PurdueBoilers' forum posts

  • 21 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Avatar image for PurdueBoilers
PurdueBoilers

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 PurdueBoilers
Member since 2012 • 25 Posts
[QUOTE="Shmiity"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="Shmiity"]

So? You realize how retarded that is, right? "HE IS THE PRESIDENT- HE IS RESPONSIBLE!!!" That does not make any logical sense. He didn't dismantle the economy, he didn't kill bin laden, he didn't cause Benghazi. He just gets the blame because his job sucks.

It does make sense. A leader is responsible for everything that his organization does or fails to do.

Thats totally false. Barack Obama can't make people do anything. He can command, he can make the calls, but whatever actually happens on the ground is out of his hands.

That is not true. He is the President and largely has made decisions that affect the economy, foreign relations, ect. So in a broad sense, he is actually directly responsible.
Avatar image for PurdueBoilers
PurdueBoilers

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 PurdueBoilers
Member since 2012 • 25 Posts
[QUOTE="PurdueBoilers"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] What huge lie were they caught in? And what, exactly, would convince you that you're wrong? Be honest. nocoolnamejim
What lie? For weeks after the attack, the White House continued to claim it was unplanned and occured because of a video. NOW it has came to light, thanks to a leak, that emails were sent to Obama's White House within 2 HOURS of the attacks with the terrorist group that claimed responsibility of the premeditated attack. Thus, a complete lie that Obama's administration decided to stick with FOR WEEKS. THAT is the huge lie they were caught in.... or at leas the beginning of it.

Can you present your sourcing and back up your argument?

Not sure about the website, but here's a nice video of the the timeline of the lie. Notice how it is definitely based upon a video, then actually a terrorist attack (after the election): http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/11/232704/ Also, here is another timeline of the lie, this time using quotes of from our fearless leaders: http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/10/world/libya-attack-statements/index.html Again, notice how it changes. I assure you, the lie is not even in question. It is now well-known that we were lied to. The question is, did Obama give orders to basically let the soldiers/ambassador die to protect the idea that he has "killed" terrorism. That is basically where we are at. And its not a matter of me being proven right or wrong, its a matter of us all finding out what our President decided to do.
Avatar image for PurdueBoilers
PurdueBoilers

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 PurdueBoilers
Member since 2012 • 25 Posts
[QUOTE="PurdueBoilers"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] In other words, there is no information or source that you would accept as legitimate that proves you wrong. Fair enough. I guess I should have expected that going in. nocoolnamejim
Rather, I prefer not being spoon-fed information and accepting it without performing my due diligence. Especially, from a government that was caught in a huge lie just weeks ago. I would hope you feel the same way.

What huge lie were they caught in? And what, exactly, would convince you that you're wrong? Be honest.

What lie? For weeks after the attack, the White House continued to claim it was unplanned and occured because of a video. NOW it has came to light, thanks to a leak, that emails were sent to Obama's White House within 2 HOURS of the attacks with the terrorist group that claimed responsibility of the premeditated attack. Thus, a complete lie that Obama's administration decided to stick with FOR WEEKS. THAT is the huge lie they were caught in.... or at leas the beginning of it.
Avatar image for PurdueBoilers
PurdueBoilers

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 PurdueBoilers
Member since 2012 • 25 Posts
[QUOTE="PurdueBoilers"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Your allegations regarding the timeline and the actions taken are contradicted by the Pentagon's. Link Just for the record, there were TWELVE embassy attacks under Bush and two under Obama. I'm sorry. I know that conservatives are desperate to find some massive conspiracy. In fact, they've been trying for years now. And I'm sure we'll see a full Congressional investigation, but there's nothing to see here. There is no conspiracy. Sometimes bad shiiit happens in unstable places. It's just the way of the world. nocoolnamejim
Whew, thanks for the link. That settles it. No reason to distrust anything that comes out as we've never been lied to before.

In other words, there is no information or source that you would accept as legitimate that proves you wrong. Fair enough. I guess I should have expected that going in.

Rather, I prefer not being spoon-fed information and accepting it without performing my due diligence. Especially, from a government that was caught in a huge lie just weeks ago. I would hope you feel the same way.
Avatar image for PurdueBoilers
PurdueBoilers

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 PurdueBoilers
Member since 2012 • 25 Posts

[QUOTE="PurdueBoilers"][QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]Condoleezza Rice would have been a better VP candidate. She would have resonated more with minority bases considering her past, and could have reached out to women. One-two punch KO.whipassmt

The sad thing is that is true because many vote based on that alone. The true thing is that this Rice and the other Rice are both unfit to lead anyone.

Well regardless of what one thinks about Condoleeza Rice and Susan Rice, no one would deny that their uncle (Ben Rice) would be a good leader.

Also, no one has ever been upset with having Ray Rice on their fantasy football team.
Avatar image for PurdueBoilers
PurdueBoilers

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 PurdueBoilers
Member since 2012 • 25 Posts
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="PurdueBoilers"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] So...ignoring FOR WEEKS a real-time chance to save American lives is distinctly different than FOR HOURS? How, exactly? Second, you're making a couple of ginormous assumptions here. 1. You're assuming that there was something that could have been done. Maybe firing automatic weapons into a mixed crowd of hostiles and friendlies? Maybe magically teleporting in more soldiers "Starcraft" style? 2. You're assuming that Obama deliberately gave orders to let Americans die...to HELP his election chances? How does that work again? The more Americans that a president lets die the better the chances of his getting elected? Does not compute.

Did Bush know 8 hours before the planes were hijacked that those exact planes were being hijacked? Soldiers requested help. Denied. Soldiers requested help. Denied. Soldiers OFFERED TO HELP. Denied. Went anyway. The fact is that there were clear requests to be evacuated before things became to intense and these requests were ignored and then the Obama administration thought the entire country had the IQ of his voters and tried to blame it on a video....which of course turned out to be a LIE. Do you understand the terror situation? Have you heard of the "Arab Spring"? Obama claimed success and that everything was basically under control. A direct terrorist attack would undermine that lie. Therefore, obviously it was in Obama's best interest to paint this as some random event vs a plotted terror attack.

Your allegations regarding the timeline and the actions taken are contradicted by the Pentagon's. Link Just for the record, there were TWELVE embassy attacks under Bush and two under Obama. I'm sorry. I know that conservatives are desperate to find some massive conspiracy. In fact, they've been trying for years now. And I'm sure we'll see a full Congressional investigation, but there's nothing to see here. There is no conspiracy. Sometimes bad shiiit happens in unstable places. It's just the way of the world.

Whew, thanks for the link. That settles it. No reason to distrust anything that comes out as we've never been lied to before.
Avatar image for PurdueBoilers
PurdueBoilers

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 PurdueBoilers
Member since 2012 • 25 Posts
Condoleezza Rice would have been a better VP candidate. She would have resonated more with minority bases considering her past, and could have reached out to women. One-two punch KO.Stevo_the_gamer
The sad thing is that is true because many vote based on that alone. The true thing is that this Rice and the other Rice are both unfit to lead anyone.
Avatar image for PurdueBoilers
PurdueBoilers

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 PurdueBoilers
Member since 2012 • 25 Posts
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="PurdueBoilers"] I appreciate the knock on conservatives and the failure to answer the question. To compare 9/11 to Benghazi is off-base. Could Bush have done more? Absolutely. But there is a distinct difference between "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US" and having the opportunity FOR HOURS in real-time to save American lives.....and ignoring them presumably for election purposes. The questions still stands oh so knowledgable and clever liberal: If Obama deliberately ignored these requests, is that grounds for impeachment?

So...ignoring FOR WEEKS a real-time chance to save American lives is distinctly different than FOR HOURS? How, exactly? Second, you're making a couple of ginormous assumptions here. 1. You're assuming that there was something that could have been done. Maybe firing automatic weapons into a mixed crowd of hostiles and friendlies? Maybe magically teleporting in more soldiers "Starcraft" style? 2. You're assuming that Obama deliberately gave orders to let Americans die...to HELP his election chances? How does that work again? The more Americans that a president lets die the better the chances of his getting elected? Does not compute.

Did Bush know 8 hours before the planes were hijacked that those exact planes were being hijacked? Soldiers requested help. Denied. Soldiers requested help. Denied. Soldiers OFFERED TO HELP. Denied. Went anyway. The fact is that there were clear requests to be evacuated before things became to intense and these requests were ignored and then the Obama administration thought the entire country had the IQ of his voters and tried to blame it on a video....which of course turned out to be a LIE. Do you understand the terror situation? Have you heard of the "Arab Spring"? Obama claimed success and that everything was basically under control. A direct terrorist attack would undermine that lie. Therefore, obviously it was in Obama's best interest to paint this as some random event vs a plotted terror attack.
Avatar image for PurdueBoilers
PurdueBoilers

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 PurdueBoilers
Member since 2012 • 25 Posts
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]It may shock conservatives living in their little bubble, but the rest of America doesn't see anything that Obama did wrong here and sees no connection between Benghazi and the Petreus resignation. But here's the reasoning that I've seen on the two. 1. The Benghazi affair is more politically consequential than Watergate, Whitewater, Iran-Contra, Chappaquiddick, the Keating Five and the Teapot Dome scandals all rolled into one, and Romney totally would have won the election if it had been covered properly. 2. President Obama mustve ignored warnings infinitely clearer than the 8/6/01 Presidential Daily Briefing entitled Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US, which was obviously not worth investigating after 3K civilians were killed on Bush the Lessers watch. 3. The only way Obama could cover his ass in the Benghazi affair was to orchestrate a scandal to compromise the countrys most prominent general, and he fiendishly used a wingnut FBI agents obsession with a seemingly flaky Tampa socialite to kick off an investigation that would lead down paths those two pawns could not foresee. 4. Obama further used Jedi mind-tricks to silence noted political opportunist Eric Cantor after Cantor was briefed on the scandal before the election, thanks to the aforementioned wingnut FBI agent. 5. Petraeus is either, A) such a dummy that he was willing to lie to Congress on 9/13 to buy a short reprieve from the announcement of the scandal, which he knows will then engulf him and destroy his career, or B) such a dupe that he will keep lying about Benghazi even after Obama has betrayed him and destroyed his career.

I appreciate the knock on conservatives and the failure to answer the question. To compare 9/11 to Benghazi is off-base. Could Bush have done more? Absolutely. But there is a distinct difference between "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US" and having the opportunity FOR HOURS in real-time to save American lives.....and ignoring them presumably for election purposes. The questions still stands oh so knowledgable and clever liberal: If Obama deliberately ignored these requests, is that grounds for impeachment?
Avatar image for PurdueBoilers
PurdueBoilers

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 PurdueBoilers
Member since 2012 • 25 Posts
We already know the Obama administration, conveniently right before the election, lied to the American people about the Benghazi attacks in an attempt to quell concerns over terrorism. My question to you is: If it comes out that Obama gave direct orders to let Americans die when they could have been saved and the full situation/happenings were in fact known, is that grounds to impeach Obama? Or is it okay to spare a few soldiers when an election is close? On a side note, convenient time for the Petraeus affair eh?
  • 21 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3