Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums

Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Coach is Back! on October 24, 2012, 12:18:19 PM



Title: Integrity
Post by: Coach is Back! on October 24, 2012, 12:18:19 PM
With all of the proven lies that Obama and his administration have conjured up even to this very day, and still covering up the attacks in Bengazi, wouldn't one quesi the integrity of those who still vote for him. I mean, if they still back an out right bald faced lyer such as Obama and his cohorts, how would they conduct they're own lives. IMO, especially in business, I would have a hard time trusting. This is a serious question.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: El Diablo Blanco on October 24, 2012, 12:22:01 PM
yes, because Bush was full of integrity  ::)  Especially Cheney


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Hulkotron on October 24, 2012, 12:22:49 PM
I liked George WB, would be a great guy to have have a beer or two with and chat some politics then pick up some cougs.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: G_Thang on October 24, 2012, 12:26:26 PM
With all of the proven lies that Obama and his administration have conjured up even to this very day, and still covering up the attacks in Bengazi, wouldn't one quesi the integrity of those who still vote for him. I mean, if they still back an out right bald faced lyer such as Obama and his cohorts, how would they conduct they're own lives. IMO, especially in business, I would have a hard time trusting. This is a serious question.

Old Bitch, how many USA citizens live in hot beds around the globe?  Half the Marine Corps would have to be deployed to protect them?  Man, move on past this bullshit.  


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Coach is Back! on October 24, 2012, 12:27:14 PM
yes, because Bush was full of integrity  ::)  Especially Cheney

Dont spin it. Answer it.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Raymondo on October 24, 2012, 12:27:45 PM
Dont spin it. Answer it.

That's not what spin is.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: CalvinH on October 24, 2012, 12:28:20 PM
2 boards down is the political board.....


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Coach is Back! on October 24, 2012, 12:28:54 PM
Old Bitch, how many USA citizens live in hot beds around the globe?  Half the Marine Corps would have to be deployed to protect them?  Man, move on past this bullshit.  

Thanks for providing one of the dumbest answers that  probably be in this thread.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: G_Thang on October 24, 2012, 12:29:29 PM
Dont spin it. Answer it.

Bush and Cheney left 1750 people, mostly afro-american, to die in Louisiana.  Obama messed up on one white boy.  


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Coach is Back! on October 24, 2012, 12:29:45 PM
That's not what spin is.

Bullshit


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: nefario on October 24, 2012, 12:30:35 PM
All politicians lie.
_____ is a politician.
Therefore,__________ lies.

Clip that out and keep it handy because it'll really make it easier for you in the future.


Vote for whoever the fuck you want, but don't be unrealistic. To their credit, most Euros have figured this out a long time ago.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: G_Thang on October 24, 2012, 12:31:11 PM
Bullshit

Bullshit is your b e a n e r ass, continuing to push this. 


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Coach is Back! on October 24, 2012, 12:31:39 PM
Bush and Cheney left 1750 people, mostly afro-american, to die in Louisiana.  Obama messed up on one white boy.  

Hahahaha. Oh God. This is precisely what I'm.talking about


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: hazbin on October 24, 2012, 12:35:14 PM
no matter who you vote for, the government always gets in


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: No Patience on October 24, 2012, 12:39:13 PM
aaaahahahahahahaa

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaXN3Iy-7AM


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Roger Bacon on October 24, 2012, 12:41:34 PM
With all of the proven lies that Obama and his administration have conjured up even to this very day, and still covering up the attacks in Bengazi, wouldn't one quesi the integrity of those who still vote for him. I mean, if they still back an out right bald faced lyer such as Obama and his cohorts, how would they conduct they're own lives. IMO, especially in business, I would have a hard time trusting. This is a serious question.

That's what I've been wondering about dirt bags like you that still give George W. Bush a pass.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Raymondo on October 24, 2012, 12:42:58 PM
Bullshit

is what your head contains


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Coach is Back! on October 24, 2012, 12:48:24 PM
So far, not one.person can answer the FUCKING question.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Rami on October 24, 2012, 12:52:34 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCm9788Tb5g

 :P


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Samourai Pizzacat on October 24, 2012, 12:54:19 PM
With all of the proven lies that Obama and his administration have conjured up even to this very day, and still covering up the attacks in Bengazi, wouldn't one quesi the integrity of those who still vote for him. I mean, if they still back an out right bald faced lyer such as Obama and his cohorts, how would they conduct they're own lives. IMO, especially in business, I would have a hard time trusting. This is a serious question.

You are one biased little fuck, people like you really piss me off when I come across them..... then I remind myself of the minute brain that produces these ramblings and it's all good!


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Heywood on October 24, 2012, 12:56:43 PM
Bush and Cheney left 1750 people, mostly afro-american, to die in Louisiana.  Obama messed up on one white boy.  

These people refused to evacuate.  Hundreds of thousands left, thousands went to the superdome.  And some stayed to punch holes in their roofs when the water began to rise, or they died trying.

Yes, that is clearly W's fault.



Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Aerian on October 24, 2012, 12:56:51 PM
Coach-  what you are seeing in this thread is part of the problem.  People do not give a shit and they are starting to outnumber ones who do.  


IMO Obama is an absolute embarrassment and disgrace these days and how anyone can vote for him is beyond my comprehension.  


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: che on October 24, 2012, 12:57:39 PM
I remind myself of the minute brain that produces these ramblings and it's all good!

(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=428592.0;attach=473461;image)


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Heywood on October 24, 2012, 12:58:17 PM
Bush and Cheney left 1750 people, mostly afro-american, to die in Louisiana.  Obama messed up on one white boy.  

and that's the only way you can justify Obama.  Even though Obama considers himself superior to the Republicans..........


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: CalvinH on October 24, 2012, 12:58:27 PM
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=428592.0;attach=473461;image)




He can lift to potato.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Aerian on October 24, 2012, 12:58:41 PM
These people refused to evacuate.  Hundreds of thousands left, thousands went to the superdome.  And some stayed to punch holes in their roofs when the water began to rise, or they died trying.

Yes, that is clearly W's fault.



I live in Houston and we got a very large amount of the FILTH from Louisiana and I for one would not give 2 shits if half of them died in the hurricane.  During the year after it seemed that all our crime went up by 50+ % mainly due to the trash that had migrated over.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Raymondo on October 24, 2012, 12:58:56 PM
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=428592.0;attach=473461;image)

When I see this I remind myself why it's impossible to hold a grudge against the coach


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Archer77 on October 24, 2012, 01:00:50 PM
I really find it odd that conservatives like coach are so upset about Libya but were suspiciously silent during the run up to the Iraq war.  I'm not defending Barry, but man, the hypocrisy is insane.  Goes to should it isn't what the person does in office but who is doing it that matters.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: flipper5470 on October 24, 2012, 01:02:33 PM
Bush and Cheney left 1750 people, mostly afro-american, to die in Louisiana.  Obama messed up on one white boy.  

Ray Nagin left those people to die...just another case of black on black crime.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: che on October 24, 2012, 01:03:40 PM



He can lift to potato.

haha




Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Rami on October 24, 2012, 01:04:28 PM
Bush and Cheney left 1750 people, mostly afro-american, to die in Louisiana.  Obama messed up on one white boy.  

Idiot, they were all asked to leave, they refused and decided to stay, it's a free country


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Heywood on October 24, 2012, 01:05:27 PM
I really find it odd that conservatives like coach are so upset about Libya but were suspiciously silent during the run up to the Iraq war.  I'm not defending Barry, but man, the hypocrisy is insane.  Goes to should it isn't what the person does in office but who is doing it that matters.

Hypocracy is criticizing the govt. for water-boarding an al-Qaeda leader, and then say nothing when Obama sends drones into Pakistan to indiscriminatly kill innocent children.

See how that works........


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Anglo on October 24, 2012, 01:05:32 PM
With all of the proven lies that Obama and his administration have conjured up even to this very day, and still covering up the attacks in Bengazi, wouldn't one quesi the integrity of those who still vote for him. I mean, if they still back an out right bald faced lyer such as Obama and his cohorts, how would they conduct they're own lives. IMO, especially in business, I would have a hard time trusting. This is a serious question.

All is explained here "Coach"
http://www.movie2k.to/Four-Horsemen-watch-movie-2001182.html


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Heywood on October 24, 2012, 01:06:44 PM
I live in Houston and we got a very large amount of the FILTH from Louisiana and I for one would not give 2 shits if half of them died in the hurricane.  During the year after it seemed that all our crime went up by 50+ % mainly due to the trash that had migrated over.

yep, I remember that too.




Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Archer77 on October 24, 2012, 01:07:43 PM
Hypocracy is criticizing the govt. for water-boarding an al-Qaeda leader, and then say nothing when Obama sends drones into Pakistan to indescriminatly kill innocent children.

See how that works........

You have a valid point which was my point as well


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Mitch on October 24, 2012, 01:29:26 PM
Who gives a fuck about Bengazi? Serious question.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Coach is Back! on October 24, 2012, 01:38:44 PM
Who gives a fuck about Bengazi? Serious question.

The emails that were released showed that more than 300 staffers knew about the attacks within 2 hours and the administration were actually watching it in the war room as it was happening. They covered it up and flat out lied.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: SLYY on October 24, 2012, 02:19:53 PM
With all of the proven lies that Obama and his administration have conjured up even to this very day, and still covering up the attacks in Bengazi, wouldn't one quesi the integrity of those who still vote for him. I mean, if they still back an out right bald faced lyer such as Obama and his cohorts, how would they conduct they're own lives. IMO, especially in business, I would have a hard time trusting. This is a serious question.


Will Romney repeal Romney Obamacare?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBFQKxLMPy4
______________________


Romney's favorite part of Romney Obamacare?  The mandate: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_hnaPmspiM









Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: SLYY on October 24, 2012, 02:20:29 PM
With all of the proven lies that Obama and his administration have conjured up even to this very day, and still covering up the attacks in Bengazi, wouldn't one quesi the integrity of those who still vote for him. I mean, if they still back an out right bald faced lyer such as Obama and his cohorts, how would they conduct they're own lives. IMO, especially in business, I would have a hard time trusting. This is a serious question.


Where does Romney stand on abortion?


Pro-choice Romney (listen to his reasoning...):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKVGecwJ7qA


______________________


Then, Romney said he would be "delighted" to sign a bill that ended ALL abortion:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVjMQj3fMYQ


______________________


Now, Romeny is Pro-life...ish, allowing exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother (start at 23sec):


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF-VTzIEy7k



Under Romneycare, abortions are covered and only a small fee is required:


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: SLYY on October 24, 2012, 02:21:10 PM
With all of the proven lies that Obama and his administration have conjured up even to this very day, and still covering up the attacks in Bengazi, wouldn't one quesi the integrity of those who still vote for him. I mean, if they still back an out right bald faced lyer such as Obama and his cohorts, how would they conduct they're own lives. IMO, especially in business, I would have a hard time trusting. This is a serious question.

Where does Romney stand on energy?

Romney stated he was the "champion of the coal industry," but as governor...Romney stood in front of a coal plant and stated that this plant will kill you.



Here is Romney's view on coal and coal plants:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgBJbs6ZDiY


______________________


Romney as the "champion of coal"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vh17jDbEaSo









Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Jaime on October 24, 2012, 02:21:27 PM
With all of the proven lies that Obama and his administration have conjured up even to this very day, and still covering up the attacks in Bengazi, wouldn't one quesi the integrity of those who still vote for him. I mean, if they still back an out right bald faced lyer such as Obama and his cohorts, how would they conduct they're own lives. IMO, especially in business, I would have a hard time trusting. This is a serious question.


For the millionth time, it is all the same shit whoever you vote for you fucking retard.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Aerian on October 24, 2012, 02:21:47 PM
Who gives a fuck about Bengazi? Serious question.

If you are a US citizen you should care.  


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: SLYY on October 24, 2012, 02:21:56 PM
With all of the proven lies that Obama and his administration have conjured up even to this very day, and still covering up the attacks in Bengazi, wouldn't one quesi the integrity of those who still vote for him. I mean, if they still back an out right bald faced lyer such as Obama and his cohorts, how would they conduct they're own lives. IMO, especially in business, I would have a hard time trusting. This is a serious question.

Where does Romney stand on women's access to contraceptive care?

Romney says women should have access to contraceptive care, but Romney supports legislation allowing employers to deny contraceptive care.


Mitt supports the Blunt Amendment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfrGFGibuzw

______________________


And only months later...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6RH70RppqI


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on October 24, 2012, 02:54:00 PM
With all of the proven lies that Obama and his administration have conjured up even to this very day, and still covering up the attacks in Bengazi, wouldn't one quesi the integrity of those who still vote for him. I mean, if they still back an out right bald faced lyer such as Obama and his cohorts, how would they conduct they're own lives. IMO, especially in business, I would have a hard time trusting. This is a serious question.

You trust ANY politician you're fucking stupid


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Jaime on October 24, 2012, 02:56:32 PM
You trust ANY politician you're fucking stupid


QFT.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Parker on October 24, 2012, 02:58:10 PM
All politicians lie (or stretch the truth).
_____ is a politician.
Therefore,__________ lies (stretched the truth).

Clip that out and keep it handy because it'll really make it easier for you in the future.


Vote for whoever the fuck you want, but don't be unrealistic. To their credit, most Euros have figured this out a long time ago.

Fixed.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Coach is Back! on October 24, 2012, 03:24:07 PM
Lol @ slyys desperate attempts


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Archer77 on October 24, 2012, 03:27:46 PM
You trust ANY politician you're fucking stupid

He doesn't mind being lied to by his own party. It's only when its the other party he dislikes lying to him that he gets upset.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: tommywishbone on October 24, 2012, 03:28:37 PM
yes, because Bush was full of integrity  ::)  Especially Cheney

Best mass murderers of the 21st century so far. They will be tough to catch.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: SLYY on October 24, 2012, 03:35:01 PM
Lol @ slyys desperate attempts

My favorite part of responding to your posts with FACTS...is your inability to respond.  You are like a young child who goes to school trying to impress his little buddies by attempting to repeat what he heard his parents say at dinner.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Coach is Back! on October 24, 2012, 04:03:36 PM
My favorite part of responding to your posts with FACTS...is your inability to respond.  You are like a young child who goes to school trying to impress his little buddies by attempting to repeat what he heard his parents say at dinner.

What "fact"?? seriously, youtubes and out of context articles you call "facts". Listen son, you have FOUR fucking people DEAD because this asshole tried to cover his ass and up until today he was denying it all along. What part of this thread are NOT comprehending??


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: The Abdominal Snoman on October 24, 2012, 04:08:39 PM
With all of the proven lies that Obama and his administration have conjured up even to this very day, and still covering up the attacks in Bengazi, wouldn't one quesi the integrity of those who still vote for him. I mean, if they still back an out right bald faced lyer such as Obama and his cohorts, how would they conduct they're own lives. IMO, especially in business, I would have a hard time trusting. This is a serious question.

When asking a question, you may want to use a ? mark ;)


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: garebear on October 24, 2012, 04:17:49 PM
Coach melting down hard today.



Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: SLYY on October 24, 2012, 04:22:01 PM
Listen son, you have FOUR fucking people DEAD because this asshole tried to cover his ass and up until today he was denying it all along. What part of this thread are NOT comprehending??

Wow Coach, you can NOT even comprehend why or what you meant in the very thread you started.

1)  Title of the thread is "Integrity."

2) You ask the following questions in the thread YOU started:

With all of the proven lies that Obama and his administration have conjured up even to this very day, and still covering up the attacks in Bengazi, 1.wouldn't one quesi the integrity of those who still vote for him. I mean, if they still back an out right bald faced lyer such as Obama and his cohorts, 2.how would they conduct they're own lives. IMO, especially in business, I would have a hard time trusting. This is a serious question.

Now reread what YOU wrote above...so YOU can try to understand what YOU asked people to respond to.







As a postscript, the videos of candidates actually speaking...presents facts regarding what they stated/stand for.  As a matter of fact, video clips are more credible than merely typing the quotes.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: GoneAway on October 24, 2012, 04:26:46 PM
It's funny that you think the average voter in the US has any clue about who they're even voting for and why. Less than 1% even know or care about the political reasons. 99% just vote for the "most popular."


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Coach is Back! on October 24, 2012, 05:20:19 PM
Wow Coach, you can NOT even comprehend why or what you meant in the very thread you started.

1)  Title of the threayurd is "Integrity."

2) You ask the following questions in the thread YOU started:

Now reread what YOU wrote above...so YOU can try to understand what YOU asked people to respond to.







As a postscript, the videos of candidates actually speaking...presents facts regarding what they stated/stand for.  As a matter of fact, video clips are more credible than merely typing the quotes.

Youre not the brightest are you. Obama all but pulled the trigger himself in that attack. Hrs just as responsible for those deaths just as much as the ones who actually killed them ....and he's still denying it even with concrete proof.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: arce1988 on October 24, 2012, 06:04:03 PM
  NO Integrity In USA. 9/11 makes me throw up.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: SLYY on October 24, 2012, 06:20:21 PM
Listen son, you have FOUR fucking people DEAD because this asshole tried to cover his ass and up until today he was denying it all along. What part of this thread are NOT comprehending??

Wow Coach, you can NOT even comprehend why or what you meant in the very thread you started.

1)  Title of the thread is "Integrity."

2) You ask the following questions in the thread YOU started:

With all of the proven lies that Obama and his administration have conjured up even to this very day, and still covering up the attacks in Bengazi, 1.wouldn't one quesi the integrity of those who still vote for him. I mean, if they still back an out right bald faced lyer such as Obama and his cohorts, 2.how would they conduct they're own lives. IMO, especially in business, I would have a hard time trusting. This is a serious question.



So, you concede to the fact that YOU misunderstood YOUR QUESTION and first post to the members of getbig in YOUR THREAD?




Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: SLYY on October 24, 2012, 06:20:58 PM
Youre not the brightest are you. Obama all but pulled the trigger himself in that attack. Hrs just as responsible for those deaths just as much as the ones who actually killed them ....and he's still denying it even with concrete proof.


Coach,

That sounds horrific if true!  But, I am still not seeing any credible citation to back up your allegation. 


Can you post some credible evidence that "Obama all but pulled the trigger himself in that attack?"


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Coach is Back! on October 24, 2012, 08:23:57 PM

Coach,

That sounds horrific if true!  But, I am still not seeing any credible citation to back up your allegation. 


Can you post some credible evidence that "Obama all but pulled the trigger himself in that attack?"

Reuters) - Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Benghazi assault, which President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials ultimately acknowledged was a "terrorist" attack carried out by militants with suspected links to al Qaeda affiliates or sympathizers.

Administration spokesmen, including White House spokesman Jay Carney, citing an unclassified assessment prepared by the CIA, maintained for days that the attacks likely were a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim film.

While officials did mention the possible involvement of "extremists," they did not lay blame on any specific militant groups or possible links to al Qaeda or its affiliates until intelligence officials publicly alleged that on September 28.

There were indications that extremists with possible al Qaeda connections were involved, but also evidence that the attacks could have erupted spontaneously, they said, adding that government experts wanted to be cautious about pointing fingers prematurely.

U.S. intelligence officials have emphasized since shortly after the attack that early intelligence reporting about the attack was mixed.

Spokesmen for the White House and State Department had no immediate response to requests for comments on the emails.

MISSIVES FROM LIBYA

The records obtained by Reuters consist of three emails dispatched by the State Department's Operations Center to multiple government offices, including addresses at the White House, Pentagon, intelligence community and FBI, on the afternoon of September 11.

The first email, timed at 4:05 p.m. Washington time - or 10:05 p.m. Benghazi time, 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission allegedly began - carried the subject line "U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack" and the notation "SBU", meaning "Sensitive But Unclassified."

The text said the State Department's regional security office had reported that the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was "under attack. Embassy in Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well."

The message continued: "Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four ... personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support."

A second email, headed "Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi" and timed 4:54 p.m. Washington time, said that the Embassy in Tripoli had reported that "the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi had stopped and the compound had been cleared." It said a "response team" was at the site attempting to locate missing personnel.

A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, carried the subject line: "Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack."

The message reported: "Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli."

While some information identifying recipients of this message was redacted from copies of the messages obtained by Reuters, a government source said that one of the addresses to which the message was sent was the White House Situation Room, the president's secure command post.

Other addressees included intelligence and military units as well as one used by the FBI command center, the source said.

It was not known what other messages were received by agencies in Washington from Libya that day about who might have been behind the attacks.

Intelligence experts caution that initial reports from the scene of any attack or disaster are often inaccurate.

By the morning of September 12, the day after the Benghazi attack, Reuters reported that there were indications that members of both Ansar al-Sharia, a militia based in the Benghazi area, and al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the North African affiliate of al Qaeda's faltering central command, may have been involved in organizing the attacks.

One U.S. intelligence official said that during the first classified briefing about Benghazi given to members of Congress, officials "carefully laid out the full range of sparsely available information, relying on the best analysis available at the time."

The official added, however, that the initial analysis of the attack that was presented to legislators was mixed.

"Briefers said extremists were involved in attacks that appeared spontaneous, there may have been a variety of motivating factors, and possible links to groups such as (al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and Ansar al-Sharia) were being looked at closely," the official said.

(Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell; Editing by Mary Milliken and Jim Loney)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-benghazi-emails-idUSBRE89N02C20121024


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Coach is Back! on October 24, 2012, 08:28:42 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57538689/emails-detail-unfolding-benghazi-attack-on-sept-11/?tag=AverageMixRelated


CNSNews.com) - On Sept. 11, 2012, just two hours after the State Department first began notifying government agencies back in Washington--including the White House--that the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was under attack by armed men, State sent out an email that went to at least two people in the White House that said the group Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility for the attack.

The email, which was sent from a State Department address at 6:07 PM on Sept. 11, 2012, was obtained by CBS News and posted online by the news agency in a PDF file. This email and others posted by CBS News had certain elements redacted--particularly the exact identities of the person who sent it and the persons who received it.

The email sent at 6:07 P.M. on Sept. 11 was sent by a person using an @state.gov email address. The subject line said: "Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU)"

The body of the email said: "(SBU) Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli."

Among the addresses of those who received this email are two that include the tag "@nss.eop.gov," a White House email address. "EOP" stands for "Executive Office of the President." The names of the two recipients in the Executive Office of the President who received the email have been redacted.

Someone at the State Department sent an original email about the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate at 4:05 PM on Sept. 11, 2012. This email was sent from an address tagged "@state.gov." The name of the person who sent the email is redacted.

This email, too, was sent to two people in the Executive Office of the President. It was also sent to at least 32 individuals at the State Department itself, a person in the office of the Director of National Intelligence ("@dni.gov"), a person at the FBI ("@ic.fbi.gov"), and a person in the Defense Department ("@pentagon.mil").

All the names of the recipients in these federal agencies are redacted.

The subject line of this 4:05 PM email sent by State 9/11/12: "U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack (SBU)."

The email said nothing about a YouTube video. The email said nothing about a spontaneous demonstration.

The text of the email said: "(SBU) The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack. Embassy Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosives have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM [Chief of Mission] personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support. The Operations Center will provide updates as available."

Forty-nine minutes later--at 4:54 PM on 9/11/12--the State Department sent out a follow-up email to the same set of recipients, including the two in the Executive Office of the President.

The subject line on this second email said: "Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi (SBU)"

The text said: "(SBU) Embassy Tripoli reports the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi has stopped and the compound has been cleared. A response team is on the site attempting to locate COM [Chief of Mission] personnel."

This email also said nothing about a YouTube video or a spontaneous demonstration.

The third and last email obtained by CBS News was sent by the State Department at 6:07 PM on 9/11/12--or just two hours and two minutes after the first email giving initial notification of the attack. This email went to a somewhat different group of recipients--but still included two persons in the Executive Office of the President and someone at the FBI.

The subject line on this email said: "Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU)."

The text said: "(SBU) Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli."

Again, this email made no mention of a YouTube video or a spontaneous demonstration in Benghazi.

 http://cnsnews.com/news/article/state-dept-email-white-house-607-pm-91112-ansar-al-sharia-claims-responsibility



He decided to go to bed while this was going on. There were troops within 400 miles of the compound that could have been called in....he went to bed instead.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Natural Man on October 24, 2012, 08:51:45 PM
With all of the proven lies that Obama and his administration have conjured up even to this very day, and still covering up the attacks in Bengazi, wouldn't one quesi the integrity of those who still vote for him. I mean, if they still back an out right bald faced lyer such as Obama and his cohorts, how would they conduct they're own lives. IMO, especially in business, I would have a hard time trusting. This is a serious question.
arent you a health/sport/fitness coach who is ...on steroids yourself?

Talking about integrity?

shut your mouth you give a bad name to christians and "integrity".


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Nirvana on October 24, 2012, 08:59:53 PM
All politicians lie.
_____ is a politician.
Therefore,__________ lies.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Nirvana on October 24, 2012, 09:00:36 PM
All politicians lie.
_____ is a politician.
Therefore,__________ lies.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Nirvana on October 24, 2012, 09:01:28 PM
All politicians lie.
_____ is a politician.
Therefore,__________ lies.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: BIG ACH on October 24, 2012, 09:20:34 PM
Youre not the brightest are you. Obama all but pulled the trigger himself in that attack. Hrs just as responsible for those deaths just as much as the ones who actually killed them ....and he's still denying it even with concrete proof.

Coach - sometimes you make some valid arguments...

But then sometimes you say an extreme statements like that above which diminishes your credibility and makes it hard to get behind you bro!



People need to stop acting like their supported candidate (regardless of which side) is the holy savior and that the opposition is the devils child sent from hell!


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Coach is Back! on October 24, 2012, 09:24:10 PM
Coach - sometimes you make some valid arguments...

But then sometimes you say an extreme statements like that above which diminishes your credibilminity and makes it hard to get behind you bro!



People need to stop acting like their supported candidate (regardless of which side) is the holy savior and that the opposition is the devils child sent from hell!

Would every candidate set someone up to get killed?


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: SLYY on October 24, 2012, 10:30:20 PM
Coach,

You state as fact the following extremely serious allegations:

1.
Obama all but pulled the trigger himself in that attack.


2.
Would every candidate set someone up to get killed?


Neither of your articles make ANY of your above allegations.  



I will ask again: do you have any credible sources that make the allegations you claim above...based on fact?


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: axestream on October 24, 2012, 10:40:53 PM
Coach,

You state as fact the following extremely serious allegations:

1.

2.

Neither of your articles make ANY of your above allegations.  



I will ask again: do you have any credible sources that make the allegations you claim above...based on fact?

I thought I just missed those parts because I skimmed through them and English isn't my first language. lol


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Primemuscle on October 24, 2012, 11:02:45 PM
With all of the proven lies that Obama and his administration have conjured up even to this very day, and still covering up the attacks in Bengazi, wouldn't one quesi the integrity of those who still vote for him. I mean, if they still back an out right bald faced lyer such as Obama and his cohorts, how would they conduct they're own lives. IMO, especially in business, I would have a hard time trusting. This is a serious question.

If Romney is elected President on November 6th, how long do you think it will take you (and the rest of the country) to discover all his lies?

Politicians pander to the public for votes. The main job of politician is to get elected and then to stay elected. You were expecting more?

I am campaigning on behalf of local politicians in Oregon. It is obvious that even the candidates I like have been carefully scripted to say what their campaign managers believe will get them elected or keep them in the office they currently hold.

What I have noticed is that the younger the candidate the more idealistic and committed to those ideals they seem. Be wary of some lawyers who seek office though, they often have other agendas.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Mitch on October 25, 2012, 02:36:27 AM
Would every candidate set someone up to get killed?
Yes, definitely, every single one, and you already know it. So what's your point?


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Archer77 on October 25, 2012, 07:15:08 AM
Yes, definitely, every single one, and you already know it. So what's your point?

Bam!  Checkmate!  He got you, Coach!


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Coach is Back! on October 25, 2012, 09:38:07 AM
Bam!  Checkmate!  He got you, Coach!

Ok, whatever you say chief.




Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Coach is Back! on October 25, 2012, 09:39:43 AM
They did watch them die after refusing to send help. Reports are coming out that our two former Navy SEALs held off 200 cowardly terrorists for two hours, killing 80. A Marine contingent was only one hour away. The Obama Administration let them die. They let Ambassador Chris Stevens be raped, murdered and his body dragged through the streets. They let Tyrone Woods and Glen Dohert give their last f
ull measure of devotion in defense of the Americans still in the consulate. And they let Sean Smith, a former Air Force Captain be murdered as well. I will never forget the chilling message posted by Sean Smith, "I think we're going to die tonight." They lifted not a single finger to help our consulate under attack, and these men died. Don't look to the Obama Administration, let alone Barack Obama, for answers. They are in full CYA mode. But I ask you to remember the four men who were brutally murdered. Never forget. Standard op in this scenarios is to go in with all necessary force to protect our people & assets - this has been demonstrated time& again thru American history. For this utter collapse - someone had to say 'No - don't go.' Petraeus had to know. Clinton had to know. Obama had to know. And they let them die. Obama just went to bed-he had to go to Vegas for a fundraiser in the morning.




Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: SLYY on October 25, 2012, 09:57:29 AM
Coach,

You state as fact the following extremely serious allegations:

1.
Obama all but pulled the trigger himself in that attack.


2.
Would every candidate set someone up to get killed?


NONE of YOUR articles make ANY of YOUR above allegations. 




Do you have any credible sources that make the allegations you claim above...based on fact?


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Coach is Back! on October 25, 2012, 10:38:29 AM
Coach,

You state as fact the following extremely serious allegations:
No
1.

2.

NONE of YOUR articles make ANY of YOUR above allegations.  




Do you have any credible sources that make the allegations you claim above...based on fact?

Your extreme lack of comprehension is mind boggling. Those are my personal thoughts and observations. You won't find a media outlet anywhere who would say that. I stand by it.

Back to the integrity. Obama is not some one I associate with even in if I knew him. Wouldn't have a beer with him, wouldn't let my kids around him, wouldn't trust him..period!


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: SLYY on October 25, 2012, 11:10:33 AM
Your extreme lack of comprehension is mind boggling. Those are my personal thoughts and observations. You won't find a media outlet anywhere who would say that. I stand by it.

Let's discuss the word "comprehension."  Comprehension- the act or action of grasping with the intellect.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/comprehension



You state the following extremely serious allegations based on YOUR "personal thoughts and observations":

1.
Obama all but pulled the trigger himself in that attack.


2.
Would every candidate set someone up to get killed?



Again -> Comprehension- the act or action of grasping with the intellect.


HOW did YOU grasp YOUR "personal thoughts and observations" with intellect when...

NONE of YOUR articles that YOU use as proof...make or allude to ANY of YOUR above allegations?






Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Primemuscle on October 25, 2012, 11:15:11 AM
Your extreme lack of comprehension is mind boggling. Those are my personal thoughts and observations. You won't find a media outlet anywhere who would say that. I stand by it.

Back to the integrity. Obama is not some one I associate with even in if I knew him. Wouldn't have a beer with him, wouldn't let my kids around him, wouldn't trust him..period!

Talk about a lack of integrity, your statements above demonstrate a complete absence of integrity on your part. Like a lot other detractors, you attempt to mount your arguments by employing insinuations and not facts. For example, stating you would not let your kids around President Obama implies they would not be safe in his company. Unless you know something about President Obama that no one else seems to know, your insinuation is outrageous and rather a cheap trick on your part.

At least you are forthcoming enough to admit what you write here are only expressions of "personal thoughts and observations." It is a real shame that you are plagued by such negative thoughts and observations.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: tbombz on October 25, 2012, 11:50:19 AM
With all of the proven lies that Obama and his administration have conjured up even to this very day, and still covering up the attacks in Bengazi, wouldn't one quesi the integrity of those who still vote for him. I mean, if they still back an out right bald faced lyer such as Obama and his cohorts, how would they conduct they're own lives. IMO, especially in business, I would have a hard time trusting. This is a serious question.
name one lie the administration said about benghazi


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 25, 2012, 11:55:53 AM
name one lie the administration said about benghazi

LOL!!!!!

"We were not warned" 


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Archer77 on October 25, 2012, 12:19:22 PM
Talk about a lack of integrity, your statements above demonstrate a complete absence of integrity on your part. Like a lot other detractors, you attempt to mount your arguments by employing insinuations and not facts. For example, stating you would not let your kids around President Obama implies they would not be safe in his company. Unless you know something about President Obama that no one else seems to know, your insinuation is outrageous and rather a cheap trick on your part.

At least you are forthcoming enough to admit what you write here are only expressions of "personal thoughts and observations." It is a real shame that you are plagued by such negative thoughts and observations.

Damn, Coach.  You've been check mated again.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 25, 2012, 12:24:16 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKdcOdy6OUg


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Coach is Back! on October 25, 2012, 12:35:46 PM
Damn, Coach.  You've been check mated again.

Not even close. I will respond when I get to an actual computer later. Just keep in mind that even after showing the emails, time lines topping it off by watching it all go down in real time then having Obama and his cohorts blame it on something else even though the proof is everywhere....they are still willing to back him.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: BIG ACH on October 25, 2012, 01:23:01 PM
Your extreme lack of comprehension is mind boggling. Those are my personal thoughts and observations. You won't find a media outlet anywhere who would say that. I stand by it.

Back to the integrity. Obama is not some one I associate with even in if I knew him. Wouldn't have a beer with him, wouldn't let my kids around him, wouldn't trust him..period!

Why? Sounds like you really personally hate the guy??  

I mean, I didn't agree with a bunch of things Bush did but I still would think it'd be fun to hang out with him!


So clearly its more than just politics for you :) I think its safe to assume that!

The more I watch the debates the more I lean towards Obama (wouldn't be devastated if Romney came into office though) I guess you don't think I have any integrity..... but that's OK, I'd still hang out with you Coach! ;D


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 25, 2012, 01:41:19 PM
I personally hate obama and think he is a disgusting ghetto communist thug. 


Why? Sounds like you really personally hate the guy??  

I mean, I didn't agree with a bunch of things Bush did but I still would think it'd be fun to hang out with him!


So clearly its more than just politics for you :) I think its safe to assume that!

The more I watch the debates the more I lean towards Obama (wouldn't be devastated if Romney came into office though) I guess you don't think I have any integrity..... but that's OK, I'd still hang out with you Coach! ;D


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: tbombz on October 25, 2012, 06:23:27 PM
LOL!!!!!

"We were not warned" 
::)


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: garebear on October 25, 2012, 08:45:01 PM
I personally hate obama and think he is a disgusting ghetto communist thug. 


Your posts are boring.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Coach is Back! on October 25, 2012, 09:11:34 PM
::)

"It was a YouTube video"

"We did not know"


"It's not our department"


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Roger Bacon on October 25, 2012, 09:43:32 PM
Your posts are boring.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: avxo on October 25, 2012, 10:56:11 PM
I personally hate obama and think he is a disgusting ghetto communist thug.  

That says more about you than it says about Obama.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: whork on October 26, 2012, 01:29:12 AM
Talk about a lack of integrity, your statements above demonstrate a complete absence of integrity on your part. Like a lot other detractors, you attempt to mount your arguments by employing insinuations and not facts. For example, stating you would not let your kids around President Obama implies they would not be safe in his company. Unless you know something about President Obama that no one else seems to know, your insinuation is outrageous and rather a cheap trick on your part.

At least you are forthcoming enough to admit what you write here are only expressions of "personal thoughts and observations." It is a real shame that you are plagued by such negative thoughts and observations.

Nice


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Coach is Back! on October 26, 2012, 08:28:47 AM
Nice

Nice my ass.....




Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. Consulate and subsequent attack several hours later was denied by U.S. officials -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. Consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to "stand down," according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to "stand down."

Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the Consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The quick reaction force from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the Consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.

At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Specter gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours -- enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.

Watch "Special Report Investigates: Death and Deceit in Benghazi" on Fox News at 1 p.m. ET on Saturday, 3 p.m. on Sunday and 10 p.m. on Sunday.

A Special Operations team, or CIF which stands for Commanders in Extremis Force, operating in Central Europe had been moved to Sigonella, Italy, but they too were told to stand down. A second force that specializes in counterterrorism rescues was on hand at Sigonella, according to senior military and intelligence sources. According to those sources, they could have flown to Benghazi in less than two hours. They were the same distance to Benghazi as those that were sent from Tripoli. Specter gunships are commonly used by the Special Operations community to provide close air support.

According to sources on the ground during the attack, the special operator on the roof of the CIA annex had visual contact and a laser pointing at the Libyan mortar team that was targeting the CIA annex. The operators were calling in coordinates of where the Libyan forces were firing from.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters at the Pentagon on Thursday that there was not a clear enough picture of what was occurring on the ground in Benghazi to send help.

"There's a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here," Panetta said Thursday. "But the basic principle here ... is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on."

U.S. officials argue that there was a period of several hours when the fighting stopped before the mortars were fired at the annex, leading officials to believe the attack was over.

Fox News has learned that there were two military surveillance drones redirected to Benghazi shortly after the attack on the Consulate began. They were already in the vicinity. The second surveillance craft was sent to relieve the first drone, perhaps due to fuel issues. Both were capable of sending real time visuals back to U.S. officials in Washington, D.C. Any U.S. official or agency with the proper clearance, including the White House Situation Room, State Department, CIA, Pentagon and others, could call up that video in real time on their computers.

Tyrone Woods was later joined at the scene by fellow former Navy SEAL Glen Doherty, who was sent in from Tripoli as part of a Global Response Staff or GRS that provides security to CIA case officers and provides countersurveillance and surveillance protection. They were killed by a mortar shell at 4 a.m. Libyan time, nearly seven hours after the attack on the Consulate began -- a window that represented more than enough time for the U.S. military to send back-up from nearby bases in Europe, according to sources familiar with Special Operations. Four mortars were fired at the annex. The first one struck outside the annex. Three more hit the annex.

A motorcade of dozens of Libyan vehicles, some mounted with 50 caliber machine guns, belonging to the February 17th Brigades, a Libyan militia which is friendly to the U.S., finally showed up at the CIA annex at approximately 3 a.m. An American Quick Reaction Force sent from Tripoli had arrived at the Benghazi airport at 2 a.m. (four hours after the initial attack on the Consulate) and was delayed for 45 minutes at the airport because they could not at first get transportation, allegedly due to confusion among Libyan militias who were supposed to escort them to the annex, according to Benghazi sources.

The American special operators, Woods, Doherty and at least two others were part of the Global Response Staff, a CIA element, based at the CIA annex and were protecting CIA operators who were part of a mission to track and repurchase arms in Benghazi that had proliferated in the wake of Muammar Qaddafi's fall. Part of their mission was to find the more than 20,000 missing MANPADS, or shoulder-held missiles capable of bringing down a commercial aircraft. According to a source on the ground at the time of the attack, the team inside the CIA annex had captured three Libyan attackers and was forced to hand them over to the Libyans. U.S. officials do not know what happened to those three attackers and whether they were released by the Libyan forces.

Fox News has also learned that Stevens was in Benghazi that day to be present at the opening of an English-language school being started by the Libyan farmer who helped save an American pilot who had been shot down by pro-Qaddafi forces during the initial war to overthrow the regime. That farmer saved the life of the American pilot and the Ambassador wanted to be present to launch the Libyan rescuer's new school.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/#ixzz2AQIZglZY


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 26, 2012, 08:29:29 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ag3IiDtER3o


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Agnostic007 on October 26, 2012, 08:45:54 AM
I personally hate obama and think he is a disgusting ghetto communist thug. 



But you hate Romney too...


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Agnostic007 on October 26, 2012, 08:48:42 AM
I'm sorry, I gotta laugh when I hear anyone talking about integrity and politics in the same sentence. The Republican and Democratic party will do and or say anything to make the other party look bad. The debates had BOTH the President and the Candidate KNOWINGLY stating half truths in order to win. Romney mistated facts he had to know were not accurate just as much as Obama. So holy christ, how can anyone argue either have integrity??


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 26, 2012, 09:04:08 AM
But you hate Romney too...

I do, but less than obama, a lot less.  If Romney screws us like obama did - i will have just as much disdain for him. 


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: SLYY on October 26, 2012, 10:46:01 AM
Coach,

You state the following extremely serious allegations based on YOUR "personal thoughts and observations":

1.
Obama all but pulled the trigger himself in that attack.


2.
Would every candidate set someone up to get killed?

Thus far, you have shared 3 articles (including one from FOX NEWS) and NONE of YOUR articles that YOU use as proof...make or allude to ANY of YOUR above allegations.




Do you have ANY credible sources based on fact that assert the allegations you claim above?




Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Coach is Back! on October 26, 2012, 11:35:26 AM
Coach,

You state the following extremely serious allegations based on YOUR "personal thoughts and observations":

1.

2.
Thus far, you have shared 3 articles (including one from FOX NEWS) and NONE of YOUR articles that YOU use as proof...make or allude to ANY of YOUR above allegations.




Do you have ANY credible sources based on fact that assert the allegations you claim above?




How can I have proof of my own personal thoughts and observations? Do you have any proof that this wasn't the case?

1. Lied saying it was a youtube video that started this whole thing

2. Denied for weeks and still does.

3. They knew it was a terrorist attack (on 9/11/12)

4. Watched the attack and the Americans die in real time

5. Obama goes to bed, then off to Vegas the very next morning to hang with "Jay Z" and "Beyonce"

6. Americans asked for military help THREE TIMES....denied THREE TIMES

Want more? I have more. Read between the lines, son. You can bold out my font in red, black, yellow or whatever. Hell, feel free to send my thoughts to the fucking White House itself. Again, they (Obama and his admin) as as much to blame as the ones who pulled the trigger.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Necrosis on October 26, 2012, 11:54:47 AM
How can I have proof of my own personal thoughts and observations? Do you have any proof that this wasn't the case?

1. Lied saying it was a youtube video that started this whole thing

2. Denied for weeks and still does.

3. They knew it was a terrorist attack (on 9/11/12)

4. Watched the attack and the Americans die in real time

5. Obama goes to bed, then off to Vegas the very next morning to hang with "Jay Z" and "Beyonce"

6. Americans asked for military help THREE TIMES....denied THREE TIMES

Want more? I have more. Read between the lines, son. You can bold out my font in red, black, yellow or whatever. Hell, feel free to send my thoughts to the fucking White House itself. Again, they (Obama and his admin) as as much to blame as the ones who pulled the trigger.


It's called evidence, look it up retard.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: SLYY on October 26, 2012, 12:04:21 PM
Coach,

You claim:


1.
Obama all but pulled the trigger himself in that attack.
2.
Would every candidate set someone up to get killed?





Let's ASSUME that everything you state below is true:


1. Lied saying it was a youtube video that started this whole thing

This neither proves Obama all but pulled the trigger himself in that attack nor that Obama set anyone up to get killed.

2. Denied for weeks and still does.

This neither proves Obama all but pulled the trigger himself in that attack nor that Obama set anyone up to get killed.

3. They knew it was a terrorist attack (on 9/11/12)

This neither proves Obama all but pulled the trigger himself in that attack nor that Obama set anyone up to get killed.

4. Watched the attack and the Americans die in real time

This neither proves Obama all but pulled the trigger himself in that attack nor that Obama set anyone up to get killed.

5. Obama goes to bed, then off to Vegas the very next morning to hang with "Jay Z" and "Beyonce"

This neither proves Obama all but pulled the trigger himself in that attack nor that Obama set anyone up to get killed.

6. Americans asked for military help THREE TIMES....denied THREE TIMES

This neither proves Obama all but pulled the trigger himself in that attack nor that Obama set anyone up to get killed.

_______________


How can I have proof of my own personal thoughts and observations?



In that case:

*Why do you share lies that you made up in your head, Coach?


*How do you expect people to trust conservatives when you make up lies in your head based on "observations" of nonexistent facts and share them with world as the truth?



Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: avxo on October 26, 2012, 01:20:03 PM
Nice my ass.....

What does the post you copy-pasted have to do with anything? Does it answer the points made against you? Does it address them even tangentially? Even if everything in that article is 100% true and accurate, does it invalidate anything said against you in the post you're replying?

Seriously Coach, you have the IQ of a sloughed-off, discarded hemorrhoid...


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Primemuscle on October 26, 2012, 01:33:53 PM
Coach,


*How do you expect people to trust conservatives when you make up lies in your head based on "observations" of nonexistent facts and share them with world as the truth?





Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Coach is Back! on October 26, 2012, 03:00:32 PM
Coach,

You claim:


1.2.




Let's ASSUME that everything you state below is true:


This neither proves Obama all but pulled the trigger himself in that attack nor that Obama set anyone up to get killed.

This neither proves Obama all but pulled the trigger himself in that attack nor that Obama set anyone up to get killed.

This neither proves Obama all but pulled the trigger himself in that attack nor that Obama set anyone up to get killed.

This neither proves Obama all but pulled the trigger himself in that attack nor that Obama set anyone up to get killed.

This neither proves Obama all but pulled the trigger himself in that attack nor that Obama set anyone up to get killed.

This neither proves Obama all but pulled the trigger himself in that attack nor that Obama set anyone up to get killed.

_______________




In that case:

*Why do you share lies that you made up in your head, Coach?


*How do you expect people to trust conservatives when you make up lies in your head based on "observations" of nonexistent facts and share them with world as the truth?



Where are my lies?

Benghazi real simple, Today the president said he did not know about the requests for military aid from the CIA Annex at Benghazi on 9/11/2012.
If he knew and didn't act, he was criminally negligent. If he did not set up his chain of command so that he would be informed, then he was criminally incompetent.

He is ultimately responsible, if he knew and did nothing, again, he is just as responsible as the attackers. Do you disagree? I understand the limited commonsense with the left, so maybe you might be just the one to answer this.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Primemuscle on October 26, 2012, 03:13:20 PM

If he knew and didn't act, he was criminally negligent. If he did not set up his chain of command so that he would be informed, then he was criminally incompetent.


Even if President Obama was shown to be negligent and/or incompetent in this instance, where do you get the "criminally" part? Or is this just your opinion showing again?


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Kazan on October 26, 2012, 03:16:04 PM
Even if President Obama was shown to be negligent and/or incompetent in this instance, where do you get the "criminally" part? Or is this just your opinion showing again?

Negligence that directly results in the death of 4 people, sounds criminal to me. But hey they are the Gubmint nothing to see here, move along


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Primemuscle on October 26, 2012, 03:21:42 PM
Negligence that directly results in the death of 4 people, sounds criminal to me. But hey they are the Gubmint nothing to see here, move along

Aha, just as I suspected.  :o

Would you say this is similar to when the (Portland) police shoot an unarmed suspect in the back and get away with it?

see below:

Quote
PORTLAND, Ore. – The City of Portland will reinstate a police officer who was fired over his involvement in the shooting of an unarmed man, even as city officials continue to fight his continued employment.


http://www.katu.com/news/local/Officer-involved-in-Aaron-Campbell-shooting-will-be-reinstated-175027261.html (http://www.katu.com/news/local/Officer-involved-in-Aaron-Campbell-shooting-will-be-reinstated-175027261.html)


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Kazan on October 26, 2012, 03:28:17 PM
Aha, just as I suspected.  :o

Would you say this is similar to when the (Portland) police shoot an unarmed suspect in the back and get away with it?

see below:
 

http://www.katu.com/news/local/Officer-involved-in-Aaron-Campbell-shooting-will-be-reinstated-175027261.html (http://www.katu.com/news/local/Officer-involved-in-Aaron-Campbell-shooting-will-be-reinstated-175027261.html)

Doesn't surprise me one bit. We as citizens have allowed the Government, Cops.......... to be above the law. What do expect is going to happen.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: SLYY on October 26, 2012, 05:02:32 PM
Where are my lies?

1.
Obama all but pulled the trigger himself in that attack.

2.
Would every candidate set someone up to get killed?

Lie- to create a false or misleading impression
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie

You created the above allegations without observing ANY credible facts as a basis.  Thus, you have merely created false impressions or lies.


Benghazi real simple, Today the president said he did not know about the requests for military aid from the CIA Annex at Benghazi on 9/11/2012.
If he knew and didn't act, he was criminally negligent. If he did not set up his chain of command so that he would be informed, then he was criminally incompetent.

He is ultimately responsible, if he knew and did nothing, again, he is just as responsible as the attackers. Do you disagree? I understand the limited commonsense with the left, so maybe you might be just the one to answer this.

Coach,

We all know that you believe everything the people on Fox News say regarding Benghazi (and everything else).  But, you have to decipher the difference between what is fact and what is opinion.  There have been very few documents released thus far and LOTS of Fox News personnel giving their opinions.  The information the public is privy to with regard to Benghazi is a mere chip of the tip of the iceberg.  You, I, Fox News, 333, Rush...none of us know, nor will we ever know what really occurred.  We will never be privy to such information due to executive privilege.  The reason you did not know that is due, to what I can only assume, is a lack of education.  I will give you two more very important words.  Look them up.  See how they relate to foreign policy.  Ready?


Political Question    


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Princess L on October 26, 2012, 05:08:16 PM
Where are my lies?

Benghazi real simple, Today the president said he did not know about the requests for military aid from the CIA Annex at Benghazi on 9/11/2012.
If he knew and didn't act, he was criminally negligent. If he did not set up his chain of command so that he would be informed, then he was criminally incompetent.

He is ultimately responsible, if he knew and did nothing, again, he is just as responsible as the attackers. Do you disagree? I understand the limited commonsense with the left, so maybe you might be just the one to answer this.

Which he already stated!


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: littledumbells on October 26, 2012, 05:20:53 PM
Bush and Cheney left 1750 people, mostly afro-american, to die in Louisiana.  Obama messed up on one white boy.  

   They chose to live below sea level


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: SLYY on October 26, 2012, 05:46:44 PM

Which he already stated!

He stated: "I'm the president and I'm always responsible..."

However, Obama's statement has nothing to do with what Coach is alleging.  The quote you highlighted was Coach's evidence for his extremely serious allegations.  Not sure why you pointed that quote out, but nonetheless....I added Obama's exact words for you.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Kazan on October 26, 2012, 06:00:37 PM
He stated: "I'm the president and I'm always responsible..."

However, Obama's statement has nothing to do with what Coach is alleging.  The quote you highlighted was Coach's evidence for his extremely serious allegations.  Not sure why you pointed that quote out, but nonetheless....I added Obama's exact words for you.

You can argue semantics's all you want, the more information that comes out about this cluster fuck, the more incompetent the POTUS appears. Did POTUS lie, it sure looks that way, but not only about the cause. It's starting to look like he knew a hell of a lot more, and choose to go fund raising.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: SLYY on October 26, 2012, 06:04:46 PM
You can argue semantics's all you want...

Where am I arguing semantics, Kazan?


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Kazan on October 26, 2012, 06:15:30 PM
Where am I arguing semantics Kazan?

OK, poor choice of words, the administration appointed the ambassador and sent him to Libya. The administration failed to protect said ambassador. Now that documents have been leaked(note to POTUS, never try to fuck over a Clinton) we know that the whole video story is a bunch of horse shit. Face it POTUS fucked this up, and tried to cover it up with the video story. Should he be held responsible? Your damn right he should, and not just a sound bite, his tit should be in a ringer over this. If you want a POTUS that would rather go fund raising than do his job, by all means vote Obama.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: SLYY on October 26, 2012, 06:30:07 PM
OK, poor choice of words, the administration appointed the ambassador and sent him to Libya. The administration failed to protect said ambassador. Now that documents have been leaked(note to POTUS, never try to fuck over a Clinton) we know that the whole video story is a bunch of horse shit. Face it POTUS fucked this up, and tried to cover it up with the video story. Should he be held responsible? Your damn right he should, and not just a sound bite, his tit should be in a ringer over this. If you want a POTUS that would rather go fund raising than do his job, by all means vote Obama.


We know very little about what really happened.  Nonetheless, my only contribution in this thread was to question Coach's extreme allegations against the President.  


Regardless, as I said to Coach: (and here I thought you were a Constitutional law buff...)

Coach,

We all know that you believe everything the people on Fox News say regarding Benghazi (and everything else).  But, you have to decipher the difference between what is fact and what is opinion.  There have been very few documents released thus far and LOTS of Fox News personnel giving their opinions.  The information the public is privy to with regard to Benghazi is a mere chip of the tip of the iceberg.  You, I, Fox News, 333, Rush...none of us know, nor will we ever know what really occurred.  We will never be privy to such information due to executive privilege.  The reason you did not know that is due, to what I can only assume, is a lack of education.  I will give you two more very important words.  Look them up.  See how they relate to foreign policy.  Ready?



Political Question    


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Kazan on October 26, 2012, 06:40:57 PM

We know very little about what really happened.  Nonetheless, my only contribution in this thread was to question Coach's extreme allegations against the President.  


Regardless, as I said to Coach: (and here I thought you were a Constitutional law buff...)


Coach goes over board sometimes.

Article 2 section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

So the question becomes can it be proven that POTUS was derelict of duty, which resulted in the deaths of 4 Americans. If so should impeachment proceedings take place and/or should he be charged with criminal negligence?


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: avxo on October 26, 2012, 06:41:46 PM
If he did not set up his chain of command so that he would be informed, then he was criminally incompetent.

Is that your consider legal opinion? ::)


He is ultimately responsible, if he knew and did nothing, again, he is just as responsible as the attackers. Do you disagree? I understand the limited commonsense with the left, so maybe you might be just the one to answer this.

You use way too many commas. He is responsible if he knew and did nothing. If he didn't know, it's unclear if he is responsible or not. As a matter of fact, most everything about this case is unclear. All we have are "unnamed sources", articles and conjectures. But, as of today, no hard facts.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: avxo on October 26, 2012, 06:44:46 PM
Negligence that directly results in the death of 4 people, sounds criminal to me. But hey they are the Gubmint nothing to see here, move along

It may sound criminal to you, but I doubt that your ears are lawyers. In fact I doubt that you're a lawyer. So what it sounds like to you is about as relevant as a fart coming out from one of The Coach's fistulas is. Do you understand, or even know, the legal requirements outlined in the relevant statutes that are necessary to sustain a negligence charge.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Primemuscle on October 26, 2012, 07:21:51 PM
It's starting to look like he knew a hell of a lot more, and choose to go fund raising.

Another example of you having an over-imaginative opinion and certain exaggeration to prove your false point. As if everything were as simple as you seem to believe it is! You might as well say something like, President Obama said, "Forget about diplomats being murdered, I need to get to my fund raising now." Really, how absurd!

You and 333386 should move in together. You certainly are of the same ilk.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Princess L on October 26, 2012, 08:03:47 PM
Another example of you having an over-imaginative opinion and certain exaggeration to prove your false point. As if everything were as simple as you seem to believe it is! You might as well say something like, President Obama said, "Forget about diplomats being murdered, I need to get to my fund raising now." Really, how absurd!


Do you feel it was appropriate to go to a Vegas campaign event on 9/12/12?


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: avxo on October 26, 2012, 08:06:52 PM
Do you feel it was appropriate to go to a Vegas campaign event on 9/12/12?

Why wouldn't it be?


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Coach is Back! on October 26, 2012, 08:22:02 PM
It really blows my mind how the liberals will back this guy no.matter the circumstances. Which brings.me.back to the original question of integrity...that no.one answered.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Coach is Back! on October 26, 2012, 08:25:30 PM
Why wouldn't it be?

There goes that integrity thing again.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: avxo on October 26, 2012, 08:28:52 PM
It really blows my mind how the liberals will back this guy no.matter the circumstances. Which brings.me.back to the original question of integrity...that no.one answered.

It really blows my mind too. The difference between us is that, unlike you, my mind is blown regardless of which end of the political spectrum the people who are doing the backing of "this guy" fall.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Princess L on October 26, 2012, 08:29:48 PM
Why wouldn't it be?

   Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya
 

Rose Garden
9/12/12
10:43 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Good morning.  Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation.  Often, they are away from their families.  Sometimes, they brave great danger.

Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi.  Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith.  We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed.  And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.

The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack.  We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats.  I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world.  And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths.  We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.  But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence.  None.  The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya.  Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans.  Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.

It's especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save.  At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi.  With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya.  When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there.  He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.

Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on.  I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks.  We mourned with the families who were lost on that day.  I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed.  And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it.  Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.  Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.  We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.  And make no mistake, justice will be done.

But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers.  These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity.  They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.

We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.

Thank you.  May God bless the memory of those we lost and may God bless the United States of America.

END
10:48 A.M. EDT


Lunch ~ then off to Vegas baby!

Responsible?


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: SLYY on October 26, 2012, 08:32:42 PM
It really blows my mind how the liberals will back this guy no.matter the circumstances. Which brings.me.back to the original question of integrity...that no.one answered.

No one is backing anyone.  We are attempting to make you back up your extreme allegations.  You can't, so you try to divert our attention by stating things like, "It really blows my mind how the liberals will back this guy no.matter the circumstances."  That might work with the 3rd graders you train, but not here.  


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: avxo on October 26, 2012, 08:34:58 PM
There goes that integrity thing again.

[edit: I didn't realize Coach was referring to the Embassy incident in Benghazi, although in retrospect I should have since this is the topic of the thread; I assumed he meant the September 11 attacks]

What's wrong with September 12th? September 11, I can see. What else do you think is "verboten" on the 12th? What about having a beer? Or watching football? Or having a beer while watching football? Or, perhaps, having a beer while watching football, and then getting a blowjob at halftime, while drinking another beer? And if you're so indignant about activities on September 12th, what about the 13th? Or the 14th? Or the 15th? Or the whole fucking month of September.

As for your thinly veiled dig that I lack integrity *shrugs*. Your words - and your opinion of me - carry no weight and have no impact on me. Although, I must say that it's very ironic and quite amusing that you apparently think (and I use the term loosely) that I'm a liberal.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Coach is Back! on October 26, 2012, 08:35:23 PM
No one is backing anyone.  We are attempting to make you back up your extreme allegations.  You can't, so you try to divert our attention by stating things like, "It really blows my mind how the liberals will back this guy no.matter the circumstances."  That might work with the 3rd graders you train, but not here.  

Divert? I've been putting it out there for six fucking pages.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: SLYY on October 26, 2012, 08:39:08 PM
Divert? I've been putting it out there for six fucking pages.

We have requested your credible sources...you know, where you came up with your allegations.  So far:


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: avxo on October 26, 2012, 08:40:12 PM
   Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya

Oh, actually, I thought Coach was referring to 9/11. My bad on that.

 
[...]
Lunch ~ then off to Vegas baby!

What would cancelling the fundraised really achieve? Hardly anything substantive: it would only be a token expression of respect, and one meant only to preserve appearances. And I don't much care much for appearances.


Responsible?

For what?


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Coach is Back! on October 26, 2012, 08:47:10 PM
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/10/26/ac-130u-gunship-was-on-scene-in-benghazi-obama-admin-refused-to-let-it-fire/


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Princess L on October 26, 2012, 09:05:18 PM
Oh, actually, I thought Coach was referring to 9/11. My bad on that.

 
What would cancelling the fundraised really achieve? Hardly anything substantive: it would only be a token expression of respect, and one meant only to preserve appearances. And I don't much care much for appearances.


For what?

Within HOURS of learning of the attack and not really knowing what happened/was happening ~ only ASSUMPTIONS (about a video  ::)), was it the responsible thing to do ~ fly off to a self-serving event?


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: avxo on October 26, 2012, 09:15:22 PM
Within HOURS of learning of the attack and not really knowing what happened/was happening ~ only ASSUMPTIONS (about a video  ::)), was it the responsible thing to do ~ fly off to a self-serving event?

I don't think it's necessarily irresponsible - the President is never out of reach and can get any information he may wish to get from wherever he is - even at a fundraiser in Las Vegas. It certainly appears inconsiderate; sure, cancelling and staying at the Oval Office to "take charge" might have appeared like the Presidental thing to do, but as I said before, appearances don't concern me much.

Don't get me wrong - if this incident causes Obama to lose support then that's great. But, at least as far as I'm concerned, this doesn't really register on my radar as "irresponsible." Your mileage may vary. *shrugs*.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: SLYY on October 26, 2012, 10:02:52 PM
Coach goes over board sometimes.

Article 2 section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

So the question becomes can it be proven that POTUS was derelict of duty, which resulted in the deaths of 4 Americans. If so should impeachment proceedings take place and/or should he be charged with criminal negligence?

As I said, I have been questioning what credible information Coach has that led him to make those extremely serious allegations.  As such, I was specifically referring to credible information he "observed" because I know that information will never be made public.  Hence, I made reference to the executive privilege; however, due to United States v. Nixon, I created a homework assignment for Coach regarding the words: political question. 

While you correctly stated Article II, §4, I did not include it in my discussion for a few reasons.  First, this discussion will go WAY above Coach's head.  Second, it's extremely rare as only two presidents have ever been impeached and none removed.  Third, neither of the impeachments were related to the president's Commander in Chief power with regard to troop movement.  I state troop movement* because the Supreme Court has deemed that to be the president's Article II, §2, Commander in Chief power.  More specific to Benghazi, the Supreme Court stated:

It is quite apparent that if, in the maintenance of our international relations,
embarrassment-perhaps serious embarrassment-is to be avoided and success for our
aims achieved, congressional legislation which is to be made effective through
negotiation and inquiry within the international field must often accord to the
President a degree of discretion and freedom from statutory restriction which would
not be admissible were domestic affairs alone involved. Moreover, he, not Congress,
has the better opportunity of knowing the conditions which prevail in foreign
countries, and especially is this true in time of war. He has his confidential sources
of information. He has his agents in the form of diplomatic, consular and other
officials. Secrecy in respect of information gathered by them may be highly
necessary, and the premature disclosure of it productive of harmful results.
  United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Co., 299 U.S. 304, 320 (1936).

Thus, the Supreme Court holds that the president can act without congress when dealing with international relations, especially during a time of war due to the reasoning above.  Additionally, the Supreme Court intervened during Johnson's impeachment by finding the Tenure in Office Act violated the separation of powers.  Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926), discussed in §4.2.2.  Also, with regard to the Supreme Court interfering with an impeachment, in Nixon v. United States, Justice Souter's concurring opinion stated that if the Senate acts in a way that "seriously threaten(s) the integrity of its results...judicial interference might well be appropriate." 506 U.S. at 254.  Thus, not only are the chances slim that Congress would impeach Obama in the first place, it's possible that the Supreme Court may find an impeachment against Obama while acting as Commander in Chief, to be unconstitutional.  Most importantly to the discussion at hand, any sensitive subject matter/evidence will be withheld from the public.  That brings us back to square one and that is, Coach cannot and will not obtain information regarding what really took place.  So, he will continue to use his special education imagination to increase his getbig post count.       


*Fleming v. Page, 50 U.S. 603, 619 (1850).
*Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 139(1866).


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Coach is Back! on October 26, 2012, 10:12:52 PM
As I said, I have been questioning what credible information Coach has that led him to make those extremely serious allegations.  As such, I was specifically referring to credible information he "observed" because I know that information will never be made public.  Hence, I made reference to the executive privilege; however, due to United States v. Nixon, I created a homework assignment for Coach regarding the words: political question.  

While you correctly stated Article II, §4, I did not include it in my discussion for a few reasons.  First, this discussion will go WAY above Coach's head.  Second, it's extremely rare as only two presidents have ever been impeached and none removed.  Third, neither of the impeachments were related to the president's Commander in Chief power with regard to troop movement.  I state troop movement because the Supreme Court has deemed that to be the president's Article II, §2, Commander in Chief power.  More specific to Benghazi, the Supreme Court stated:

It is quite apparent that if, in the maintenance of our international relations,
embarrassment-perhaps serious embarrassment-is to be avoided and success for our
aims achieved, congressional legislation which is to be made effective through
negotiation and inquiry within the international field must often accord to the
President a degree of discretion and freedom from statutory restriction which would
not be admissible were domestic affairs alone involved. Moreover, he, not Congress,
has the better opportunity of knowing the conditions which prevail in foreign
countries, and especially is this true in time of war. He has his confidential sources
of information. He has his agents in the form of diplomatic, consular and other
officials. Secrecy in respect of information gathered by them may be highly
necessary, and the premature disclosure of it productive of harmful results.
 United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Co., 299 U.S. 304, 320 (1936).

Thus, the Supreme Court holds that president can act without congress when dealing with international relations, especially during a time of war due to the reasoning above.  Additionally, the Supreme Court intervened during Johnson's impeachment by finding the Tenure in Office Act violated the separation of powers.  Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926), discussed in §4.2.2.  Also, with regard to the Supreme Court interfering with an impeachment, in Nixon v. United States, Justice Souter's concurring opinion stated that if the Senate acts in a way that "seriously threaten(s) the integrity of its results...judicial interference might well be appropriate." 506 U.S. at 254.  Thus, not only are the chances slim that Congress would impeach Obama in the first place, it's possible that the Supreme Court may find an impeachment against Obama while acting as Commander in Chief, to be unconstitutional.  Most importantly to the discussion at hand, any sensitive subject matter/evidence will be withheld from the public.  That brings us back to square one and that is, Coach cannot and will not obtain information regarding what really took place.  So, he will continue to use his special education imagination to increase his getbig post count.      



Very impressive, but when you state United States vs. Nixon, I would have to assume (and I'm not going to look it up) the Watergate scandal. If this is the case and if what I say that Obama did (cover up) this would make Watergate seem like childs play....why? Four Americans are dead and the watched it go down in real time. You're comparing a break in to murder. Tell me the deaths of four American's doesn't change the landscape of this situation.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Primemuscle on October 26, 2012, 10:27:06 PM
It really blows my mind how the liberals will back this guy no.matter the circumstances. Which brings.me.back to the original question of integrity...that no.one answered.

Oh I think you made your views on integrity quite clear in that you won't answer to your own lack of integrity while you do not hesitate to question other's integrity. I guess for you integrity is in the eye of the beholder.

My answer to you questioning President Obama's integrity is you don't know enough to do that, although you believe you do because you have tunnel vision.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: SLYY on October 26, 2012, 11:08:39 PM
Very impressive, but when you state United States vs. Nixon, I would have to assume (and I'm not going to look it up) the Watergate scandal. If this is the case and if what I say that Obama did (cover up) this would make Watergate seem like childs play....why? Four Americans are dead and the watched it go down in real time. You're comparing a break in to murder.

The Nixon was Walter Nixon, not Richard Nixon (the Richard Nixon case was your homework assignment about the political question notion).  Again, the Commander in Chief is in control of troop movement (or non-movement) under Article II, §2, of the U.S. Constitution as per the Supreme Court.  Thus, the Benghazi incident will be deemed a political question.  With regard to the possibility of an impeachment, it is very unlikely as I stated above.  


I have yet to reference your "cover up" comments.  However, as per Erwin Chemerinsky:

Executive privilege is sometimes defended as important to protect national security; diplomacy is regarded as requiring secrecy.  In justifying a broad presidential power in the realm of foreign affairs, the Court noted that 'secrecy in respect of information gathered...may be highly necessary, and the premature disclosure of it productive of harmful results.' ERWIN CHEMERINSKY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES 354 (Aspen Publishers 2006) (citing United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Co., 299 U.S. 304, 320 (1936)).  


In other words, it is at the president's discretion as to what will be released.  Most importantly, the "premature disclosure of it productive of harmful results."  Wink, wink  ;).  To be clear, you will never know the details of this incident no matter how many Fox News shows and articles report on it.    


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: avxo on October 26, 2012, 11:18:24 PM
Very impressive, but when you state United States vs. Nixon, I would have to assume (and I'm not going to look it up) the Watergate scandal. If this is the case and if what I say that Obama did (cover up) this would make Watergate seem like childs play....why? Four Americans are dead and the watched it go down in real time. You're comparing a break in to murder. Tell me the deaths of four American's doesn't change the landscape of this situation.

Nixon v. U.S. is not the same case as U.S. v. Nixon. Perhaps you should look it up :)


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Primemuscle on October 26, 2012, 11:22:54 PM
Nixon v. U.S. is not the same case as U.S. v. Nixon. Perhaps you should look it up :)

It seems as if Coach was set up on this one. Too bad he didn't look it up before responding.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: avxo on October 26, 2012, 11:24:36 PM
It seems as if Coach was set up on this one. Too bad he didn't look it up before responding.

I guess, although I don't think it matters very much. At any rate, we all fuck up and I don't hold it against him or think it reflects negatively on him; it's easy to get confused. Personally, I find Nixon v. U.S. a much more interesting case than U.S. v. Nixon.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 27, 2012, 03:33:43 AM
I don't think it's necessarily irresponsible - the President is never out of reach and can get any information he may wish to get from wherever he is - even at a fundraiser in Las Vegas. It certainly appears inconsiderate; sure, cancelling and staying at the Oval Office to "take charge" might have appeared like the Presidental thing to do, but as I said before, appearances don't concern me much.

Don't get me wrong - if this incident causes Obama to lose support then that's great. But, at least as far as I'm concerned, this doesn't really register on my radar as "irresponsible." Your mileage may vary. *shrugs*.

LOL - Obama - "LEADING FROM BEHIND AT A JAY Z CONCERT"


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Archer77 on October 27, 2012, 06:37:35 AM
It really blows my mind how the liberals will back this guy no.matter the circumstances. Which brings.me.back to the original question of integrity...that no.one answered.

Oh the irony!  Your lack of self-awareness is so great that you actually feel completely comfortable making a comment like this.


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: avxo on October 27, 2012, 11:18:45 AM
LOL - Obama - "LEADING FROM BEHIND AT A JAY Z CONCERT"

I don't know that Obama is “leading.” I certainly didn't say he was, but if it makes you feel better to pretend I did, then hey... go right ahead. ::)


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Agnostic007 on October 28, 2012, 09:07:47 AM
Doesn't surprise me one bit. We as citizens have allowed the Government, Cops.......... to be above the law. What do expect is going to happen.

and we cops thank you for that.. ;)


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Kazan on October 28, 2012, 11:29:18 AM
and we cops thank you for that.. ;)

Not funny, shit that any "regular" citizen would sent to the pen for, gubmint employee's get a pass fuck that


Title: Re: Integrity
Post by: Agnostic007 on October 29, 2012, 05:52:26 AM
Not funny, shit that any "regular" citizen would sent to the pen for, gubmint employee's get a pass fuck that

not funny that on a political topic you feel you had to get a dig in on cops.. get's old fast.