View Poll Results: Your opinion

Voters
119. You may not vote on this poll
  • Agree

    27 22.69%
  • Disagree

    76 63.87%
  • I hope so

    40 33.61%
  • I hope not

    23 19.33%
  • Republicans are nuts

    51 42.86%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 35 of 35 FirstFirst ... 25333435
Results 341 to 349 of 349

Thread: Huckabee: Benghazi will drive Obama from office

  1. #341
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    07-08-14 @ 06:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,325

    Re: Huckabee: Benghazi will drive Obama from office

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    Benghazi isnt the end of anyone. Period.
    I have to agree with you here. As much as I hate to admit it, today's Democrats can pretty much say and do whatever the hell they want right now. Obama could even publicly declare his devotion to Marxism and he'd probably land a special provision to get him 4 more years in the White House.

  2. #342
    Spectemur Agendo Trip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 07:20 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,920

    Re: Huckabee: Benghazi will drive Obama from office

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    Benghazi isnt the end of anyone. Period.


    "The fact of the Watergate cover-up is not nearly as interesting
    as the step into making the cover-up.
    And when you understand the step,
    you understand that Richard Nixon lied.
    That he was a criminal."

    Bob Woodward

  3. #343
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:38 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,017

    Re: Huckabee: Benghazi will drive Obama from office

    Quote Originally Posted by Trip View Post
    That consent of the governed has already occurred.
    Consent needs to be continually earned, albeit informally. And as I'm sure you would agree, if the citizens withdraw their consent to be governed by a specific system or government, they have the right to change that system of government, correct?


    At best, that's a lot of romantic nonsense. The vote does not determine government's agendas, and certainly not our form of government. The only thing voting determines is the pinhead that represents you, and has nothing to do with the legitimacy of government acts.
    I did not say that specific legislation is enacted via direct votes. What I'm saying is that elections are a vital part of establishing the credibility of the government, and ensuring that the citizens have a mechanism to hold government officials accountable. And yes, we do elect individuals based, at least in part, on the agendas they say they will enact, and the policies they have in fact put into place.

    There should be no question that an electoral candidate who engages in illegal activities, and/or covers up for the illegal actions of his/her staffers undertaken to improve one's chances of election, harms the legitimacy of the elected individual.


    Just how many American hostages did Syria have?
    It is an established fact that the Reagan administration sold weapons to the Islamist government of Iran, specifically to free hostages. Numerous administrations have similarly supplied Muslim leaders and dictators with arms, including selling all sorts of weapons to Saudi Arabia. And

    And no, I don't buy the ridiculous claim that Libyan terrorists were actually Syrian operatives, who were trying to take an American hostage to, what exactly? Send him off to Syria? Persuade the US government to arm Syrian rebels? On what planet does that make sense?

  4. #344
    Spectemur Agendo Trip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 07:20 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,920

    Re: Huckabee: Benghazi will drive Obama from office

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    Consent needs to be continually earned, albeit informally. And as I'm sure you would agree, if the citizens withdraw their consent to be governed by a specific system or government, they have the right to change that system of government, correct?
    The idea of "consent needing to be continually earned" is not expressed in the Constitution anywhere.

    In fact the Constitution indicates a "form", and not the detail of government, with the "system" involving equally recognized unalienable individual rights. Or as Obama put it , the Constitution is a "charter of negative liberties", and "says what the Federal government cant do to you, but doesn't say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf." However its only a charter of "negative liberties" for the government itself. The positive liberties, recognized as individual rights, are guaranteed to the people, recognized as "unalienable", and cannot be violated, even by the "consent" of a majority of the people.

    In fact nowhere does the people's "consent" result in validation of agendas that are inherently violating the Constitution, either in giving the government powers beyond those enumerated, or in violating those pesky unalienable rights.

    If the citizens were to "withdraw" their consent by what authority would they institute some other form of government? Certainly not by the terms of any of those actual "unalienable rights". They only way to do so would be by pure, violent force, and there would be an enormous portion of the populace rejecting that objective, with equal force, and superior motivation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    I did not say that specific legislation is enacted via direct votes. What I'm saying is that elections are a vital part of establishing the credibility of the government, and ensuring that the citizens have a mechanism to hold government officials accountable. And yes, we do elect individuals based, at least in part, on the agendas they say they will enact, and the policies they have in fact put into place.

    There should be no question that an electoral candidate who engages in illegal activities, and/or covers up for the illegal actions of his/her staffers undertaken to improve one's chances of election, harms the legitimacy of the elected individual.
    And I contest<ed> the claim that elections are at all "vital", or even relevant, to the credibility <or legitimacy> of government.

    We have elections now, but our government is entirely illegitimate in action by gross transgressions against the Constitution, and the freedoms it guarantees. Were elections to stop, and we were to have a federal government entirely <and newly> constrained to those enumerated powers, the overwhelming amount of unnecessary, illegitimate and tyrannous legislation would cease, and our government would be entirely palatable and legitimate.

    Voting to hold individuals accountable is wonderful, but decidedly feeble and irrelevant in keeping government legitimate, as no individual can single-handedly cause the government to act in a legitimate or illegitimate manner, and such requires the corruption of government as a whole. Also no amount of positive votes for an individual can validate their illegitimate conduct, nor their illegitimate agendas, nor make those who are constitutionally unqualified, therefrom qualified.



    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    It is an established fact that the Reagan administration sold weapons to the Islamist government of Iran, specifically to free hostages. Numerous administrations have similarly supplied Muslim leaders and dictators with arms, including selling all sorts of weapons to Saudi Arabia. And

    And no, I don't buy the ridiculous claim that Libyan terrorists were actually Syrian operatives, who were trying to take an American hostage to, what exactly? Send him off to Syria? Persuade the US government to arm Syrian rebels? On what planet does that make sense?
    It is also an established fact that Reagan's trading Arms for Hostages did not directly result in deaths of Americans, and was entirely for the purpose of freeing hostages.

    The same cannot be said for Fast and Furious.

    Nixon was impeached for the Watergate break-in and coverup, and no lives were lost there.

    Yet the same cannot be said Obama's cover-up and deliberate non-response to the attack on the Benghazi compound.

    There's also the ongoing concern of the trade of weapons through Turkey, via Syria and Islamic fundamentalist groups, which has caused loss of life, was involved with the Benghazi attack. [NYTimes][BusinessInsider]. It is likely no coincidence that the Turkey Ambassador met with Stevens in that obscure, and insecure Benghazi compound, immediately before the attack on that compound began. There is far more to this coverup than merely Obama not wanting to have a terrorist attack on the U.S. being recognized during an election period where he has shortly beforehand proclaimed his victory over Islamic terrorism. I quite certain these arms trades will become far more of a focus, and consideration.

    By the way, wouldn't you agree that is considerably unusual for terrorists to drag a body into a hospital emergency room to see if it might yet be alive?
    Last edited by Trip; 05-15-13 at 04:42 AM.

  5. #345

  6. #346
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,127

    Re: Huckabee: Benghazi will drive Obama from office

    Lay off the political porn... it isn't good for you. If you read a real news source you will find your panties are not so quick to bunch you can deal calmly with real issues.

    BTW, Doherty and Woods were former seals. They were private body guards on 9/11/12. Typical of sensational journalism is to try to suggest the US soldiers were killed. That was not the case.

  7. #347
    Spectemur Agendo Trip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 07:20 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,920

    Re: Huckabee: Benghazi will drive Obama from office

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    Lay off the political porn... it isn't good for you. If you read a real news source you will find your panties are not so quick to bunch you can deal calmly with real issues.

    BTW, Doherty and Woods were former seals. They were private body guards on 9/11/12. Typical of sensational journalism is to try to suggest the US soldiers were killed. That was not the case.

    The facts of Benghazi are not covered by any of those supposed "real news sources", which have been working diligently to ignore and dismiss the concerns about Benghazi, even as you do.

    Private body guards? They were security, which the federal government itself was not providing, ignoring calls that the threat level had increased, ignoring pleas for more security, and ignoring the urgent calls for help with they were attacked. This is not "sensationalism", this is not even mere dereliction of duty on the part of the government. These were not just private body guards, but expert professionals, the most proficient our country has to offer, trained in service to this country.

    This is criminal and deliberate malfeasance, attempted to be covered over by a false story placing causation on some online movie, and meanwhile necessitating as many as 12 revisions to talking points because persons in the government objected to their falsehood!

    It's not sensation to say this is far worse than the Watergate coverup, because persons died, and they didn't just die unavoidably at others hands, but were made to die by deliberate inaction, having to command various military leaders to stand down. And that is solely what is known at this point, with more specific malfeasance likely to be exposed, and all of these inaction and deliberate malfeasance likely to cover far deeper malfeasance than just Obama's desire for reelection.

  8. #348
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,127

    Re: Huckabee: Benghazi will drive Obama from office

    Quote Originally Posted by Trip View Post
    The facts of Benghazi are not covered by any of those supposed "real news sources", which have been working diligently to ignore and dismiss the concerns about Benghazi, even as you do.
    Because its fundamentally silliness. There is nothing here. People are upset as to whether it was an "act of terror" or "terrorism"... frankly, it was neither. It was an act of war perpetrated by Al Qaeda. As with any act of war in an ongoing war, it was nothing but a battle.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trip View Post
    Private body guards? They were security, which the federal government itself was not providing, ignoring calls that the threat level had increased, ignoring pleas for more security, and ignoring the urgent calls for help with they were attacked. This is not "sensationalism", this is not even mere dereliction of duty on the part of the government. These were not just private body guards, but expert professionals, the most proficient our country has to offer, trained in service to this country.
    They were working for private security... like Blackwater (or whatever they call themselves). They were security employees, stop over glorifying them so they fit into your argument. They were no more or no less significant than any other employee of a consulate (secretary or attache)

    Quote Originally Posted by Trip View Post
    This is criminal and deliberate malfeasance, attempted to be covered over by a false story placing causation on some online movie, and meanwhile necessitating as many as 12 revisions to talking points because persons in the government objected to their falsehood!
    Wow, speak of hyperbole... there is nothing criminal here. This is merely Monday morning analysis of Sunday's game.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trip View Post
    It's not sensation to say this is far worse than the Watergate coverup, because persons died, and they didn't just die unavoidably at others hands, but were made to die by deliberate inaction, having to command various military leaders to stand down. And that is solely what is known at this point, with more specific malfeasance likely to be exposed, and all of these inaction and deliberate malfeasance likely to cover far deeper malfeasance than just Obama's desire for reelection.
    Its complete sensation to suggest it should even compared to Watergate. I think you lack an understand of what Watergate was. Let's start with the fact that we had the POTUS and his chief aides actively organizing a crime. This whole Benghazi thing is about decisions to allocate resources and what the White House said about it after the fact. The former is criminal, the latter is questions of judgment (not criminal).

    In a recent DP poll, your fellow posters ranked Benghazi a distant third to the three "scandals" currently on the table. It finished well behind IRS and AP wiretap "scandals"... others stated the Fast and Furious was a far more egregious than any other "scandal of Obama".... At this writing, only 2 DP posters out of 30 said Bengahzi was the most egregious scandal of the Obama administration.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/...post1061814363

    The story isn't being covered by national media as it is fundamentally a non-story. Even those that want to perpetuate the story because it has Obama in a hot seat have moved on to the next story, as there isn't much traction for even that.

    Though you have a right to believe this is the worst sin ever perpetrated by a President. You should know, however, that in such an opinion, while "...no man is an island...", you are on one.
    Last edited by upsideguy; 05-18-13 at 02:37 PM.

  9. #349
    Spectemur Agendo Trip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 07:20 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,920

    Re: Huckabee: Benghazi will drive Obama from office

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    Because its fundamentally silliness. There is nothing here. People are upset as to whether it was an "act of terror" or "terrorism"... frankly, it was neither. It was an act of war perpetrated by Al Qaeda. As with any act of war in an ongoing war, it was nothing but a battle.

    "Nothing to see here, move along!" Right?

    I don't see anyone arguing over whether it was an act of terror, or an act of war. I don't see that really much matters, or is at issue. By Al Quada? This group is ansar al-Shariah, but I can see how you might think that sounds like Al Quada.

    Nope, nothing you say here is the issue at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    They were working for private security... like Blackwater (or whatever they call themselves). They were security employees, stop over glorifying them so they fit into your argument. They were no more or no less significant than any other employee of a consulate (secretary or attache)
    It's not that they themselves were significant, it is that their combat expertise was, and therein lies the problem. A simple attack on a compound that might have gone on less than an hour, was extended to more than 7 hours, and began immediately upon the exit of the Turkish Ambassador.

    Regardless of who they were working for, they were providing security for the Consulate personnel and are still the caliber of expertise associated with SEALS, and not just "private security". Oh, there is one difference: they clearly did not have the support that the SEALS have, and were specifically denied that support, and themselves told to stand down, and others were told to stand down, and apparently some who refused to stand down lost there commands. And therein lies the rub, not just their lack of support, but its utter denial, and then the coverup of the event over a week's time as a spontaneous mob violence erupting from "youtube video".... when the memos and communications NOW show that the administration knew right from the start there was no preceding mob demonstration, and it was a planned and executed prolonged attack!

    But there's "nothing to see here", it's just a "terrorist attack", uh ... I mean "an act of war" coming on the heels of Obama proclaiming that he has defeated and decimated Al Quada, and has them on the run, for his reelection.




    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    Wow, speak of hyperbole... there is nothing criminal here. This is merely Monday morning analysis of Sunday's game.
    THere is indeed nothing criminal. If what was in evidence amounted to mere "criminal" conduct, this wouldn't be such a big deal. This is far beyond criminal and is not even just mere non-feasance, but rather is the deliberate malfeasance and beyond, to compelling others to not execute their duties, to stand down, and then removing persons from position of authority for having refused to stand down.




    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    Its complete sensation to suggest it should even compared to Watergate. I think you lack an understand of what Watergate was. Let's start with the fact that we had the POTUS and his chief aides actively organizing a crime. This whole Benghazi thing is about decisions to allocate resources and what the White House said about it after the fact. The former is criminal, the latter is questions of judgment (not criminal).
    You're mistaken, I'm not equating this to Watergate; I am stating it goes far beyond Watergate. It resulted in the loss of lives, and involves an ongoing coverup. It also likely is resulting from actions that the Executive branch and CIA should not be engaging in, contrary to law, involving arms through Turkey to Syrian Islamic rebels, and more.

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    In a recent DP poll, your fellow posters ranked Benghazi a distant third to the three "scandals" currently on the table. It finished well behind IRS and AP wiretap "scandals"... others stated the Fast and Furious was a far more egregious than any other "scandal of Obama".... At this writing, only 2 DP posters out of 30 said Bengahzi was the most egregious scandal of the Obama administration.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/...post1061814363
    Polling is irrelevant to the facts. This isn't a matter of opinion, this is a problem of awareness.

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    The story isn't being covered by national media as it is fundamentally a non-story. Even those that want to perpetuate the story because it has Obama in a hot seat have moved on to the next story, as there isn't much traction for even that.

    Though you have a right to believe this is the worst sin ever perpetrated by a President. You should know, however, that in such an opinion, while "...no man is an island...", you are on one.
    This isn't being covered by the national media, because we no longer have an objective and dutiful national media, but rather only leftist shills operating concerted state propaganda.

    It's questionable, and even irrelevant, if this is the worst sin ever by a president, or even this Oval Occupant, who has such a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object, that it is difficult to catalog them all. What is not questionable, is that all of the facts are not yet on the table, with all the relevant and important questions not even having been asked, much less answered.

    Undeniably Benghazi is cause for impeachment, and this is far from a done deal, and I'm far from alone on this "island".
    Last edited by Trip; 05-18-13 at 03:57 PM.

Page 35 of 35 FirstFirst ... 25333435

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •