Posts: 5,214
Threads: 49
Joined: Mar 2012
There is a difference between protecting National Security and lying about how good a businessman you are. Grow up, you infantile man-child. I'm backing the badass with the best qualifications for the job we want her to do, and I'm adult enough to recognize that the interests of a nation don't always allow for 100%disclosure to every washed up rock-and-roll father of the year who demands the full story. I don't have to like it. I just have to recognize that I'm not qualified to run this stupid country, neither are you, and neither are most of the candidates...except two or maybe three. And of those three, I'm backing the best qualified and smartest. Especially if, as idiots like yourself believe, this election cycle has been the result of a decades-long convoluted plot involving hundreds or thousands of intricate moving parts designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to get Hillary into the Presidency.
Any motherfucker who could pull off THAT kind of caper, I wanna stay on the good side of.
Thank god I am oblivious to the opinions of others while caught in the blinding splendor of my own cleverness.
Posts: 29,189
Threads: 391
Joined: Aug 2011
I understand the government and military withholding some information to protect national security as well, and I don't have an issue with non-disclosure when that's legitimately the case.
When it comes to the Bin Laden killing, I find it very hard to believe that the photo of governmental and military leaders watching the Bin Laden raid live streaming is a fake.
![[Image: Obama_and_Biden_await_updates_on_bin_Lad...otated.svg]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Obama_and_Biden_await_updates_on_bin_Laden_annotated.svg)
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situation_Room
The reason it's hard for me to believe it's staged or faked is that's a lot of people trusting a lot of other people to keep a secret and tell a lie that could easily get out and crush their careers and credibility. To put photographic proof of a lie like that into the public domain doesn't make sense to me.
There are too many ways the administration could have gained and taken credit for the death of Bin Laden without so many people putting their asses on the line in such a way. That's just my opinion.
P.s. The faceless "John" identified in the photo is said to be a CIA analyst.
Posts: 5,214
Threads: 49
Joined: Mar 2012
I didn't say they faked Bin Laden's death, just that the official story is highly suspect. We saw all the assembled heads of state watching...something, that was probably graphic and startling. That much can be true. That it was the live stream death footage of Bin Laden? That we don't know. Truth is a very well-lubricated sliding scale. I find it implausible that even with 100% accurate intel and a red pointy arrow on Google Maps saying Osama is right Here, that our leaders would text each other and say, "hey the series finale of Smoke a Terrorist is on, you wanna come over and watch it with us?"
Perpetrating a con takes four things: motive, opportunity, desire, and a willing victim. The US govt motive is obvious for stretching the truth: we just spent billions on two different wars whose myriad stated goals were eventually distilled into "get Bin Laden for 9-11." We created a boogeyman, and Americans need closure. Hence willing victims. We wanted him dead, they gave it to us. It would not have been satisfying to come away from all that waste with just a rumored death, or a quiet betrayal by his own people, or a quiet end of renal failure. No, it had to be big, and actionpacked, and have some American heroes.
Here's the tell: nobody in that room who could rightfully crow a little, even in a low-key classy way, has ever really done so. It has been as effectively buried as anything can be. Which usually indicates a story one doesn't want too much attention drawn to. Why that is would be pure speculation. And we all know how FOTY feels about that.
Thank god I am oblivious to the opinions of others while caught in the blinding splendor of my own cleverness.
Posts: 29,189
Threads: 391
Joined: Aug 2011
I understand your points, Donovan.
Personally, I have zero problem believing that the President (as Commander In Chief), VP, Sec of State, and NSA/CIA leaders would be called together to watch the U.S. Special Ops take down of THE terrorist behind al-Qaeda's mass murder of 3,000 people on American soil.
It's not difficult for me to understand why that level of witnessing would be desirable once intelligence confirmed with high certainty that it was in fact the most wanted man in the world, Osama Bin Laden, residing in the Pakistani compound -- once the President gave the green light for SEALs to go in and take him out.
It's also not hard for me to understand why the people in the Situation Room would want to be there, as part of a historical event which could certainly serve their political and career aspirations well.
Anyway, I think imploring all those people to lie about watching the hit go down and how it went down would be unnecessarily risky and thus unlikely, for the reasons I posted above.
In my opinion, there's probably more secrecy and room for suspicion surrounding how Bin Laden was located (tip for reward, diligent intel, Pakistani whistle blower...?), and what happened to the terrorist's body after the killing.
Posts: 37,639
Threads: 1,590
Joined: Jun 2008
I've never heard of a politician passing up the opportunity for a photo op.
He ain't heavy, he's my brother.
Posts: 7,826
Threads: 74
Joined: Aug 2013
(05-03-2016, 11:30 AM)Donovan Wrote: There is a difference between protecting National Security and lying about how good a businessman you are. Grow up, you infantile man-child. I'm backing the badass with the best qualifications for the job we want her to do, and I'm adult enough to recognize that the interests of a nation don't always allow for 100%disclosure to every washed up rock-and-roll father of the year who demands the full story. I don't have to like it. I just have to recognize that I'm not qualified to run this stupid country, neither are you, and neither are most of the candidates...except two or maybe three. And of those three, I'm backing the best qualified and smartest. Especially if, as idiots like yourself believe, this election cycle has been the result of a decades-long convoluted plot involving hundreds or thousands of intricate moving parts designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to get Hillary into the Presidency.
Any motherfucker who could pull off THAT kind of caper, I wanna stay on the good side of. You are backing a liar. If you think liars are badasses, they have you fooled. Open your eyes. I don't go in for the whole "I'm not qualified to run the country" bullshit. Those running for office chose to do so, and Hilary hasn't shown anyone anything when it comes to running this country. Just ask the coal miners how qualified they think she is. FFS, how do you even make a blunder like that?
Posts: 37,639
Threads: 1,590
Joined: Jun 2008
Just ask the coal miners how qualified they think she is. FFS, how do you even make a blunder like that?
[/quote]
A state has to have some rich people in it to pay for welfare. West Virginia has none of that its been a Democratically held state since Bird has been in and that's a long time. I find it hard to believe that they will abandon the free paycheck no matter what Hillary says. The only reason Cali and NY has so much welfare is because they have enough rich people to soak it out of.
He ain't heavy, he's my brother.
Posts: 7,826
Threads: 74
Joined: Aug 2013
(05-04-2016, 12:14 PM)Maggot Wrote: (05-04-2016, 10:54 AM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: Just ask the coal miners how qualified they think she is. FFS, how do you even make a blunder like that?
A state has to have some rich people in it to pay for welfare. West Virginia has none of that its been a Democratically held state since Bird has been in and that's a long time. I find it hard to believe that they will abandon the free paycheck no matter what Hillary says. The only reason Cali and NY has so much welfare is because they have enough rich people to soak it out of.
[/quote]So it doesn't matter what the Lich Queen of Deception says then? I couldn't agree more maggs.
Posts: 29,189
Threads: 391
Joined: Aug 2011
(05-04-2016, 12:14 PM)Maggot Wrote: A state has to have some rich people in it to pay for welfare. West Virginia has none of that its been a Democratically held state since Bird has been in and that's a long time. I find it hard to believe that they will abandon the free paycheck no matter what Hillary says. The only reason Cali and NY has so much welfare is because they have enough rich people to soak it out of.
The rich working people in California and New York contribute to welfare via state/local taxes, same as the non-rich working people. That much is true.
On the plus side, people in New Hampshire and other states can take solace in knowing that New York and California are in the bottom 10 and bottom 5 states respectively in terms of reliance on federal assistance/taxes for such programs. https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-le...ethodology
Posts: 37,639
Threads: 1,590
Joined: Jun 2008
Well, that's a relief. 
He ain't heavy, he's my brother.
Posts: 29,189
Threads: 391
Joined: Aug 2011
(05-04-2016, 02:36 PM)Maggot Wrote: Well, that's a relief.
I'm glad.
So, you can stop worrying about your dislike of 'liberal' California and New York and mind your own business and wallet -- get out there and help address New Hampshire's top-ranking per-capita heroin addiction.
Snap, snap. 
Posts: 37,639
Threads: 1,590
Joined: Jun 2008
They're dropping like flies around here, every day I see a young person dead because of it. It's the new thing to do I guess. They're passing out narcan like candy. It's truly amazing how fast its spread.
I just watched the Janis Joplin special on PBS the other night.
Quite a few people are pissed that Hassan dragged her feet on it for a few years, ignoring the Mayors from plenty of towns until finally only this year decided to address it because she's running for Senate now, Political hacks the lot of em.
He ain't heavy, he's my brother.
Posts: 7,567
Threads: 36
Joined: Mar 2011
(05-03-2016, 11:30 AM)Donovan Wrote: There is a difference between protecting National Security and lying about how good a businessman you are. Grow up, you infantile man-child. I'm backing the badass with the best qualifications for the job we want her to do, and I'm adult enough to recognize that the interests of a nation don't always allow for 100%disclosure to every washed up rock-and-roll father of the year who demands the full story. I don't have to like it. I just have to recognize that I'm not qualified to run this stupid country, neither are you, and neither are most of the candidates...except two or maybe three. And of those three, I'm backing the best qualified and smartest. Especially if, as idiots like yourself believe, this election cycle has been the result of a decades-long convoluted plot involving hundreds or thousands of intricate moving parts designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to get Hillary into the Presidency.
Any motherfucker who could pull off THAT kind of caper, I wanna stay on the good side of.
"National Security" means covering up everything that threatens the interests of the uber elite. That's why it's scum that rises to the top in this world, rather than cream -- because scum understands the necessity for expedience, amorality, and wars for the sake of profit; cream, on the other hand, understands that means dictate ends, and that those who rationalize evil, are evil.
|
