Things that make you go Hmmmmmmm?
-
mmcauliffe
- GOLIATH GROUPER
- Posts: 1100
- Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 3:54 pm
- Location: Pompano Beach
Things that make you go Hmmmmmmm?
The problem with writing about religion is that you run the risk of offending sincerely religious people, and then they come after you with machetes.
-
crashmister
- BLACK FIN TUNA
- Posts: 3491
- Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2009 8:48 am
Re: Things that make you go Hmmmmmmm?
Dude, the Western Center for journalism is anything but! It's a far right hate blog. It started under Clinton to out the Vince Foster suicide, which it never did. Then did nothing during the Bush admin. the second OB won, they were back in buisness. To give you an idea,
|Share on google_plusone_shareShare on facebookShare on twitterShare on email
“Historian” David Barton is either very gullible or thinks everybody else is.
Barton — Glenn Beck’s favorite “historian” and head of the Texas-based history revisionist organization WallBuilders — is promoting a list of executive orders a right-wing website suggests President Obama has issued so that our nation’s elected leader can destroy our freedom. But “historian” Barton apparently didn’t bother to do any basic fact-checking — President Obama issued none of the executive orders on the list.
“Historian” Barton posted on his Twitter page a link to an essay called A Comprehensive List Of Obama’s Worst Executive Orders, which appears on a website for an outfit called The Western Center for Journalism (WCJ). Despite the authoritative name, the Western Center for Journalism is a creation of far-right conspiracy promoter Joseph Farah. Farah also founded World Net Daily, a wack-a-doodle website worshipped by birthers who insist that Obama is lying about being born in the United States.
The “Comprehensive List” essay suggests that President Obama is issuing executive orders to lay the groundwork for taking over the country and overthrowing freedom:
“It is more than clear that Obama is planning for the total control and takeover of America via Martial Law. Food, energy, transportation, work, banking, and health…he has it covered.”
The essay lists 13 executive orders supposedly backing up the claim. But 11 of those executive orders were issued five decades ago, during the administration of President Kennedy. The other two were issued by Presidents Johnson and Carter. You can see a list of executive orders by president here, dating back to FDR in the 1930s.
A reader posted a comment on the WCJ website, calling out the error. Apparently in response, WCJ added an “Editor’s correction”:
This is a list of executive orders in force that outline Emergency Powers. Some of these were signed by prior US Presidents going back all the way to JFK. Obama specifically has signed executive orders starting with the number EO-13489 and forward. But these all reference powers Obama could use to limit your freedoms. Here is a full list of Obama Executive Orders.
“Some” of the executive orders in the list were signed by previous presidents? No. ALL of them were. But the article is still headlined “A Comprehensive List of Obama’s Worst Executive Orders.”
What a joke. But “historian” David Barton apparently swallowed it hook, line and sinker — or, at least, he hoped his own Twitter followers would:
Mike, you would be amazed how many of this nut sac's twitter follower's did buy it hook, line, and sinker. The WCJ is one of Glen Beck's favorite sources. Nuff said!
|Share on google_plusone_shareShare on facebookShare on twitterShare on email
“Historian” David Barton is either very gullible or thinks everybody else is.
Barton — Glenn Beck’s favorite “historian” and head of the Texas-based history revisionist organization WallBuilders — is promoting a list of executive orders a right-wing website suggests President Obama has issued so that our nation’s elected leader can destroy our freedom. But “historian” Barton apparently didn’t bother to do any basic fact-checking — President Obama issued none of the executive orders on the list.
“Historian” Barton posted on his Twitter page a link to an essay called A Comprehensive List Of Obama’s Worst Executive Orders, which appears on a website for an outfit called The Western Center for Journalism (WCJ). Despite the authoritative name, the Western Center for Journalism is a creation of far-right conspiracy promoter Joseph Farah. Farah also founded World Net Daily, a wack-a-doodle website worshipped by birthers who insist that Obama is lying about being born in the United States.
The “Comprehensive List” essay suggests that President Obama is issuing executive orders to lay the groundwork for taking over the country and overthrowing freedom:
“It is more than clear that Obama is planning for the total control and takeover of America via Martial Law. Food, energy, transportation, work, banking, and health…he has it covered.”
The essay lists 13 executive orders supposedly backing up the claim. But 11 of those executive orders were issued five decades ago, during the administration of President Kennedy. The other two were issued by Presidents Johnson and Carter. You can see a list of executive orders by president here, dating back to FDR in the 1930s.
A reader posted a comment on the WCJ website, calling out the error. Apparently in response, WCJ added an “Editor’s correction”:
This is a list of executive orders in force that outline Emergency Powers. Some of these were signed by prior US Presidents going back all the way to JFK. Obama specifically has signed executive orders starting with the number EO-13489 and forward. But these all reference powers Obama could use to limit your freedoms. Here is a full list of Obama Executive Orders.
“Some” of the executive orders in the list were signed by previous presidents? No. ALL of them were. But the article is still headlined “A Comprehensive List of Obama’s Worst Executive Orders.”
What a joke. But “historian” David Barton apparently swallowed it hook, line and sinker — or, at least, he hoped his own Twitter followers would:
Mike, you would be amazed how many of this nut sac's twitter follower's did buy it hook, line, and sinker. The WCJ is one of Glen Beck's favorite sources. Nuff said!
Nice Boat! Now get it outa my driveway!
-
crashmister
- BLACK FIN TUNA
- Posts: 3491
- Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2009 8:48 am
Re: Things that make you go Hmmmmmmm?
Jetty, The point is I don't believe anything they say! They make it up as they go and people cite it as fact when it's really fantasy. You know, like the one romy cited as saying that Jeep was moving all porduction to China. And even with Chrysler/Fiat saying not they're not and in fact are adding a second shift to Their US production plant, Romy is doubling down on the lie.
Good rule of thumb Jetty, If only faux news is talking about it, it's bogus. And only faux is still talking about Benghazi. But they have yet to cite a credible source for their info. I just caught them in an outright lie yesterday. They said that the NJ power companies Union turned away several workers for refusing to join the Union. That was a flat out lie. Here is the truth.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/sandyunion.asp
The right wing blog-o-verse is on fire with both stories, even though there's no credible source for either and both have since been refuted as false
What I'm saying here Jetty, exactly is, I have no reason to believe anything any of these people or sites/sources say! They have a great history of bogus stories and fantasy but have nothing to contribute the the Real World.
The latest from the Pentagon. (And you know how many friends he has there)
US officials lay out timeline on deadly Benghazi attacks to counter reports help was delayed
Article by: LOLITA C. BALDOR , Associated Press
Updated: November 2, 2012 - 6:07 PM
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon provided more details Friday of the military response to the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, as questions continue to swirl ahead of the presidential election about the government's response to the attack, detailing the troops that were dispatched to the region, even though most arrived after the fighting was over.
Although two teams of special operations forces were deployed from central Europe and the United States, the attack, which began after 9 p.m. local time and ended by about 6 a.m., was over before they arrived at Sigonella Naval Air Station in Sicily, Italy, across the Mediterranean from Libya.
Pentagon press secretary George Little said that after the attack began, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta quickly met with his senior military advisers, including the top U.S. commander for Africa Command who was in Washington for meetings. Little said that within a few hours Panetta had ordered units to move to Libya.
"The entire U.S. government was operating from a cold start," Little said.
He said the military units were prepared to respond to any number of contingencies, including a potential hostage situation.
The military also immediately moved an unarmed Predator surveillance drone to Benghazi airspace to provide real-time intelligence on the situation for the CIA officers on the ground who were fighting the militants.
The Pentagon comments came a day after senior U.S. intelligence officials detailed the CIA's rescue efforts, striking back at allegations they failed to respond quickly or efficiently against the deadly attack, which killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.
Two of those Americans were ex-Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glenn Doherty, who initially were identified publicly as State Department contractors. But on Thursday, the intelligence officials said they were CIA contractors. Previously the agency had asked The Associated Press and other news organizations to avoid linking the men to the CIA because the officials claimed that doing so would endanger the lives of other security contractors working for other agencies around the world.
U.S. officials are using the details to rebut some news reports that said the CIA told its personnel to "stand down" rather than go to the consulate to help repel the attackers. Fox News reported that when CIA officers at the annex called higher-ups to tell them the consulate was under fire, they were twice told to "stand down." The CIA publicly denied the report, laying out a timeline that showed CIA security officers left their annex and headed to the consulate less than 25 minutes after receiving the first call for help.
The consulate attack has become a political issue in Washington, with Republicans questioning the security at the consulate, the intelligence on militant groups in North Africa and the Obama administration's response in the days after the attack. Republicans also have questioned whether enough military and other support was requested and received.
The issue popped up during President Barack Obama's campaign swing through Ohio on Friday, as a small group of protesters holding signs about Libya greeted him at Springfield High School. One sign read "We won't stand down. Tell us the truth about Benghazi"
The intelligence officials told reporters Thursday that when the CIA annex received a call about the assault, about a half dozen members of a CIA security team tried to get heavy weapons and other assistance from the Libyans. But when the Libyans failed to respond, the security team, which routinely carries small arms, went ahead with the rescue attempt. At no point was the team told to wait, the officials said.
Instead, they said the often outmanned and outgunned team members made all the key decisions on the ground, with no second-guessing from senior officials monitoring the situation from afar.
The officials insisted on anonymity to discuss a CIA operation, as they routinely do. The anonymity was a condition of discussion even on a topic that has become highly politicized days before the presidential election.
On Thursday, intelligence officials said they had early information that the attackers had ties to al-Qaida-linked groups but did not make it public immediately because it was based on classified intelligence. And they said the early public comments about the attack and its genesis were cautious and limited, as they routinely are in such incidents.
They added that while intelligence officials indicated early on that extremists were involved in the assault, only later were officials able to confirm that the attack was not generated by a protest over the film.
Arizona Sen. John McCain and other Republicans insist that if the Obama administration didn't know enough about the attack to discuss it clearly in the days that followed, it should have. They also say the response to the attack has been too muted to send a deterrent message to terrorists.
The officials' description Thursday of the attack provided details about a second CIA security team in Tripoli that quickly chartered a plane and flew to Benghazi but got stuck at the airport. By then, however, the first team had gotten the State Department staff out of the consulate and back to the CIA annex.
While the U.S. military was at a heightened state of alert because of 9/11, there were no American forces poised and ready to move immediately into Benghazi when the attack began.
The Pentagon would not send forces or aircraft into Libya — a sovereign nation — without a request from the State Department and the knowledge or consent of the host country. And Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has said the information coming in was too jumbled to risk U.S. troops.
___
AP National Security writer Robert Burns contributed to this report.
___
And faux still stands by it's story.
Good rule of thumb Jetty, If only faux news is talking about it, it's bogus. And only faux is still talking about Benghazi. But they have yet to cite a credible source for their info. I just caught them in an outright lie yesterday. They said that the NJ power companies Union turned away several workers for refusing to join the Union. That was a flat out lie. Here is the truth.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/sandyunion.asp
The right wing blog-o-verse is on fire with both stories, even though there's no credible source for either and both have since been refuted as false
What I'm saying here Jetty, exactly is, I have no reason to believe anything any of these people or sites/sources say! They have a great history of bogus stories and fantasy but have nothing to contribute the the Real World.
The latest from the Pentagon. (And you know how many friends he has there)
US officials lay out timeline on deadly Benghazi attacks to counter reports help was delayed
Article by: LOLITA C. BALDOR , Associated Press
Updated: November 2, 2012 - 6:07 PM
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon provided more details Friday of the military response to the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, as questions continue to swirl ahead of the presidential election about the government's response to the attack, detailing the troops that were dispatched to the region, even though most arrived after the fighting was over.
Although two teams of special operations forces were deployed from central Europe and the United States, the attack, which began after 9 p.m. local time and ended by about 6 a.m., was over before they arrived at Sigonella Naval Air Station in Sicily, Italy, across the Mediterranean from Libya.
Pentagon press secretary George Little said that after the attack began, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta quickly met with his senior military advisers, including the top U.S. commander for Africa Command who was in Washington for meetings. Little said that within a few hours Panetta had ordered units to move to Libya.
"The entire U.S. government was operating from a cold start," Little said.
He said the military units were prepared to respond to any number of contingencies, including a potential hostage situation.
The military also immediately moved an unarmed Predator surveillance drone to Benghazi airspace to provide real-time intelligence on the situation for the CIA officers on the ground who were fighting the militants.
The Pentagon comments came a day after senior U.S. intelligence officials detailed the CIA's rescue efforts, striking back at allegations they failed to respond quickly or efficiently against the deadly attack, which killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.
Two of those Americans were ex-Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glenn Doherty, who initially were identified publicly as State Department contractors. But on Thursday, the intelligence officials said they were CIA contractors. Previously the agency had asked The Associated Press and other news organizations to avoid linking the men to the CIA because the officials claimed that doing so would endanger the lives of other security contractors working for other agencies around the world.
U.S. officials are using the details to rebut some news reports that said the CIA told its personnel to "stand down" rather than go to the consulate to help repel the attackers. Fox News reported that when CIA officers at the annex called higher-ups to tell them the consulate was under fire, they were twice told to "stand down." The CIA publicly denied the report, laying out a timeline that showed CIA security officers left their annex and headed to the consulate less than 25 minutes after receiving the first call for help.
The consulate attack has become a political issue in Washington, with Republicans questioning the security at the consulate, the intelligence on militant groups in North Africa and the Obama administration's response in the days after the attack. Republicans also have questioned whether enough military and other support was requested and received.
The issue popped up during President Barack Obama's campaign swing through Ohio on Friday, as a small group of protesters holding signs about Libya greeted him at Springfield High School. One sign read "We won't stand down. Tell us the truth about Benghazi"
The intelligence officials told reporters Thursday that when the CIA annex received a call about the assault, about a half dozen members of a CIA security team tried to get heavy weapons and other assistance from the Libyans. But when the Libyans failed to respond, the security team, which routinely carries small arms, went ahead with the rescue attempt. At no point was the team told to wait, the officials said.
Instead, they said the often outmanned and outgunned team members made all the key decisions on the ground, with no second-guessing from senior officials monitoring the situation from afar.
The officials insisted on anonymity to discuss a CIA operation, as they routinely do. The anonymity was a condition of discussion even on a topic that has become highly politicized days before the presidential election.
On Thursday, intelligence officials said they had early information that the attackers had ties to al-Qaida-linked groups but did not make it public immediately because it was based on classified intelligence. And they said the early public comments about the attack and its genesis were cautious and limited, as they routinely are in such incidents.
They added that while intelligence officials indicated early on that extremists were involved in the assault, only later were officials able to confirm that the attack was not generated by a protest over the film.
Arizona Sen. John McCain and other Republicans insist that if the Obama administration didn't know enough about the attack to discuss it clearly in the days that followed, it should have. They also say the response to the attack has been too muted to send a deterrent message to terrorists.
The officials' description Thursday of the attack provided details about a second CIA security team in Tripoli that quickly chartered a plane and flew to Benghazi but got stuck at the airport. By then, however, the first team had gotten the State Department staff out of the consulate and back to the CIA annex.
While the U.S. military was at a heightened state of alert because of 9/11, there were no American forces poised and ready to move immediately into Benghazi when the attack began.
The Pentagon would not send forces or aircraft into Libya — a sovereign nation — without a request from the State Department and the knowledge or consent of the host country. And Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has said the information coming in was too jumbled to risk U.S. troops.
___
AP National Security writer Robert Burns contributed to this report.
___
And faux still stands by it's story.
Nice Boat! Now get it outa my driveway!
-
fishnfool73
- AMBASSADOR to the... BF FORUM
- Posts: 8703
- Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 6:18 am
Re: Things that make you go Hmmmmmmm?
I find it starnge that the same people that are calling for Obamas head for these deaths cheered on the Bush war machine as he sacrificed tens of thousands of serviceman in a war for him and his VP to make billions off of. Where was your outrage when we invaded Iraq ? Saddam was anti Taliban and few existed in Iraq as he killed them off for fear they would depose him. Maybe we will get the truth behind Benghazi attack when we find the WMDs that Bush sacrficed tens of thousands of lives for. No more servicemen and women should die or be disfugured so politicans and their buddies can turn a profit.
Dreaming the dream that one day I can be as good as some of the boatless pros and catch some 12 inch mangrove snapper.
-
swordfish
- SHARKER
- Posts: 2333
- Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:32 pm
- Location: Palmetto Bay
- Contact:
Re: Things that make you go Hmmmmmmm?
One more day... then it all goes quiet for 4 more years LOL 
-swordfish
-swordfish
-
fishnfool73
- AMBASSADOR to the... BF FORUM
- Posts: 8703
- Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 6:18 am
Re: Things that make you go Hmmmmmmm?
We won't be that lucky Juan . The '' losing side '' will cry for the next four years regardless.
Dreaming the dream that one day I can be as good as some of the boatless pros and catch some 12 inch mangrove snapper.
-
ffishermen1
- Seasoned Fisher
- Posts: 294
- Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:21 pm
Re: Things that make you go Hmmmmmmm?
+1rare wrote:At least these damn campaign commercials & damn junk mail from both will end!!
-
fishnfool73
- AMBASSADOR to the... BF FORUM
- Posts: 8703
- Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 6:18 am
Re: Things that make you go Hmmmmmmm?
What politician has ever owned up to their mistakes whole running for reelection ?
Dreaming the dream that one day I can be as good as some of the boatless pros and catch some 12 inch mangrove snapper.
-
fishnfool73
- AMBASSADOR to the... BF FORUM
- Posts: 8703
- Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 6:18 am
Re: Things that make you go Hmmmmmmm?
If nothing else this should keep Hillary from running next election hopefully
Dreaming the dream that one day I can be as good as some of the boatless pros and catch some 12 inch mangrove snapper.
-
fishnfool73
- AMBASSADOR to the... BF FORUM
- Posts: 8703
- Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 6:18 am
Re: Things that make you go Hmmmmmmm?
I'm not so much pro Obama as I am anti Republican at this point.
Dreaming the dream that one day I can be as good as some of the boatless pros and catch some 12 inch mangrove snapper.
-
crashmister
- BLACK FIN TUNA
- Posts: 3491
- Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2009 8:48 am
Re: Things that make you go Hmmmmmmm?
Jetty, you keep talking about how OB lied about this being about an internet video like it should have been obvious it was not. And so do many others. Here's a map of all the Middle Eastern cities that people were either demonstrating in or rioting in over that same video at the same time of the Benghazi attack. In fact many went on for days after. The large red circles are embasies that were damaged, the small ones were protests with no damage.
Every document Issa and Chaffetz have say's the white house (OB & Clintons crew) stated exactly what the intelligence said.
So somehow with 26 city's in turmoil, either OB or anybody else is supposed to just know the 27th was a terrorist attack.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012 ... video.html
Every document Issa and Chaffetz have say's the white house (OB & Clintons crew) stated exactly what the intelligence said.
So somehow with 26 city's in turmoil, either OB or anybody else is supposed to just know the 27th was a terrorist attack.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012 ... video.html
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Nice Boat! Now get it outa my driveway!