1 Dead in Pakistan Consulate Attack

[Phatscotty]

okay, but do you think Romney would have allied with and armed Al-Qada like Obama did?

WTF? Who do you think he would have armed? The only substantial anti-Jamahiryah ground forces through July were Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghred (AQIM) and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) partisans.

Obama didn't arm al-Qaeda because he was presented with a menu list of different belligerents he could support and al-Qaeda just tickled his fancy. That was who was available.

If you supported military action in Libya, you supported AQIM and LIFG. That's it.

I see. Well, I can understand 100% Barack Hussein Obama helping out Al-Qada and the Muslim Brotherhood....but Romney......ehhhhhhhh I have a hard time buying that, because Barack Hussein Obama is the only president that is able to get away with shit like this

SCOTT - I DON'T KNOW HOW I CAN PUT THIS ANY MORE SUCCINCTLY: THE ONLY GROUP AVAILABLE TO SUPPORT WERE ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISTS.

Mitt Romney, 2011 - "I SUPPORT MILITARY ACTION IN LIBYA."

The USA Army itself, when it analyzed the Sinjar Records in '06, found 1 out of every 5 foreign fighters in Iraq were of Libyan origin. They weren't being sent by the Jamahiryah - they were the handful that managed to sneak out of Libya - the Jamahiryah was trying to intercept them.

When the Warfalla, Col. Qaddafi, and the Revolutionary Command Council overthrew Idris it was to build a secular state. They have been battling the Benghazi caliphate for 50 years, long before 9/11, and they've sacrificed more to suppressing fundamentalism. The Libya "insurrection" of 2011 was one in a long line of bi-annual insurrections by fundamentalists that have occurred in Libya since then. The only thing that made it special is that NATO joined in and tipped the scales.

So you can't say "Romney wouldn't have supported the Islamic fundamentalist rebels" when the entire war was a Secular vs. Fundamentalist conflict to begin with. It was either support the Islamic fundamentalists or support Qaddafi. There was no third party involved. Obama and Romney threw their support to al-Qaeda for reasons we may never know - kicking Petro-China out, Qaddafi's introduction of the gold dinar, orders from Tel Aviv, who knows? But, whatever the reason, it was more important to them than the safety of the tens of thousands of Americans who will be killed in the coming years by a now-unchecked outflow of AQIM, LIFG, P&C fighters from the Maghreb. This is what Saif meant when he said "You have no idea what you have unleashed."

All speculation aside, the only thing we know for sure is that Obama is making a habit out of letting extremely dangerous weapons "disappear" into the worst hands possible.

[saxitoxin]

okay, but do you think Romney would have allied with and armed Al-Qada like Obama did?

WTF? Who do you think he would have armed? The only substantial anti-Jamahiryah ground forces through July were Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghred (AQIM) and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) partisans.

Obama didn't arm al-Qaeda because he was presented with a menu list of different belligerents he could support and al-Qaeda just tickled his fancy. That was who was available.

If you supported military action in Libya, you supported AQIM and LIFG. That's it.

I see. Well, I can understand 100% Barack Hussein Obama helping out Al-Qada and the Muslim Brotherhood....but Romney......ehhhhhhhh I have a hard time buying that, because Barack Hussein Obama is the only president that is able to get away with shit like this

SCOTT - I DON'T KNOW HOW I CAN PUT THIS ANY MORE SUCCINCTLY: THE ONLY GROUP AVAILABLE TO SUPPORT WERE ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISTS.

Mitt Romney, 2011 - "I SUPPORT MILITARY ACTION IN LIBYA."

The USA Army itself, when it analyzed the Sinjar Records in '06, found 1 out of every 5 foreign fighters in Iraq were of Libyan origin. They weren't being sent by the Jamahiryah - they were the handful that managed to sneak out of Libya - the Jamahiryah was trying to intercept them.

When the Warfalla, Col. Qaddafi, and the Revolutionary Command Council overthrew Idris it was to build a secular state. They have been battling the Benghazi caliphate for 50 years, long before 9/11, and they've sacrificed more to suppressing fundamentalism. The Libya "insurrection" of 2011 was one in a long line of bi-annual insurrections by fundamentalists that have occurred in Libya since then. The only thing that made it special is that NATO joined in and tipped the scales.

So you can't say "Romney wouldn't have supported the Islamic fundamentalist rebels" when the entire war was a Secular vs. Fundamentalist conflict to begin with. It was either support the Islamic fundamentalists or support Qaddafi. There was no third party involved. Obama and Romney threw their support to al-Qaeda for reasons we may never know - kicking Petro-China out, Qaddafi's introduction of the gold dinar, orders from Tel Aviv, who knows? But, whatever the reason, it was more important to them than the safety of the tens of thousands of Americans who will be killed in the coming years by a now-unchecked outflow of AQIM, LIFG, P&C fighters from the Maghreb. This is what Saif meant when he said "You have no idea what you have unleashed."

All speculation aside, the only thing we know for sure is that Obama is making a habit out of letting extremely dangerous weapons "disappear" into the worst hands possible.

... and that Romney supported the military action that resulted in those disappearances. And that he also opposed introduction of ground troops meaning the weapons would still have disappeared if he'd prosecuted the illegal war because Air Forces can't hold and secure ground. That's not speculative. Those are his statements as I linked 10 posts ago.

Romney should be shackled and thrown into the same dungeon that Obama would occupy in a just world.

[Symmetry]

All speculation aside, the only thing we know for sure is that Obama is making a habit out of letting extremely dangerous weapons "disappear" into the worst hands possible. Next, we should speculate on if Obama is doing this on purpose, or is just completely incompetent.

Serious political insight, which, of course, will only be settled at the WWF* Powerslam Cage match 2012.

*Not affiliated with the WWE- this involves the Undertaker vs a cage full of rhesus monkeys (all contestants injected with the same amount of steroids)

[BigBallinStalin]

okay, but do you think Romney would have allied with and armed Al-Qada like Obama did?

WTF? Who do you think he would have armed? The only substantial anti-Jamahiryah ground forces through July were Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghred (AQIM) and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) partisans.

Obama didn't arm al-Qaeda because he was presented with a menu list of different belligerents he could support and al-Qaeda just tickled his fancy. That was who was available.

If you supported military action in Libya, you supported AQIM and LIFG. That's it.

I see. Well, I can understand 100% Barack Hussein Obama helping out Al-Qada and the Muslim Brotherhood....but Romney......ehhhhhhhh I have a hard time buying that, because Barack Hussein Obama is the only president that is able to get away with shit like this

SCOTT - I DON'T KNOW HOW I CAN PUT THIS ANY MORE SUCCINCTLY: THE ONLY GROUP AVAILABLE TO SUPPORT WERE ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISTS.

Mitt Romney, 2011 - "I SUPPORT MILITARY ACTION IN LIBYA."

The USA Army itself, when it analyzed the Sinjar Records in '06, found 1 out of every 5 foreign fighters in Iraq were of Libyan origin. They weren't being sent by the Jamahiryah - they were the handful that managed to sneak out of Libya - the Jamahiryah was trying to intercept them.

Ehhh,.... "In November 2007, the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point received 
nearly 700 records of foreign nationals that entered Iraq between August 2006 
and August 2007." According to the Sinjar Records as analyzed by West Point.

Not quite, sax. Not quite. You're using data for one year, in one region. It was information collected from only two groups in Iraq.

And as it states:

"Readers should be aware that analyzing data captured on a battlefield is fraught 
with risk.  Some of the personnel records were filled out incompletely or 
improperly, some may have been lost by al‐Qa’ida’s personnel in Iraq, and some 
may have been accidentally lost or destroyed by U.S. forces.  The Sinjar Records 
are an astounding testimony to al‐Qa’ida’s importation of fighters to Iraq, but 
they are an inherently imperfect record.  Readers and researchers should be wary 
of conclusions drawn solely on the basis of these records."


And, you gotta commit a serious jump to conclude that of those 1/5 Libyans who were counted in only this report, all of them came from the Jamahiryah and none came from competing Libyan substate organizations.

So you can't say "Romney wouldn't have supported the Islamic fundamentalist rebels" when the entire war was a Secular vs. Fundamentalist conflict to begin with. It was either support the Islamic fundamentalists or support Qaddafi. There was no third party involved. Obama and Romney threw their support to al-Qaeda for reasons we may never know - kicking Petro-China out, Qaddafi's introduction of the gold dinar, orders from Tel Aviv, who knows? But, whatever the reason, it was more important to them than the safety of the tens of thousands of Americans who will be killed in the coming years by a now-unchecked outflow of AQIM, LIFG, P&C fighters from the Maghreb. This is what Saif meant when he said "You have no idea what you have unleashed."

Now, I agree with you and your points concerning PS' fantasy about Romney, but I doubt the story in Libya was this simple. Of course, we'll find out more in 5-10 years (and more interesting stuff 30+ years from now), but it wasn't Islamic Fundamentalists (of presumably one concrete goal and intentions) v. Qaddafi. The US was supplying substate organizations of different attitudes toward the US and on the proper role of government. Some may have been democratic enough, some may have been socialist, and some other portion were the lovely Islamic fundamentalist variety. There was this range of different groups.

But which groups were the US supporting? You're claiming it was 100% al-Qaeda, which to me is a huge stretch. The fact is that we don't know what that percent is in relation to the other competing groups, and the US probably doesn't know either.

[saxitoxin]

okay, but do you think Romney would have allied with and armed Al-Qada like Obama did?

WTF? Who do you think he would have armed? The only substantial anti-Jamahiryah ground forces through July were Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghred (AQIM) and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) partisans.

Obama didn't arm al-Qaeda because he was presented with a menu list of different belligerents he could support and al-Qaeda just tickled his fancy. That was who was available.

If you supported military action in Libya, you supported AQIM and LIFG. That's it.

I see. Well, I can understand 100% Barack Hussein Obama helping out Al-Qada and the Muslim Brotherhood....but Romney......ehhhhhhhh I have a hard time buying that, because Barack Hussein Obama is the only president that is able to get away with shit like this

SCOTT - I DON'T KNOW HOW I CAN PUT THIS ANY MORE SUCCINCTLY: THE ONLY GROUP AVAILABLE TO SUPPORT WERE ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISTS.

Mitt Romney, 2011 - "I SUPPORT MILITARY ACTION IN LIBYA."

The USA Army itself, when it analyzed the Sinjar Records in '06, found 1 out of every 5 foreign fighters in Iraq were of Libyan origin. They weren't being sent by the Jamahiryah - they were the handful that managed to sneak out of Libya - the Jamahiryah was trying to intercept them.

Ehhh,.... "In November 2007, the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point received 
nearly 700 records of foreign nationals that entered Iraq between August 2006 
and August 2007." According to the Sinjar Records as analyzed by West Point.

Not quite, sax. Not quite. You're using data for one year, in one region. It was information collected from only two groups in Iraq.

And as it states:

"Readers should be aware that analyzing data captured on a battlefield is fraught 
with risk.  Some of the personnel records were filled out incompletely or 
improperly, some may have been lost by al‐Qa’ida’s personnel in Iraq, and some 
may have been accidentally lost or destroyed by U.S. forces.  The Sinjar Records 
are an astounding testimony to al‐Qa’ida’s importation of fighters to Iraq, but 
they are an inherently imperfect record.  Readers and researchers should be wary 
of conclusions drawn solely on the basis of these records."


And, you gotta commit a serious jump to conclusion that of those 1/5 Libyans who were counted in only this report, all of them came from the Jamahiryah and none came from competing Libyan substate organizations.

So you can't say "Romney wouldn't have supported the Islamic fundamentalist rebels" when the entire war was a Secular vs. Fundamentalist conflict to begin with. It was either support the Islamic fundamentalists or support Qaddafi. There was no third party involved. Obama and Romney threw their support to al-Qaeda for reasons we may never know - kicking Petro-China out, Qaddafi's introduction of the gold dinar, orders from Tel Aviv, who knows? But, whatever the reason, it was more important to them than the safety of the tens of thousands of Americans who will be killed in the coming years by a now-unchecked outflow of AQIM, LIFG, P&C fighters from the Maghreb. This is what Saif meant when he said "You have no idea what you have unleashed."

Now, I agree with you and your points concerning PS' fantasy about Romney, but I doubt the story in Libya was this simple. Of course, we'll find out more in 5-10 years (and more interesting stuff 30+ years from now), but it wasn't Islamic Fundamentalists (of presumably one concrete goal and intentions) v. Qaddafi. The US was supplying substate organizations of different attitudes toward the US and on the proper role of government. Some may have been democratic enough, some may have been socialist, and some other portion were the lovely Islamic fundamentalist variety. There was this range of different groups.

But which groups were the US supporting? You're claiming it was 100% al-Qaeda, which to me is a huge stretch. The fact is that we don't what that percent is in relation to the other competing groups, and the US probably doesn't know either.

NO. I was saying they all came from non-state groups (non-Jamahriyah) to avoid any confusion that Libya itself was sending foreign fighters to Iraq. But, apparently, my attempts to avoid confusion, in fact, created confusion. OH SAX.

However, as to your second point, any support for groups acting against the government of the Libyan Jamahriyah could only have come from fundamentalists. This was examined in detail in Scott's Libya thread so I simply go on-record as saying I affirm everything I said there and second it here. But, even empirically, the "revolution" started in Benghazi, the center of Islamic extremism in the Maghreb. If it walks like a Duck, etc.

Here's a 47-minute video:

[thegreekdog]

OMG PS... seriously dude. There is no speculation. Romney has said NUMEROUS times he supported going into Libya. What part of that don't you fucking understand? That's part of the reason he beat precious Ron Paul in the primary. For f*ck's sake man.

[Symmetry]

OMG PS... seriously dude. There is no speculation. Romney has said NUMEROUS times he supported going into Libya. What part of that don't you fucking understand? That's part of the reason he beat precious Ron Paul in the primary. For f*ck's sake man.

Phatscotty is a troll

[thegreekdog]

OMG PS... seriously dude. There is no speculation. Romney has said NUMEROUS times he supported going into Libya. What part of that don't you fucking understand? That's part of the reason he beat precious Ron Paul in the primary. For f*ck's sake man.

Phatscotty is a troll

Nah, he's a weasel. He's trying to weasel his way out of justifying his support for Romney with his criticism of the president when both men had the same opinion. He also conveniently ignores that Romney, Obama, and every other Republican primary candidate (other than Huntsman and Paul) would have no problem attacking Iran. Some Republicans (e.g. Night Strike and PS) like to pretend the party has changed from conservative big government to conservative little government. But until the Republican leaders start presenting non-intervention and non-military platforms, the party hasn't changed at all.

[Symmetry]

OMG PS... seriously dude. There is no speculation. Romney has said NUMEROUS times he supported going into Libya. What part of that don't you fucking understand? That's part of the reason he beat precious Ron Paul in the primary. For f*ck's sake man.

Phatscotty is a troll

Nah, he's a weasel. He's trying to weasel his way out of justifying his support for Romney with his criticism of the president when both men had the same opinion. He also conveniently ignores that Romney, Obama, and every other Republican primary candidate (other than Huntsman and Paul) would have no problem attacking Iran. Some Republicans (e.g. Night Strike and PS) like to pretend the party has changed from conservative big government to conservative little government. But until the Republican leaders start presenting non-intervention and non-military platforms, the party hasn't changed at all.

The odd thing is, I think Scotty takes pride in his weaslry.

[patches70]

But, even empirically, the "revolution" started in Benghazi, the center of Islamic extremism in the Maghreb. If it walks like a Duck, etc.

I remember an article very early on in the aftermath of the ambassador killing where the article opined that it was pro-Gackdafi elements that carried out the attack.

I laughed.

Now I could see how members of the former Gackdafi's tribe might well want to take out the American ambassador. However, the attack happened in Benghazi, as Saxi correctly notes, the birthplace of the "revolution". There are no pro-Gackdafi people there. None at all.
The people who carried out the attack at one time or another were receiving support from the US of some kind.

This whole Libyan endeavor has been a debacle of the utmost degree. A debacle accurately predicted by those who said about the POTUS' schemes- "Are you nuts? You're going to intervene in Libya? Why?"

Why indeed.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm sure Qaddafi is rolling in his grave each time you write "Gackdafi." That'll teach him!

[fadedpsychosis]

Phatscotty is a troll

Nah, he's a weasel.

The odd thing is, I think Scotty takes pride in his weaslry.

"Never send a ferret to do a weasel's job."

[Woodruff]

Barack Hussein Obama

Romney

Kind of a double standard going on here Phatcotty, no?

Surely you meant Willard Mitt Rommey?

Phatscotty can't help being racist.

[Woodruff]

Phatscotty is a troll

Nah, he's a weasel.

The odd thing is, I think Scotty takes pride in his weaslry.

"Never send a ferret to do a weasel's job."

Ferret Face!

[saxitoxin]

Republicans actually wanted to attack Libya faster and more ferociously than Obama (not really, since this is all acting in the first place, but that's the plotline for this scene).

Republican challenger Tim Pawlenty took up the charge that a "no-fly" zone would have been more effective weeks ago, before Gaddafi's forces rolled back the opposition wave in Libya. Newt Gingrich, another potential Republican rival of Obama next year, called the President the "spectator in chief" .

And former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney highlighted another familiar charge against Obama, accusing the President of appearing weak. "America has been feared sometimes, has been respected, but today, that America is seen as being weak," Romney said on Fox News. "We're following the French into Libya."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/ar ... d=10714535

Obama: I want to attack Libya hard!
Pawlenty: I want to attack Libya harder!
Gingrich: I want to attack Libya hardest!
Romney: I want to attack Libya hardestist!

Do you want to vote for Midnight, Onyx, Obsidian, Nightshade or Charcoal? Red, Blue, Yellow and Green won't be appearing on this ballot.

[patches70]

I'm sure Qaddafi is rolling in his grave each time you write "Gackdafi." That'll teach him!

It's an homage to his last words in life. "Gack!"

[Phatscotty]

OMG PS... seriously dude. There is no speculation. Romney has said NUMEROUS times he supported going into Libya. What part of that don't you fucking understand? That's part of the reason he beat precious Ron Paul in the primary. For f*ck's sake man.

Phatscotty is a troll

Nah, he's a weasel. He's trying to weasel his way out of justifying his support for Romney with his criticism of the president when both men had the same opinion. He also conveniently ignores that Romney, Obama, and every other Republican primary candidate (other than Huntsman and Paul) would have no problem attacking Iran. Some Republicans (e.g. Night Strike and PS) like to pretend the party has changed from conservative big government to conservative little government. But until the Republican leaders start presenting non-intervention and non-military platforms, the party hasn't changed at all.

All I said was Romney was right in his initial comments, and the only reason I have to say it is because our president has spent the last week ignoring the terrorist attack and making the issue about how what Romney said was wrong.

You don't know shit about me, or who I support, or who I am voting for, but by all means, please continue making this same post once a week for the next couple months, like the last couple months.

All I've said concerning the election is that I am voting against Obama, and I have repeated many times that I am not supporting Romney. so, at the risk of you looking as foolish as Woodruff, stfu because you are wrong.

And WTF does Iran have to do with this? nothing! I do not ignore that Romney, Obama, and every other Republican primary candidate (other than Huntsman and Paul) would have no problem attacking Iran. So again, I don't know who's asshole you pulled that out of, but again, you are wrong. I'm with Paul, Hunstman, and Johnson on Iran, so you can STFU up about that while you're at it, because you are just 100% wrong. I mean with you hounding me about Romney, and Woodruff hounding me about registering Libertarian or something, I can barely tell the difference between the 2 of you anymore. You are even calling names, and it doesn't help that the name calling is totally unwarranted as the reasoning behind it is baseless and without merit.

You are really more clueless than most when it comes to what I think...not sure about NS, I can only speak for myself. The party has not changed.....the party is in the process of changing. We have a chance to change it, thanks for being a quitter in this time of tremendous opportunity though.

I mean, in 2010 we kicked out 20% of Congress......nothing that big has happened since 1938. How you can ignore something big is happening IDK, and the consequences of your ignorance....well, take a look at all the inaccuracies of your post... and the non-interventionalist non-military faction of the Republican party is growing in support everyday. It has not had this much support since possibly Barry Goldwater, but again, thanks for constantly throwing your wrench into our efforts just because it did not happen overnight, as you seem to expect...

I guess it all boils down to I think the answer lies in changing the platform of a party that has the access to even try to win, and you seem to think the answer lies in voting 3rd party. That's all

btw, Gary Johnson was here today, and I heard his speeches and he took all questions and I wanted to converse about him, but perhaps my convo simply is not welcome anymore

[Phatscotty]

OMG PS... seriously dude. There is no speculation. Romney has said NUMEROUS times he supported going into Libya. What part of that don't you fucking understand? That's part of the reason he beat precious Ron Paul in the primary. For f*ck's sake man.

That isn't even what I was talking about! what the hell is up your ass? WOW

get laid bro

[Qwert]

i realy dont see problem here, US create unarmed civilians in Benghazi, and they help hem to fight against Quadafy , same thing hepend far before in Afghanistan, when Soviet Union Occupy this country,and when US create Bin Laden,help hem with equipment and weapons. Its look that history repeating, and still not learn nothing. Now problem its how to react, because pro-benghasi people suppose to be "ally" , and will be stupid to start bombard Libya again, only because 4 people are killed.
One day ally,next day enemies.

[saxitoxin]

ROMNEY CHIEF ADVISOR: "WE MUST SEND WEAPONS TO HELP THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD!"

Romney foreign policy advisor says U.S. must attack the Syrian government or people will think the United States has a small dick. Senor says, if Romney were President, he would work with the King of Saudi Arabia (where 18 of the 19 9/11 hijackers came from) to ship as many advanced weapons as possible into Syria.

The Syrian government is currently battling a rebellion by Islamic fundamentalists linked to the Muslim Bro'hood. From 1976 to 1982 a similar rebellion by radical Islamic extremists was put down by Syrian police and military.

Dan Senor, a top foreign policy adviser to the GOP presidential ticket, said Friday that President Barack Obama’s failure to oust Syrian dictator Bashar Assad makes the U.S. look “impotent” in the Middle East.

“A President Romney would look to do more to help the opposition movement on the ground in Syria,” Senor said. “Working with our allies like the Turks, like the Saudis, like the Qataris, to get the opposition more training, more resources, more weapons, really coordinate the effort and would not have dragged our feet as long as we have.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/09 ... z278pbjyuc

In summary, Romney supports sending advanced weapons systems to Muslim Brotherhood backed Islamic fundamentalists in Syria. What happens to them once they're in Syria? Who knows? That's for the occupants of the 98th floor of the Sears Tower to worry about in 2018 ...

[thegreekdog]

OMG PS... seriously dude. There is no speculation. Romney has said NUMEROUS times he supported going into Libya. What part of that don't you fucking understand? That's part of the reason he beat precious Ron Paul in the primary. For f*ck's sake man.

That isn't even what I was talking about! what the hell is up your ass? WOW

get laid bro

Dude, you are driving me insane. How can you possibly support Romney while also arguing for smaller government? It's absolutely absurd. If Romney wins this election, I'm looking forward to posting every bill he signs into law and every military appropriations law he approves. And even when I do that, you'll probably still call for a second Romney term. Say what you want about Night Strike, but at least he doesn't pretend he's not a mainstream, big government Republican.

I am not supporting Romney.

This might be the most absurd thing. Nearly every post you've made in the last six months has been supportive of Romney. You just wrote in another fucking thread that you're not voting for Gary Johnson. What the hell dude? I used to support you. I can't do that anymore. You're completely off your gord.

EDIT - By the way, here's who you're not voting for (so far): Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, and Gary Johnson. Are you voting for Jill Stein? Are you going for a write-in (Ron Paul or Jesse "The Body" Ventura)?

[Phatscotty]

OMG PS... seriously dude. There is no speculation. Romney has said NUMEROUS times he supported going into Libya. What part of that don't you fucking understand? That's part of the reason he beat precious Ron Paul in the primary. For f*ck's sake man.

That isn't even what I was talking about! what the hell is up your ass? WOW

get laid bro

Dude, you are driving me insane. How can you possibly support Romney while also arguing for smaller government? It's absolutely absurd. If Romney wins this election, I'm looking forward to posting every bill he signs into law and every military appropriations law he approves. And even when I do that, you'll probably still call for a second Romney term. Say what you want about Night Strike, but at least he doesn't pretend he's not a mainstream, big government Republican.

This might be the most absurd thing. Nearly every post you've made in the last six months has been supportive of Romney. You just wrote in another fucking thread that you're not voting for Gary Johnson. What the hell dude? I used to support you. I can't do that anymore. You're completely off your gord.

EDIT - By the way, here's who you're not voting for (so far): Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, and Gary Johnson. Are you voting for Jill Stein? Are you going for a write-in (Ron Paul or Jesse "The Body" Ventura)?

I'm driving you insane? You can't stfu about Romney. What is driving me crazy is you shoving all this bullshit in front of my house, and then running up and down the street telling my neighbors to look at all the shit in front of my house with a big smile on your face. You are wrong about all of this, and I'm not gonna make these replies forever.

You think I'm gonna tell you who I am voting for???? HA! I mean I would usually not have a problem with it, but clearly you are unable to handle that information right now...

I will wait until you are done with your Romney schtick, and then I will tell you who I am voting for. Deal?

[BigBallinStalin]

i realy dont see problem here, US create unarmed civilians in Benghazi, and they help hem to fight against Quadafy , same thing hepend far before in Afghanistan, when Soviet Union Occupy this country,and when US create Bin Laden,help hem with equipment and weapons. Its look that history repeating, and still not learn nothing. Now problem its how to react, because pro-benghasi people suppose to be "ally" , and will be stupid to start bombard Libya again, only because 4 people are killed.
One day ally,next day enemies.

I think the US foreign policymakers have learned, but they don't care enough--or they overestimate their capacity to smooth over such glitches.

For example, "let's ship weapons to these various groups in Libya 2011."

"What about the chance of giving them to terrorists?"

"We'll handle them later with drones."

"Oh, okay."

<bombs away>

[BigBallinStalin]

OMG PS... seriously dude. There is no speculation. Romney has said NUMEROUS times he supported going into Libya. What part of that don't you fucking understand? That's part of the reason he beat precious Ron Paul in the primary. For f*ck's sake man.

That isn't even what I was talking about! what the hell is up your ass? WOW

get laid bro

Dude, you are driving me insane. How can you possibly support Romney while also arguing for smaller government? It's absolutely absurd. If Romney wins this election, I'm looking forward to posting every bill he signs into law and every military appropriations law he approves. And even when I do that, you'll probably still call for a second Romney term. Say what you want about Night Strike, but at least he doesn't pretend he's not a mainstream, big government Republican.

This might be the most absurd thing. Nearly every post you've made in the last six months has been supportive of Romney. You just wrote in another fucking thread that you're not voting for Gary Johnson. What the hell dude? I used to support you. I can't do that anymore. You're completely off your gord.

EDIT - By the way, here's who you're not voting for (so far): Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, and Gary Johnson. Are you voting for Jill Stein? Are you going for a write-in (Ron Paul or Jesse "The Body" Ventura)?

I'm driving you insane? You can't stfu about Romney. What is driving me crazy is you shoving all this bullshit in front of my house, and then running up and down the street telling my neighbors to look at all the shit in front of my house with a big smile on your face. You are wrong about all of this, and I'm not gonna make these replies forever.

You think I'm gonna tell you who I am voting for???? HA! I mean I would usually not have a problem with it, but clearly you are unable to handle that information right now...

I will wait until you are done with your Romney schtick, and then I will tell you who I am voting for. Deal?

PS, you're full of it. Stop acting the fool or being a troll.

[Woodruff]

All I've said concerning the election is that I am voting against Obama, and I have repeated many times that I am not supporting Romney. so, at the risk of you looking as foolish as Woodruff, stfu because you are wrong.

You're voting for Romney but claiming that you don't support Romney, and you believe we are the ones that are looking foolish?

I mean with you hounding me about Romney, and Woodruff hounding me about registering Libertarian or something, I can barely tell the difference between the 2 of you anymore.

There's almost certainly a reason for that, but I'll wager it's HIGHLY UNLIKELY that you'll be able to reason yourself to that reason.

You are even calling names, and it doesn't help that the name calling is totally unwarranted as the reasoning behind it is baseless and without merit.

Making claims and refusing to back them up seems pretty weaselly to me.

You are really more clueless than most when it comes to what I think...not sure about NS, I can only speak for myself. The party has not changed.....the party is in the process of changing. We have a chance to change it, thanks for being a quitter in this time of tremendous opportunity though.

Romney isn't going to make that change, Phatscotty. You are not a part of the change. IF the change in the Republican Party happens, which I find highly unlikely at this point, you won't have been a part of it...you will be the bystander watching the movement pass you by and wishing you had the balls to have taken a stand when you had the chance instead of being relegated to the sidelines while others did the dirty work for you.

I guess it all boils down to I think the answer lies in changing the platform of a party that has the access to even try to win, and you seem to think the answer lies in voting 3rd party. That's all

The answer lies in voting for the individual who most closely matches your ideals.

btw, Gary Johnson was here today, and I heard his speeches and he took all questions and I wanted to converse about him, but perhaps my convo simply is not welcome anymore

It's too bad you're too cowardly to vote for the guy.