or win against this terrorist force. The correct action was to regroup, consolidate defense positions and prepare for follow-on attack (which they did). If they attempted to rush to the rescue of 4 Americans left at the other facility we would most likely be grieving over the lost of 26 additional American lives.
thats just crazy talk ....next thing you will be saying is ....Rambo isnt real
Spider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 05:52 AM   #40
elsid13
Lost In Space
 
elsid13's Avatar
 
Bóg, Honor, Ojczyzna

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 19,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider View Post
thats just crazy talk ....next thing you will be saying is ....Rambo isnt real
That going to be my October "surprise" to DramaLlama and Trump.
elsid13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 06:01 AM   #41
Spider
Mr Diplomacy
 
Spider's Avatar
 
I survived Tebow Mania at the Mane

Join Date: May 2001
Location: Elway was just an arm =MacGruder
Posts: 84,163

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Von Miller
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elsid13 View Post
That going to be my October "surprise" to DramaLlama and Trump.
that drama lama. is one whacky mofo ....I guess hr goes and goes until he ruins a screen name then comes up with a new one ...Then expects everyone to think he has a clue .... as for the Donald he has gone batshiat crazy
Spider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 06:08 AM   #42
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
All hail Hercules!

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 54,992

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elsid13 View Post
No it wasn't a treasonous act but the correct tactical decision. Only in the movies does a undermanned lightly armed force attack and "win" against prepared larger force. The on the ground American response force didn't have either surprise, support fire or preparation to engage or win against this terrorist force. The correct action was to regroup, consolidate defense positions and prepare for follow-on attack (which they did). If they attempted to rush to the rescue of 4 Americans left at the other facility we would most likely be grieving over the lost of 26 additional American lives.
Spoken like a diplomat. I was in the infantry. It doesn't matter how many. When your buddies are under fire, you back them up. Period. Anyway, we're not talking about highly trained forces here. If some special forces guys show up and start laying down focused fields of fire on these little ****heads, I guarantee you, they run.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 08:16 AM   #43
elsid13
Lost In Space
 
elsid13's Avatar
 
Bóg, Honor, Ojczyzna

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 19,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Spoken like a diplomat. I was in the infantry. It doesn't matter how many. When your buddies are under fire, you back them up. Period. Anyway, we're not talking about highly trained forces here. If some special forces guys show up and start laying down focused fields of fire on these little ****heads, I guarantee you, they run.
Roh,

We both know that we aren't talking about SF unit that has trained together and mission is to take it to bad guys. We are talking a mixed PMA unit that been geared to provide diplomatic security. It also appears we are talking about 10 out 26 individual were actually trained operators with experience, while the rest we either diplomats or Intel analysts.

When operational command order them to stand still based upon live feeds from two unarmed UAVs, then most likely it was the right call. Especially when they are facing 100 plus fighters that are high on "victory" and still have intact command and control. Remember lesson #1 tactical thinking is never attempt to reinforce a defeat.

Last edited by elsid13; 10-27-2012 at 08:18 AM..
elsid13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 08:42 AM   #44
ant1999e
Ring of Famer
 
ant1999e's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: BFE
Posts: 6,276

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Money Ball
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elsid13 View Post
Roh,

We both know that we aren't talking about SF unit that has trained together and mission is to take it to bad guys. We are talking a mixed PMA unit that been geared to provide diplomatic security. It also appears we are talking about 10 out 26 individual were actually trained operators with experience, while the rest we either diplomats or Intel analysts.

When operational command order them to stand still based upon live feeds from two unarmed UAVs, then most likely it was the right call. Especially when they are facing 100 plus fighters that are high on "victory" and still have intact command and control. Remember lesson #1 tactical thinking is never attempt to reinforce a defeat.
I think you truly are "lost in space". When even the libs are disagreeing with you, that's gotta tell you something.
ant1999e is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 08:45 AM   #45
ant1999e
Ring of Famer
 
ant1999e's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: BFE
Posts: 6,276

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Money Ball
Default Petraeus Throws Obama Under the Bus

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...us_657896.html

Breaking news on Benghazi: the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ” So who in the government did tell “anybody” not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No.

It would have been a presidential decision. There was presumably a rationale for such a decision. What was it? When and why—and based on whose counsel obtained in what meetings or conversations—did President Obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need?
ant1999e is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 08:47 AM   #46
ant1999e
Ring of Famer
 
ant1999e's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: BFE
Posts: 6,276

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Money Ball
Default

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...onah-goldberg#

Petraeus v. Obama
By Jonah Goldberg
October 27, 2012 10:54 A.M.
Bill Kristol suggests that it had to be a decision by Obama himself not to help the Americans under siege in Benghazi and that David Petraeus is signaling exactly that with the CIA’s emphatic denial that the decision came from his shop. If that’s true, at what point does Petraeus have to speak out? If the reports are true, I think you can make the case that Petraeus should resign in protest. But that’s based somewhat on speculation about what I think happened. I don’t know for sure. Petraeus does.

Meanwhile, the politics are less important than the merits of this scandal. But merits aside, if Petraeus wants to run for president some day (presumably as a Republican), working for Obama is a surmountable problem. Being part of a cover-up of this kind of scandal in the October before an election? Not so much.
ant1999e is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 11:16 AM   #47
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 
United In Orange

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 9,047
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post

A "propaganda piece"? Why, because you don't agree with it?

Yes, Obama "expanded" the "war on terror" in some respects. Why? Because that's the war this country was/is actually fighting.
Obama has irresponsibly started multiple unauthorized wars, on multiple fronts, destabilizing the entire region, and putting millions of lives at risk, while killing innocent civilians.. Yet you trump up fear over Romney?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
What should Dick Cheney and the rest of the neocons done? Hmm, how about understanding Iraq and the middle east, and having a plan for the occupation, before the invasion.
Obama lost significantly more troops in Afghanistan, than were lost in Bush's entire 8 year term. Obama has shown NO understanding in the middle east...as the spreading chaos shows. Creating destability is not a good thing, and does not indicate that Obama "knows what he's doing". In fact, it proves the exact opposite.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
As for comparing Eritrea, Somalia, Libya, and Mexico with Iraq, and what might go down with Iran, well, that's just silly and stupid. As are you.
All encompass Obama's foreign policy, and all are failures. You're insults are typical and matter to no one.
pricejj is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 11:19 AM   #48
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,946
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricejj View Post
Obama has irresponsibly started multiple unauthorized wars, on multiple fronts, destabilizing the entire region, and putting millions of lives at risk, while killing innocent civilians..
What "multiple wars" has Obama started?
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 12:00 PM   #49
Bronco Bob
Tastee Freeze
 
Bronco Bob's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 9,517

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Montee Ball
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricejj View Post
Obama lost significantly more troops in Afghanistan, than were lost in Bush's entire 8 year term.
Of course. Bush abandoned Afghanistan to fight a needless war in Iraq.
When Obama decided to go back and fight the real enemy in Afghanistan he
sent in a lot more soldiers. More soldiers fighting more battles means more
are going to get killed. By the same token a lot less soldier died in Iraq
under Obama than did while Bush was president, because less soldiers were
fighting in Iraq.
Bronco Bob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 12:09 PM   #50
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
All hail Hercules!

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 54,992

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricejj View Post
Obama has irresponsibly started multiple unauthorized wars, on multiple fronts, destabilizing the entire region, and putting millions of lives at risk, while killing innocent civilians.. Yet you trump up fear over Romney?



Obama lost significantly more troops in Afghanistan, than were lost in Bush's entire 8 year term. Obama has shown NO understanding in the middle east...as the spreading chaos shows. Creating destability is not a good thing, and does not indicate that Obama "knows what he's doing". In fact, it proves the exact opposite.



All encompass Obama's foreign policy, and all are failures. You're insults are typical and matter to no one.
You are hopelessly uninformed.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:20 AM.


Denver Broncos