RexRed
 
  1  
Sat 18 May, 2013 09:30 pm
https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/249118_10151591248842410_739536857_n.jpg
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Sat 18 May, 2013 10:41 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
7. The GOP cut funding for security of our embassies


And again you blame the GOP for actions taken by BOTH PARTIES.
The dems also cut security funding for the embassies, but you continue to ignore that fact. Why is that?
Especially after I posted evidence to back up what I am saying.

Also, how many more years are you going to blame Bush for everything?
Obama has been in office since January 2009, when will you start blaming him for mistakes made, instead of blaming Bush?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 19 May, 2013 12:13 am
@mysteryman,
You're not smart at all!

From Huff Post.
Quote:
Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things'


Quit your trolling. You only make yourself look stupid!
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Sun 19 May, 2013 12:56 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Since the Sept. 11, 2012, attack, Democrats have complained that Republicans cut $300 million from the administration's budget request of $2.6 billion for diplomatic and embassy security in 2012.


http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/obama-calls-for-embassy-security-funding-1.5279324
gungasnake
 
  0  
Sun 19 May, 2013 07:16 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Here's a summarized list:
1. Illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
2. Torture of prisoners
3. Didn't heed the warnings before 9/11 about al Quida...


Bullshit. There was no warning of 9/11 and that was precisely because of Jamie Gorelick's "wall" (the "Gorelick Wall", look it up) separating the CIA and FBI, the motivation of which was to keep the FBI out of Chinagate (SlicKKK KKKlintler selling nuclear secrets to the Chinese for DNC cash).

Moreover, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were not illegal. Saddam Hussein was provably involved in the anthrax attacks which followed 9/11. We needed to invade Iraq the day after 9/11 and were not able to due to the condion in which SlicKKK had left our military, we had to build for two years first.

0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  0  
Sun 19 May, 2013 07:19 am
@RexRed,
There are four basic reasons for the second ammendment in the United States.

Every one of the founding fathers is on record to the effect that private ownership of firearms, the 2'nd ammendment, is there as a final bulwark against the possibility of government going out of control. That is the most major reason for it. Obviously, government regulating firearm ownership is not compatible with that idea.

At the time of the revolution and for years afterwards, there were private armies, private ownership of cannons and warships. . . The term "letters of marque, and reprisal" which you read in the constitution indicates the notion of the government issuing a sort of a hunting license to the owner of a private warship to take English or other foreign national ships on the high seas, i.e. to either capture or sink them. The idea of you or me owning a Vepr or FAL rifle with a 30-round magazine is not likely to have bothered any of those people.

The problem with drug-dealers owning AKs is a drug problem and not a gun problem. Fix the drug-problem, i.e. get rid of the insane war on drugs and pass a rational set of drug laws, and both problems will simply go away. A rational set of drug laws would:

1. Legalize marijuana and all its derivatives and anything else demonstrably no more harmful than booze on the same basis as booze.

2. Declare that heroine, crack cocaine, and other highly addictive substances would never be legally sold on the streets, but that those addicted could shoot up at government centers for the fifty-cent cost of producing the stuff, i.e. take every dime out of that business for criminals.

3. Clamp a permanent legal lid down on top of anybody peddling LSD, PCP, and/or other Jeckyl/Hyde formulas.

4. Same for anybody selling any kind of drugs to kids.

Do all of that, and the drug problem, the gun problem, and 70% of all urban crime will vanish within two years.

But I digress. The 2'nd ammendment is there as a final bulwark against our own government going out of control. It is also there as a bulwark against any foreign invasion which our own military might not be able to stop.

Admiral Yamamoto, when asked by the Japanese general staff about the possibility of invading the American homeland, replied that there were fifty million lunatics in this country who owned military style weaponry, and that there would be "a rifle behind every blade of grass". This apparently bothered him a great deal more than the 200,000 or so guys in uniform prior to the war.

A third obvious reason for private ownership of firearms is to protect yourself and your family from criminals and wild animals. In fact, the second amendment is basically an idea whose time has come all over the world. Why on Earth should people in India tolerate having 80,000 of their number killed every year by snakes? That could simply not happen in a nation whose people were armed.

And there's a fourth reason for the 2'nd ammendment, which is to provide the people with food during bad economic times. When you listen to people from New York and from Texas talk about the depression of the 30's, you hear two totally different stories. The people in New York will tell you about people starving and eating garbage, and running around naked. The Texans (and others from more rural areas and places in which laws and customs had remained closer to those which the founding fathers envisioned) will tell you that while money was scarce, they always had 22 and 30 calibre ammunition, and that they always had something to eat, even if it was just some jackrabbit.

Eating is habit forming. In any sort of a down economic situation, that fourth rationale for the second amendment quickly becomes the most important.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  0  
Sun 19 May, 2013 08:15 am
@cicerone imposter,
Just for you, I will repost this since you apparently ignored it the first time.

Quote:

In fact, the Congressional Research Service has documented that Congress, whether led by Democrats and Republicans, year after year did not fully fund the various pots of money for embassy security. (See page 25.) The State Department, for instance, was shortchanged by $142 million in fiscal year 2010, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress


Quote:
The Department of State’s base requests for security funding have increased by 38 percent since Fiscal Year (FY) 2007, and base budget appropriations have increased by 27 percent in the same time period,” said the bipartisan Senate Homeland Security Committee report on the Benghazi attack.

The report added that baseline funding requests have not been fully funded since fiscal year 2010, but noted that Congress had been responsive in providing “Overseas Contingency Operations” funds to the State Department in response to emergent security-driven requests, mainly for Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“However, there was no supplemental or OCO request made by the President for additional diplomatic security enhancements in FY 2010 or FY 2011,” the report pointedly noted. “Neither the Department of State nor Congress made a point of providing additional funds in a supplemental request for Libya, or more specifically, Benghazi.”



Quote:
Meanwhile, while the Accountability Review Board investigation into the attack lamented the failure of Congress to provide necessary resources — and called for “a more serious and sustained commitment from Congress to support State Department needs” — it fixed the blame for the lack of security squarely on State Department officials.


Quote:
During hearings into the attack last fall and this month, State Department officials were specifically asked if a lack of financial resources played a role in the attack. The answer was no.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/barbara-boxers-claim-that-gop-budgets-hampered-benghazi-security/2013/05/15/d1e295cc-bdb0-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

Now, once again I post the evidence backing up my claim, lets see if you read it this time.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Sun 19 May, 2013 08:31 am
Why does Atlanta smell so bad this morning?
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Sun 19 May, 2013 09:58 am
@H2O MAN,
Republicans were shitting themselves with fear.
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Sun 19 May, 2013 10:00 am
@Walter Hinteler,
I didn't realize you were a republican - good to know
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 19 May, 2013 10:10 am
@cicerone imposter,
One more; to believe one doesn't have a belief is a contradiction in terms.

I put that "other guy" on Ignore, so will no longer read his bull ****!
0 Replies
 
Region Philbis
 
  2  
Sun 19 May, 2013 11:02 am

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/485571_582465191775350_34632262_n.jpg
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Sun 19 May, 2013 11:58 am
@Region Philbis,
Another republican invented crisis? I can't believe it! LOL
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  2  
Sun 19 May, 2013 05:05 pm
https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/306770_603612392983076_291394317_n.jpg
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  3  
Sun 19 May, 2013 05:11 pm
Minnesota State Rep Calls Climate Change ‘Complete United Nations Fraud And Lie’
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/05/19/2031191/mn-state-rep-climate-change-united-nations-fraud-and-lie/
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Sun 19 May, 2013 05:12 pm
@RexRed,
RexRed wrote:

Minnesota State Rep Calls Climate Change ‘Complete United Nations Fraud And Lie’
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/05/19/2031191/mn-state-rep-climate-change-united-nations-fraud-and-lie/


The rep from the great state of Minnesota happens to be correct.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Sun 19 May, 2013 05:30 pm
@RexRed,
Sure, these republicans are more informed than the scientists who study climate change.

Shocked Shocked Shocked
Moment-in-Time
 
  3  
Sun 19 May, 2013 05:45 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:

Sure, these republicans are more informed than the scientists who study climate change.


It's embarrassing really! One particular Congressman, Todd Akin, a Republican Representative from Missouri, says that a woman who is “legitimately raped” cannot become pregnant – according to science. “First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

Paul Broun (R-GA) , GOP House Science Committee Member: Evolution, Big Bang ‘Lies Straight From The Pit Of Hell.

His constituency back home must be the most ignorant Americans in the nation.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 19 May, 2013 06:10 pm
@Moment-in-Time,
We have so many of "them."

People can't see our economy improving under Obama for the past five years.
What ever happened to the end of the world with inflation around the corner?

Since they never pan out, they continue to create one crisis after another. Maybe, one of them will "stick." LOL

If they keep throwing **** against a big barn, they'll eventually get one to hit it!

TNCFS
mysteryman
 
  2  
Sun 19 May, 2013 06:45 pm
@Region Philbis,
Show me one repub ANYWHERE that believes that!

When you make up BS like this it becomes tough to take anything you say seriously.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 07/01/2025 at 12:34:50