Burn-E Posted November 8, 2013 Report Share Posted November 8, 2013 Look if discussing the insider baseball of the potential leading contenders for the 2016 race confuses or bores you then might I suggest you find a different thread to peruse and comment on? Unless you've been living under a rock for the last year Hillary is the leading candidate for the Dems in 2016. :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfishing3 Posted November 8, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 8, 2013 i think thats a little heavy A. you, me and few others have a lot more vested in the outcome of these elections and love playing with the info. its sort of another hobby to me at least. I didn't really give a crap about politics into much later in my life. How old are you chris? the stuff i do with guns is more of a singular point, ""POLITICS"" is more of a catch all. just looked, 29, shoot i was just getting married at the time and trying to get laid not worry about tax write offs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 Anyone who is a citizen has a vested interest in the elections. I just don't understand nor really appreciate the question. Is it supposed to be funny or serious? If it's supposed to be funny I'm missing it. If it's a serious question then the answer is it matters because it's entirely on topic to the primary question of the thread. Not trying to be rude just trying to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caanglin Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 Anyone who is a citizen has a vested interest in the elections. I just don't understand nor really appreciate the question. Is it supposed to be funny or serious? If it's supposed to be funny I'm missing it. If it's a serious question then the answer is it matters because it's entirely on topic to the primary question of the thread. Not trying to be rude just trying to understand. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 The context helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfishing3 Posted November 9, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 i will never understand the fascination with Benghazi. sure its terrible etc etc but there are more innocents lost to gun fire daily on our streets. They volunteered to be put into a shit hole to spy/listen/extract info. Its not like a couple extra feet of wall, a couple extra marines with guns would have made a difference. they want a battalion at every CIA base we have?, then Congress get off your butts and approve something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 Uh, Mike, the difference here is that there was a clusterf*ck in communications between the CIA and the SoS offices for understanding of who was managing security in Benghazi. The Ambassador had specifically requested more significant security and the SoS office didn't just deny it, they pulled more men out. And this was not a budgeting issue so you can't point the finger at Congress. It shows detachment from an area of responsibility on the part of Clinton that led to several men under her watch being killed. Further, if you read more in depth reporting, the story as told by the Administration and by Clinton is flat out inaccurate on many levels from actual witness accounts. So again, either incompetence or indifference and at worst some flagrant lies being told: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/us-consulate-benghazi-attack-challenge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfishing3 Posted November 9, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 I just find it hard to believe SHE/ anybody would just say "" yeah F them"". We need some martyrs. I think this is CIAs baby . If people want to get the tin foil hats out, I'd rather see her dug into for Ron brown White water Cows for massive profit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappo Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 I also wonder why the GOP is so focused on Bengahzi. There were 13 attacks under the Bush administration with far more Americans killed. Were any of these investigated? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted November 11, 2013 Report Share Posted November 11, 2013 How many ambassadors died? How many were actual complete over runs of the compound? How many were due to insufficient protective forces when additional forces were requested? How many occurred where the administration has continued to lie about the actual circumstances and failed to appropriately investigate even though they claimed the FBI did? The difference is with Clinton and Bush they acknowledged that the attacks were clearly planned attacks and organized by terrorists rather than the opportunistic response to an anti-Islamic video that righteously inflamed the locals. If they had been upfront rather than treating this as yet another political event that needed to be spun I don't think you would see the continued response. The absolute failure and unwillingness to accept responsibility is what keeps the story alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfishing3 Posted November 12, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2013 Lol Here's your big govt. witness for Bengazhi full of shit Snowed cbs, fox, GOP http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/08/politics/cbs-benghazi/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted November 12, 2013 Report Share Posted November 12, 2013 Heh, that's US media. There's a reason why I didn't point to any of them and he's old news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted November 13, 2013 Report Share Posted November 13, 2013 Elizabeth Warren the counterpoint female liberal candidate who could challenge Hillary's weak points? http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115509/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clintons-nightmare?utm_source=internal&utm_medium=margin&utm_campaign=mostpopular The argument is plausible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfishing3 Posted November 14, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 14, 2013 i was working in Passaic Nj this week. i asked a couple of my customers what Jersey thinks of CC. Is the guy to run the country. == got some interesting responses. one guy said he would support CC in whatever he does blindly. ""he is the man"" blah blah blah. i asked if has the experience to run the USA-"" he can't be any worse than what we have."" another guy loved him but didn't think he was in politics long enough to really know what he's all about. He is a relative new comer to National politics. He said he probably wouldn't vote for him depending on who he runs against. He is a big PRO CHOICE guy so it needs to be seen where CC is going to stand here. He is PRO LIFE for sure, but is he going to push his believes on me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappo Posted November 14, 2013 Report Share Posted November 14, 2013 Biggest problem with Christie is even if he does run, he won't get the party nomination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts