New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

It's over....

J_O....if Benghazi was such a "major scndal"?

Why did MITT ROMNEY refuse to talk about it at the foreign policy debate this past Monday?!?!?!?


(You really need to get outside the Echo Chamber of Rightwing Media, ya know? :) )
 
The story "broke" on The Wilkow Show on BlazeTV (GlennBeckTV)! This is aimed at low info voters so I wonder if JO believes it?

He appears to have posted it as fact.
 
Yes, It is over.
Republicans will vote him out of office.
Unconscionable. What they did is unconscionable.
 
justoffal said:
Hillary requested more security....Obama said NO!
Click to expand...

Unlike Mr. Romney, we should wait and see, but I have to say, there is an underlying or perhaps more obvious theme in this election which is to throw out anything and hope someone will believe it so late in the game that it cannot be debunked or shown to be complete BS or partial truths (as is doen here daily) before an election.

The problem with getting people willing to be elected by such corrupt means to reform election law is that one is asking them to reform their own corruption. There should perhaps be some effort to require some accountability to presenting the entire truth when presenting political advertizing (there is a truth in advertizing law) and even if someone is elected based on controlling the narrative in the 11th hour, they are liable to losing that position if it can be proven they gained that position based on an agreed to level of falsehoods and partial truths without any effort to provide the whole truth.

A society that simply allows anyone to throw anything they like out as "truth", when they are in a position to reach a mass audience is at risk of committing suicide if not just finding itself under despotic rule.



Read Montesquieu wih regard to the importance of virtue in a republic for it to survive.

Also, once again here is a comment by a founder of this nation regarding what we know about the abusive influence of wealth:

"I cannot help commending the zeal that appears in my countrymen against the power of a King or a House of Lords. I concur with them in all their prejudices against hereditary titles, honour and power. History is little else than a recital of the follies and vices of kings and noblemen, and it is because I dread so much from them, that I wish to exclude them for ever from Pennsylvania, for notwithstanding our government has been called a simple democracy, I maintain, that a foundation is laid in it for the most complete aristocracy that ever existed in the world."

"In order to prove this assertion, I shall premise two propositions, which have never been controverted: First, where there is wealth, there will be power; and, secondly, the rich have always been an over-match for the poor in all contests for power."

"These truths being admitted, I desire to know what can prevent our single representation being filled, in the course of a few years, with a majority of rich men? Say not, the people will not choose such men to represent them. The influence of wealth at elections is irresistible. It has been seen and felt in Pennsylvania, and I am obliged in justice to my subject to say, that there are poor men among us as prepared to be influenced, as the rich are prepared to influence them. The fault must be laid in both cases upon human nature. The consequence of a majority of rich men getting into the legislature is plain. Their wealth will administer fuel to the love of arbitrary power that is common to all men. The present Assembly have furnished them with precedents for breaking the Constitution. Farewell now to annual elections! Public emergencies will sanctify the most daring measures. The clamours of their constituents will be silenced with offices, bribes or punishments. An aristocracy will be established, and Pennsylvania will be inhabited like most of the countries in Europe, with only two sorts of animals, tyrants and slaves."

-Benjamin Rush - 1777 - Bicameralism




If people don't take the time to search for the whole truth and try to hold the people they will be electing to represent them to the whole truth then they risk electing someone who is not totally honest if not totally honest and who gained their office based on not telling the whole truth or blatant lying.

While some might believe there is honor amongst thieves, I don't.

While some might believe they won't see more fish like flipflopping from a flipflopper they elected, I don't and I also believe one is likely to see betrayal of the type they have never seen before and who will they be able to blame, but themselves.

Once again, the only thing people need remember is the difference between taking a healthy person and crashing them headon in to a wall putting them and critical condition and walking away from the crash leaving it to someone else and being the someone else who is left to pick up the pieces, stop the health of the injured from slipping closer to death, then overseeing their critical care and setbacks to their healing.

Once past a point, that patient is going to be strong enough that recovery will speed up and they will no longer need the care of others to heal. What the patient does not need is to have the care they have been given pulled out from under them and have them taken out and crashed head on into a wall again while those who pulled the plug on their care and took them out and crashed them into a wall again profit from doing so.
 
You've backed up NOTHING Jen.

  • You cited a Facebook post as "proof" that Obama "knew" that it was a terroist attack... except that it turns out the FB post didn't actually take credit, rather it congratulated a sister group and was not confirmed
  • You claimed that the Obama administration "KNEW" that the attacks were by a planned group - except you CITED him saying he suspected that to be the case
  • You claimed that Rice was lying when she said "The Best Information we CURRENTLY HAVE" - except that is EXACTLY what the CIA briefed Rice and the WH on

And you CONTINUE to repeat these lies... And they are lies because you have not actually supported EVEN ONE of your claims about what was KNOWN

You then had the nerve to say that if Only Obama had said that

  • This is an awful attack
  • we grieve with the families of those who were lost
  • We will release more information as it becomes available

that you would not have any objections.. And yet that is exactly what Obama did and yet you continue to lie about what Obama did.


You really are pathetic.
 
New allegations. exactly. That's all they have. No truth, just rabid hate. I'll never click on a blaze link again. No stories, obnoxious popups. Just a headline. Allegations. ANYONE can make those.
 
TwoWitnesses said:
New allegations. exactly. That's all they have. No truth, just rabid hate. I'll never click on a blaze link again. No stories, obnoxious popups. Just a headline. Allegations. ANYONE can make those.
Click to expand...

Indeed, I could allege that Mitt Rmoney engages in group orgies with his sons, and it would have just as much credibility as anything from the Blaze.
 
I have not once mentioned the Facebook entry in my posts here. Your lies continue and you will no doubt post that I did talk about some Facebook post. To you, once you say that I said something it becomes true. This is one of the many reasons you have no credibility in my eyes. And with this, I'll go back to ignoring you as I see nothing that warrants my attention.

degsme said:
You've backed up NOTHING Jen.

  • You cited a Facebook post as "proof" that Obama "knew" that it was a terroist attack... except that it turns out the FB post didn't actually take credit, rather it congratulated a sister group and was not confirmed
  • You claimed that the Obama administration "KNEW" that the attacks were by a planned group - except you CITED him saying he suspected that to be the case
  • You claimed that Rice was lying when she said "The Best Information we CURRENTLY HAVE" - except that is EXACTLY what the CIA briefed Rice and the WH on

And you CONTINUE to repeat these lies... And they are lies because you have not actually supported EVEN ONE of your claims about what was KNOWN

You then had the nerve to say that if Only Obama had said that

  • This is an awful attack
  • we grieve with the families of those who were lost
  • We will release more information as it becomes available

that you would not have any objections.. And yet that is exactly what Obama did and yet you continue to lie about what Obama did.


You really are pathetic.
Click to expand...
 
Funny....but.....that's kinda how we righties feel about anything you lefties post from "in the tank for Obama" lame/mainstream media, leftist spew sites and propaganda outlets like George Soros-funded sites (Media Matters, MoveOn, etc.).

LeRoy_Was_Here said:
Indeed, I could allege that Mitt Rmoney engages in group orgies with his sons, and it would have just as much credibility as anything from the Blaze.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top