i have been labeled for pointing out what most Americans know nothing about.
our major media (cnn, msnbc,nbc, cbs, abc,etc…) hides and keeps certain stories off air nationally because they harm their beloved leftist voter base. one national media outlet reports on them. (you know the one that is hysterically attacked for being racist)
the media that won’t ask hardball (even though they have leftists shows titled “hardball, disrupt, lean forward”) questions about an obamacare that cannot build a website much less administer the nations health system, Benghazi lies, and IRS corruption that affords one party a set of political advantages and another party is stopped in it’s tracks. then audited. (all 100 audits the IRS did on party affiliation groups were conservatives. all of them.)
screw the morons that believe that any uncomfortable discussion on race by a white person is racist. screw your stupidity of logic that describes blacks that commit crimes as being because of poverty, etc… just fuckin own up to it.
you have no statistics to explain the mass mobs of violent criminal teens that collectively are destroying ANY chance of future race relations between groups in this country.
gee who would have guessed that African Americans GIVEN (as in free) laptops and other high tech smart devices through their schools/city would organize crime sprees with social media?
by the way this city (Louisville,KY) i read, just passed a city ordinance last month to ban the question “have you been convicted of a crime?” from job applications, because too many “African American” could not get employment because of their criminal past. wtf?? see below:
think i’m being hysterical? let me write it again. some of you are ignorant to what is coming to a city, a neighborhood near you.
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
i have been labeled for pointing out what most Americans know nothing about.
our major media (cnn, msnbc,nbc, cbs, abc,etc…) hides and keeps certain stories off air nationally because they harm their beloved leftist voter base. one national media outlet reports on them. (you know the one that is hysterically attacked for being racist)
the media that won’t ask hardball (even though they have leftists shows titled “hardball, disrupt, lean forward”) questions about an obamacare that cannot build a website much less administer the nations health system, Benghazi lies, and IRS corruption that affords one party a set of political advantages and another party is stopped in it’s tracks. then audited. (all 100 audits the IRS did on party affiliation groups were conservatives. all of them.)
screw the morons that believe that any uncomfortable discussion on race by a white person is racist. screw your stupidity of logic that describes blacks that commit crimes as being because of poverty, etc… just fuckin own up to it.
you have no statistics to explain the mass mobs of violent criminal teens that collectively are destroying ANY chance of future race relations between groups in this country.
gee who would have guessed that African Americans GIVEN (as in free) laptops and other high tech smart devices through their schools/city would organize crime sprees with social media?
by the way this city (Louisville,KY) i read, just passed a city ordinance last month to ban the question “have you been convicted of a crime?” from job applications, because too many “African American” could not get employment because of their criminal past. wtf?? see below:
think i’m being hysterical? let me write it again. some of you are ignorant to what is coming to a city, a neighborhood near you.
So, what are you trying to say? Are you saying that if you aren’t white or culturally white with light skin, that you are more likely to commit crime? That’s pretty much a known.
But WHY? Is it cultural? Do you think some people are just more violent than others? The messed up thing about trying to explain this is that if you aren’t careful you paint yourself in a way that you state non white races are somehow intrinsically more violent and apt to commit crimes, which IS racist by definition btw. I’m not saying that is your position, but it’s hard to reject concepts like white privilege without a counter explanation of causation.
The concept of white privilege is pretty mature and developed. If you have a counter explanation I’d like to hear it. Just please don’t say non whites are intrinsically more violent.
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
i have been labeled for pointing out what most Americans know nothing about.
[/quote]
So what you are saying is that you are like most Americans.
why not ask the woman with the five children in her car that was surrounded and had her eye socket crushed and torn from a knock out punch if they give a flying fuck why?
how about we ask all the KNOCKOUT GAME assault victims if they were wondering why or if blacks are culturally dissatisfied?
at this point the mall and store business owners that are victimized by flash mobs want to sit down and discuss how to fight back, not are we culturally failing to meet the needs of so many ignorant mobs.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
The concept of white privilege is pretty mature and developed. If you have a counter explanation I’d like to hear it. Just please don’t say non whites are intrinsically more violent. [/quote]
white privilege in 21st century America is a leftist lie.
enough with the elitist ideology you got shoved down your throat in “public indoctrination education.”
forget the social justice/white guilt horse manure that has put a bulls-eye on the back of every white. even blacks that fail to stay in line with black victimization ideology catch angry hysterical fallout. (see my piece on Kobe Bryant/Charles Barkley Trayvon Martin dissension)
what is my counter explanation: flash mobs of black teenagers are in no way different than mob mentality of whites in the late 1800’s - 1960’s.
what black flash mobs have done is to put center stage the white distrust of young blacks, after so many years feeling we were healing past wounds.
there will never be enough welfare or giving on the part of whites to meet whatever it is the race card peddlers hold out for. it will perpetually grow with each black generation until our wealth is depleted.
the one nation that offers people of color more than can they can ever obtain in any other nation, does not deserve the leftist elite RESPECT because it is not PERFECT. in other words the United States of America deserves to be “dissed.” gee who could have guessed?
so what do you do? it is not unlike the wild west of the late 1800’s so figure it out.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
yeah once again the CJS raises it’s ugly head , i think we may have even seen the nether regions (OH MY GAWD)
Once again I ask a question and I get maybe a serious question and the commentary of what I suspect to be grown men pleasuring themselves .
To the maybe serious question Carbiduis , So do you believe Hillary act was complicit ? Or do you believe her act was negligent ? or something else ?[/quote]
This is why Pitt.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I never got why the so called right is all up set about Bengasi .
I will state some of the facts , that I am aware [/quote]
I’m thinking, okay let’s see some facts about what happened. Maybe I’m not up-to-date on what’s going on.
Then you write:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Hillary Clinton supposedly heard there may be an attack [/quote]
Not even remotely a fact.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
GOP cut funding to Embassy security [/quote]
I have never heard this. Link?
"In fact, the Congressional Research Service has documented that Congress, whether led by Democrats and Republicans, year after year did not fully fund the various pots of money for embassy security. (See page 25.) The State Department, for instance, was shortchanged by $142 million in fiscal year 2010, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.
There is always a give-and-take between Congress and the executive branch about funding issues. Boxer spent many years on the Appropriations Committee, and we assume she does not believe that Congress should just rubber-stamp a presidentâ??s budget proposals.
The funding gap was a bit higher in 2011 and 2012, when Republicans controlled the House, but we donâ??t understand why Boxer would frame the security funding problem in such partisan terms. As journalist David Rohde has written, this is â??an enduring post-9/11 problem that both political parties ignore.â??
Moreover, while Boxer claims that Republicans â??cutâ?? the budget, she is only comparing it to what the Obama administration proposed. The reality is that funding for embassy security has increased significantly in recent years"
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
please tell me what I am missing , Thanks [/quote]
How about the entire story…
You nonchalantly blamed the GOP for the non-response to the Benghazi attacks absolving the Democratic Party, the White House, and the President in the process.
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
there will never be enough welfare or giving on the part of whites to meet whatever it is the race card peddlers hold out for. it will perpetually grow with each black generation until our wealth is depleted.
[/quote]
If there were no whites on welfare there would be enough.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
yeah once again the CJS raises it’s ugly head , i think we may have even seen the nether regions (OH MY GAWD)
Once again I ask a question and I get maybe a serious question and the commentary of what I suspect to be grown men pleasuring themselves .
To the maybe serious question Carbiduis , So do you believe Hillary act was complicit ? Or do you believe her act was negligent ? or something else ?[/quote]
This is why Pitt.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I never got why the so called right is all up set about Bengasi .
I will state some of the facts , that I am aware [/quote]
I’m thinking, okay let’s see some facts about what happened. Maybe I’m not up-to-date on what’s going on.
Then you write:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Hillary Clinton supposedly heard there may be an attack [/quote]
Not even remotely a fact.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
GOP cut funding to Embassy security [/quote]
I have never heard this. Link?
"In fact, the Congressional Research Service has documented that Congress, whether led by Democrats and Republicans, year after year did not fully fund the various pots of money for embassy security. (See page 25.) The State Department, for instance, was shortchanged by $142 million in fiscal year 2010, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.
There is always a give-and-take between Congress and the executive branch about funding issues. Boxer spent many years on the Appropriations Committee, and we assume she does not believe that Congress should just rubber-stamp a president�¢??s budget proposals.
The funding gap was a bit higher in 2011 and 2012, when Republicans controlled the House, but we don�¢??t understand why Boxer would frame the security funding problem in such partisan terms. As journalist David Rohde has written, this is �¢??an enduring post-9/11 problem that both political parties ignore.�¢??
Moreover, while Boxer claims that Republicans �¢??cut�¢?? the budget, she is only comparing it to what the Obama administration proposed. The reality is that funding for embassy security has increased significantly in recent years"
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
please tell me what I am missing , Thanks [/quote]
How about the entire story…
You nonchalantly blamed the GOP for the non-response to the Benghazi attacks absolving the Democratic Party, the White House, and the President in the process.
You like Wikipedia, here you go:
[/quote]
well other than some rant , what is your point ? It is hard to see any possible direction other than you think i blame the GOP
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
yeah once again the CJS raises it’s ugly head , i think we may have even seen the nether regions (OH MY GAWD)
Once again I ask a question and I get maybe a serious question and the commentary of what I suspect to be grown men pleasuring themselves .
To the maybe serious question Carbiduis , So do you believe Hillary act was complicit ? Or do you believe her act was negligent ? or something else ?[/quote]
This is why Pitt.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I never got why the so called right is all up set about Bengasi .
I will state some of the facts , that I am aware [/quote]
I’m thinking, okay let’s see some facts about what happened. Maybe I’m not up-to-date on what’s going on.
Then you write:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Hillary Clinton supposedly heard there may be an attack [/quote]
Not even remotely a fact.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
GOP cut funding to Embassy security [/quote]
I have never heard this. Link?
"In fact, the Congressional Research Service has documented that Congress, whether led by Democrats and Republicans, year after year did not fully fund the various pots of money for embassy security. (See page 25.) The State Department, for instance, was shortchanged by $142 million in fiscal year 2010, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.
There is always a give-and-take between Congress and the executive branch about funding issues. Boxer spent many years on the Appropriations Committee, and we assume she does not believe that Congress should just rubber-stamp a president�?�¢??s budget proposals.
The funding gap was a bit higher in 2011 and 2012, when Republicans controlled the House, but we don�?�¢??t understand why Boxer would frame the security funding problem in such partisan terms. As journalist David Rohde has written, this is �?�¢??an enduring post-9/11 problem that both political parties ignore.�?�¢??
Moreover, while Boxer claims that Republicans �?�¢??cut�?�¢?? the budget, she is only comparing it to what the Obama administration proposed. The reality is that funding for embassy security has increased significantly in recent years"
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
please tell me what I am missing , Thanks [/quote]
How about the entire story…
You nonchalantly blamed the GOP for the non-response to the Benghazi attacks absolving the Democratic Party, the White House, and the President in the process.
You like Wikipedia, here you go:
[/quote]
well other than some rant , what is your point ? It is hard to see any possible direction other than you think i blame the GOP
[/quote]
My point is, why would you expect anyone to take such a fallacious comment seriously?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
yeah once again the CJS raises it’s ugly head , i think we may have even seen the nether regions (OH MY GAWD)
Once again I ask a question and I get maybe a serious question and the commentary of what I suspect to be grown men pleasuring themselves .
To the maybe serious question Carbiduis , So do you believe Hillary act was complicit ? Or do you believe her act was negligent ? or something else ?[/quote]
This is why Pitt.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I never got why the so called right is all up set about Bengasi .
I will state some of the facts , that I am aware [/quote]
I’m thinking, okay let’s see some facts about what happened. Maybe I’m not up-to-date on what’s going on.
Then you write:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Hillary Clinton supposedly heard there may be an attack [/quote]
Not even remotely a fact.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
GOP cut funding to Embassy security [/quote]
I have never heard this. Link?
"In fact, the Congressional Research Service has documented that Congress, whether led by Democrats and Republicans, year after year did not fully fund the various pots of money for embassy security. (See page 25.) The State Department, for instance, was shortchanged by $142 million in fiscal year 2010, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.
There is always a give-and-take between Congress and the executive branch about funding issues. Boxer spent many years on the Appropriations Committee, and we assume she does not believe that Congress should just rubber-stamp a president�??�?�¢??s budget proposals.
The funding gap was a bit higher in 2011 and 2012, when Republicans controlled the House, but we don�??�?�¢??t understand why Boxer would frame the security funding problem in such partisan terms. As journalist David Rohde has written, this is �??�?�¢??an enduring post-9/11 problem that both political parties ignore.�??�?�¢??
Moreover, while Boxer claims that Republicans �??�?�¢??cut�??�?�¢?? the budget, she is only comparing it to what the Obama administration proposed. The reality is that funding for embassy security has increased significantly in recent years"
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
please tell me what I am missing , Thanks [/quote]
How about the entire story…
You nonchalantly blamed the GOP for the non-response to the Benghazi attacks absolving the Democratic Party, the White House, and the President in the process.
You like Wikipedia, here you go:
[/quote]
well other than some rant , what is your point ? It is hard to see any possible direction other than you think i blame the GOP
[/quote]
My point is, why would you expect anyone to take such a fallacious comment seriously?
[/quote]
because if you take that seriously than you must take that Bush had warnings that 9-11 was going to happen .
I think a reasonable person would not think either Bush or Clinton complicit in these situations . I think they would think both were so inundated with information that they could not distinguish wheat from chaff
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
yeah once again the CJS raises it’s ugly head , i think we may have even seen the nether regions (OH MY GAWD)
Once again I ask a question and I get maybe a serious question and the commentary of what I suspect to be grown men pleasuring themselves .
To the maybe serious question Carbiduis , So do you believe Hillary act was complicit ? Or do you believe her act was negligent ? or something else ?[/quote]
This is why Pitt.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I never got why the so called right is all up set about Bengasi .
I will state some of the facts , that I am aware [/quote]
I’m thinking, okay let’s see some facts about what happened. Maybe I’m not up-to-date on what’s going on.
Then you write:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Hillary Clinton supposedly heard there may be an attack [/quote]
Not even remotely a fact.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
GOP cut funding to Embassy security [/quote]
I have never heard this. Link?
"In fact, the Congressional Research Service has documented that Congress, whether led by Democrats and Republicans, year after year did not fully fund the various pots of money for embassy security. (See page 25.) The State Department, for instance, was shortchanged by $142 million in fiscal year 2010, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.
There is always a give-and-take between Congress and the executive branch about funding issues. Boxer spent many years on the Appropriations Committee, and we assume she does not believe that Congress should just rubber-stamp a president�??�??�?�¢??s budget proposals.
The funding gap was a bit higher in 2011 and 2012, when Republicans controlled the House, but we don�??�??�?�¢??t understand why Boxer would frame the security funding problem in such partisan terms. As journalist David Rohde has written, this is �??�??�?�¢??an enduring post-9/11 problem that both political parties ignore.�??�??�?�¢??
Moreover, while Boxer claims that Republicans �??�??�?�¢??cut�??�??�?�¢?? the budget, she is only comparing it to what the Obama administration proposed. The reality is that funding for embassy security has increased significantly in recent years"
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
please tell me what I am missing , Thanks [/quote]
How about the entire story…
You nonchalantly blamed the GOP for the non-response to the Benghazi attacks absolving the Democratic Party, the White House, and the President in the process.
You like Wikipedia, here you go:
[/quote]
well other than some rant , what is your point ? It is hard to see any possible direction other than you think i blame the GOP
[/quote]
My point is, why would you expect anyone to take such a fallacious comment seriously?
[/quote]
because if you take that seriously than you must take that Bush had warnings that 9-11 was going to happen .
I think a reasonable person would not think either Bush or Clinton complicit in these situations . I think they would think both were so inundated with information that they could not distinguish wheat from chaff
[/quote]
What, I’m not taking your comment seriously because it lacked any substance at all. You just pulled some stuff out of thin air and called them facts.
Clinton and Obama are getting shit for Benghazi because of how they reacted to the information they received. No one, I have seen, has said Clinton or Obama knew the attack was coming.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
yeah once again the CJS raises it’s ugly head , i think we may have even seen the nether regions (OH MY GAWD)
Once again I ask a question and I get maybe a serious question and the commentary of what I suspect to be grown men pleasuring themselves .
To the maybe serious question Carbiduis , So do you believe Hillary act was complicit ? Or do you believe her act was negligent ? or something else ?[/quote]
This is why Pitt.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I never got why the so called right is all up set about Bengasi .
I will state some of the facts , that I am aware [/quote]
I’m thinking, okay let’s see some facts about what happened. Maybe I’m not up-to-date on what’s going on.
Then you write:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Hillary Clinton supposedly heard there may be an attack [/quote]
Not even remotely a fact.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
GOP cut funding to Embassy security [/quote]
I have never heard this. Link?
"In fact, the Congressional Research Service has documented that Congress, whether led by Democrats and Republicans, year after year did not fully fund the various pots of money for embassy security. (See page 25.) The State Department, for instance, was shortchanged by $142 million in fiscal year 2010, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.
There is always a give-and-take between Congress and the executive branch about funding issues. Boxer spent many years on the Appropriations Committee, and we assume she does not believe that Congress should just rubber-stamp a president�??�??�??�?�¢??s budget proposals.
The funding gap was a bit higher in 2011 and 2012, when Republicans controlled the House, but we don�??�??�??�?�¢??t understand why Boxer would frame the security funding problem in such partisan terms. As journalist David Rohde has written, this is �??�??�??�?�¢??an enduring post-9/11 problem that both political parties ignore.�??�??�??�?�¢??
Moreover, while Boxer claims that Republicans �??�??�??�?�¢??cut�??�??�??�?�¢?? the budget, she is only comparing it to what the Obama administration proposed. The reality is that funding for embassy security has increased significantly in recent years"
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
please tell me what I am missing , Thanks [/quote]
How about the entire story…
You nonchalantly blamed the GOP for the non-response to the Benghazi attacks absolving the Democratic Party, the White House, and the President in the process.
You like Wikipedia, here you go:
[/quote]
well other than some rant , what is your point ? It is hard to see any possible direction other than you think i blame the GOP
[/quote]
My point is, why would you expect anyone to take such a fallacious comment seriously?
[/quote]
because if you take that seriously than you must take that Bush had warnings that 9-11 was going to happen .
I think a reasonable person would not think either Bush or Clinton complicit in these situations . I think they would think both were so inundated with information that they could not distinguish wheat from chaff
[/quote]
What, I’m not taking your comment seriously because it lacked any substance at all. You just pulled some stuff out of thin air and called them facts.
Clinton and Obama are getting shit for Benghazi because of how they reacted to the information they received. No one, I have seen, has said Clinton or Obama knew the attack was coming. [/quote]
if you are saying there was no proof that Bush was advised
otherwise I don’t know what you mean .
So you think that if Obama or Clinton knew of the coming attack that the would do nothing ?
Both Bush and Obama’s Admin is inundated with possibly too much info to process correctly.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
yeah once again the CJS raises it’s ugly head , i think we may have even seen the nether regions (OH MY GAWD)
Once again I ask a question and I get maybe a serious question and the commentary of what I suspect to be grown men pleasuring themselves .
To the maybe serious question Carbiduis , So do you believe Hillary act was complicit ? Or do you believe her act was negligent ? or something else ?[/quote]
This is why Pitt.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I never got why the so called right is all up set about Bengasi .
I will state some of the facts , that I am aware [/quote]
I’m thinking, okay let’s see some facts about what happened. Maybe I’m not up-to-date on what’s going on.
Then you write:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Hillary Clinton supposedly heard there may be an attack [/quote]
Not even remotely a fact.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
GOP cut funding to Embassy security [/quote]
I have never heard this. Link?
"In fact, the Congressional Research Service has documented that Congress, whether led by Democrats and Republicans, year after year did not fully fund the various pots of money for embassy security. (See page 25.) The State Department, for instance, was shortchanged by $142 million in fiscal year 2010, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.
There is always a give-and-take between Congress and the executive branch about funding issues. Boxer spent many years on the Appropriations Committee, and we assume she does not believe that Congress should just rubber-stamp a president�??�??�??�??�??�?�¢??s budget proposals.
The funding gap was a bit higher in 2011 and 2012, when Republicans controlled the House, but we don�??�??�??�??�??�?�¢??t understand why Boxer would frame the security funding problem in such partisan terms. As journalist David Rohde has written, this is �??�??�??�??�??�?�¢??an enduring post-9/11 problem that both political parties ignore.�??�??�??�??�??�?�¢??
Moreover, while Boxer claims that Republicans �??�??�??�??�??�?�¢??cut�??�??�??�??�??�?�¢?? the budget, she is only comparing it to what the Obama administration proposed. The reality is that funding for embassy security has increased significantly in recent years"
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
please tell me what I am missing , Thanks [/quote]
How about the entire story…
You nonchalantly blamed the GOP for the non-response to the Benghazi attacks absolving the Democratic Party, the White House, and the President in the process.
You like Wikipedia, here you go:
[/quote]
well other than some rant , what is your point ? It is hard to see any possible direction other than you think i blame the GOP
[/quote]
My point is, why would you expect anyone to take such a fallacious comment seriously?
[/quote]
because if you take that seriously than you must take that Bush had warnings that 9-11 was going to happen .
I think a reasonable person would not think either Bush or Clinton complicit in these situations . I think they would think both were so inundated with information that they could not distinguish wheat from chaff
[/quote]
What, I’m not taking your comment seriously because it lacked any substance at all. You just pulled some stuff out of thin air and called them facts.
Clinton and Obama are getting shit for Benghazi because of how they reacted to the information they received. No one, I have seen, has said Clinton or Obama knew the attack was coming. [/quote]
if you are saying there was no proof that Bush was advised
otherwise I don’t know what you mean .
So you think that if Obama or Clinton knew of the coming attack that the would do nothing ?
Both Bush and Obama’s Admin is inundated with possibly too much info to process correctly.
[/quote]
I have no idea what you are talking about or how you have arrived at the conclusions above.
