You didn build that !

ononewheel wrote: peter1234 wrote: and also dont forget the law enforcement laws .. if you ask an enforcement officer to search anything on another citizen and he doesnt have reasonable cause to search it he puts his job at risk and it opens up a can of worms that ski cat can pursue in court. Piss of.    I'll spank you in that category.

Think people on political forums argue as much about boats as we do politics?

WOW.

   You's guy's need a time out for about a page or two.

   Your on the edge of your way out, don't do it!

   Lee Michael Johnson - chill man the dude is under your skin.
It's just not worth the energy.

seth - well, just stop

That was unusual, He usually just throws people under the bus. Think he is sleeping with her?

skicat2001 wrote: ononewheel wrote: boat dr wrote: ononewheel wrote: skicat2001 wrote: [QUOTE=ononewheel] How soon you forget skicat. I think it went something like this, " ..... you dirty lib.....Obama sucks.......you better stop or I'll give you a Texas boot....dig boy" -Lee Micheal Johnson That was right before you checked out the last time.      See, I get that it is, " ..... you dig, boy".   And I'm sure that JonB got it long ago too, but it is fun to taunt the monkeys sometimes. I know you are going to say that the monkey will get even with us someday for the taunts. And in this case, you have done just like a monkey would do. Throw $hit and piss from behind the fence. Of all the folks here, you just aren't right, and it's pretty gross really. At least the other folks here who share your values have some pizazz with the arguments the present. Repeating some "bible first, guns second", is better than your act. "5 years ago it ( the engine you can't remember ) would have been allowed."       NFS, Sherlock. You are hilarous. Thanks for all the ammo, idiot. You make it so easy, I was bored with you long ago. Onewheel, you need to turn it down a notch HOT SHOT, personal attacks are not needed from you.Go and stir your *************** pile somewhere else.... I spent 35 minutes on the phone this morning, Lee.

peter1234 wrote: the election is over the talking is done my party lost your party won. so let us be friends let arguments pass .I'll hug my elephant you kiss your as#

We certainly do have a nice as#!

You are also welcome to kiss our As#.

Why do they even need talking points? Wouldn't the truth be SO much easier to remember?

If Obama would have just told the truth, this whole thing would be over by now. Instead, it seems to me they just dig themselves in deeper with each subsequent story.

OverMyHead wrote: Maybe this is not the vast right wing conspiracy some here have billed it as.

Maybe this isn't the Presidency we think it is either. There's one office at the WH that has all the answers and most of the levers; and it isn't oval shaped.

BuffaloBFN wrote: OverMyHead wrote: Maybe this is not the vast right wing conspiracy some here have billed it as.    Maybe this isn't the Presidency we think it is either. There's one office at the WH that has all the answers and most of the levers; and it isn't oval shaped.

Would love to know where the "O" man was at during the "spontaneous uprising that was an offshoot of the uprising in Cairo due to the wicked anti-Islam film that nobody saw". When they took Bin Laden out, Obama was photographed in control in the Situation Room commanding every moment. During Hurricane Sandy, Obama back in control in the Situation Room.

Spontaneous uprising based on the film....no pictures of Obama at all. Makes one go Hmmmmm! I think the attack didn't fit their narrative that AlQuieda (sp) is on the ropes, and also one that caught them by surprise, even though they had several "warning signals". Better cover this one up folks, at least until the election is over. So, they trot Susan Rice out to lie about the whole thing, and she wasn't even involved in the whole thing. Very strange indeed!

Hansel wrote: OverMyHead wrote: Back to Benghazi... "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" -Winston Churchill

"Those who are unequipped to attack the assertion, will often just attack the person who made it."

-OverMyHead

It was a simple mistake really, she thought she was going to talk with some slightly misinformed statesmen who had the best interest of the country at heart. But really she was talking to a bunch of bitter has been partisans clutching at anything to make them relevant once again. Kinda sad really what these guys have let themselves become… time to get out of the way and let the adults run the show. One holiday shortened month left to undo the fake crisis they created and they are going to waste more time talking about someone doing a great job of staying on the declassified talking points they were given… why doesn’t Mclame couldn’t defeat a freshmen senator from Chicago pants skip another cia briefing to have a press conference complaining about not being briefed enough. Now if it’s all a ploy on the republicans part to get Obama to nominate Rice instead of Kerry then bravo they might be winning.

Why don’t you give this thread a break and go work on a boat or something, that’s what the majority of America wants to do.. give all this divisive nonsense a break and get back to work

JoeinNY wrote: It was a simple mistake really, she thought she was going to talk with some slightly misinformed statesmen who had the best interest of the country at heart. But really she was talking to a bunch of bitter has been partisans clutching at anything to make them relevant once again. Kinda sad really what these guys have let themselves become… time to get out of the way and let the adults run the show. One holiday shortened month left to undo the fake crisis they created and they are going to waste more time talking about someone doing a great job of staying on the declassified talking points they were given… why doesn’t Mclame couldn’t defeat a freshmen senator from Chicago pants skip another cia briefing to have a press conference complaining about not being briefed enough. Now if it’s all a ploy on the republicans part to get Obama to nominate Rice instead of Kerry then bravo they might be winning. Why don’t you give this thread a break and go work on a boat or something, that’s what the majority of America wants to do.. give all this divisive nonsense a break and get back to work

I had given this a break, until some crap like this is posted by an otherwise bright fellow.

That fake crisis isn't so fake; and it could have been avoided with only the tiniest bit of leadership. And on Benghazi...what you said is an insult to our Armed Forces. What happened to integrity and a bunch of other words that come to mind? You don't want to know what happened? You don't want the memories of those soldiers set right? Screw their families, right?

For Pete's sake, they have a minimum of 6 answers for everything. Saddly, the adult didn't win the election.

Dragging the head of the CIA over to congress every three days to talk about what was said on talk shows a few days after an attack does not get justice for anyone.. it infact slows down the process.

You want to put troops in africa to support our diplomats to prevent this type of tragedy in the future.. then I agree.. but if you want to know who consistently cuts funding for anything having to do with diplomacy do a little research it doesnt lead to the democrats.

The rest is monday morning quarterbacking.. newsflash send in a helicopter in the middle of the night to pull people out of the annex and it would have been shot down and you would have had a lot more dead than 4.

Talking about susan rice doesnt address anything having to do with the levels of security before the attack, the response to the attack, or any other thing except trying to make republicans relevent on national security after becoming so very bad at it in the last 20 years when they have been concentrating on sucking up to the ultra rich.

I will believe that one of these guys has the interests of our troops in mind and not politics the second they stop talking about sunday morning talk shows and start talking about providing adequate funding for diplomatic security.