Talk about a wolf guarding the sheep ...

Upchurch said:
See, upon realizing that he has fully inserted his foot into his mouth, B likes to pretend he is a puppet master who has manipulated us for his enjoyment. This is not the first time he's done it.
Click to expand...

And it's a petty and juvenile way of responding to having said something so outrageously silly (especially the printer-virus hoax thing).

So, BAC, what about that Senate confirmation vote on Panetta?
 
hgc said:
Got it. As a last resort, pretend that you're trolling for the lulz.
Click to expand...

"Sure, you guys are completely justified in thinking that I'm a clinically insane conspiracy theorist, but that's what I wanted you to think! HA! Jokes on you, suckers."
 
I submit the following as a demonstration of who the real puppetmaster of this thread is:

homer_eating_popcorn.jpg


Dance for me, monkeys! Dance!
 
Edited by Tricky: 
Edited for rule 12.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BeAChooser said:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-panetta-20110622,0,5295850.story



Oh lovely. A guy with ties to the Communist Chinese is named Secretary of Defense by Obama. Why am I not surprised?

Has everyone but me forgotten Chinagate and CampaignFinancegate?

Am I the only one here at JREF that remembers Nolanda Hill (a close associate and confidant of Ron Brown) testifying under oath that Brown told her that then White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta and Deputy Chief of Staff John Podesta ordered him to defy court orders and obstruct a Judicial Watch suit that was aimed at gathering information related to Chinagate and CampaignFinanceGate by withholding documents until after the 1996 federal elections. According to http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/ois/specials/interim_report/interim_HTML.htm :



Am I the only one here at JREF who remembers that Panetta was also involved in other Clinton scandals? Like Filegate?

In 1996, White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta issued a statement blaming the "the procedures in place for some three decades" for being inadequate. He called it "a completely honest bureaucratic snafu." Now we all know that procedures weren't the problem in Filegate and it was hardly a completely honest bureaucratic snafu.

Oh yes ... Panetta is a man whose judgement we can trust in the position of Secretary of Defense. :rolleyes:



Or can we?
Click to expand...

If you were really so terribly concerned, then you should have mentioned this stuff well before that 100 to 0 confimation vote was taken.
 
Crossbow said:
If you were really so terribly concerned, then you should have mentioned this stuff well before that 100 to 0 confimation vote was taken.
Click to expand...

You think I haven't? I've raised concerns about Panetta many times in my posting career. Here's the first post of the latest example where I voiced concerns about him ... http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4340045&postcount=99 . Now you were here at JREF back then? Why didn't you join THAT discussion? Hmmmmm? :D
 
BeAChooser said:
You think I haven't? I've raised concerns about Panetta many times in my posting career. Here's the first post of the latest example where I voiced concerns about him ... http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4340045&postcount=99 . Now you were here at JREF back then? Why didn't you join THAT discussion? Hmmmmm? :D
Click to expand...

It's amazing how much you'll trust one source of information when it agrees with your world view and disbelieve so many when they don't, B.
 
Edited by Tricky: 
Edited for response to modded post.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A Laughing Baby said:
Somehow, I'm not surprised that this tied back to Ron Brown.
Click to expand...

He is like Agent Mulder and Ron Brown is his "smoking man."

Oh and BaC I have a question for you...

ANY COMMENT ON WHY THE ENTIRE REPUBLICAN CACUAS IN THE SENATE SUPPORTS PANETTA? WHY DO REPUBLICANS WANT CHINA TO WIN?
 
BeAChooser said:
You think I haven't? I've raised concerns about Panetta many times in my posting career. Here's the first post of the latest example where I voiced concerns about him ... http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4340045&postcount=99 . Now you were here at JREF back then? Why didn't you join THAT discussion? Hmmmmm? :D
Click to expand...

Well, to answer your questions ...

If you will look at my "Join Date", then you will see it listed as "Oct 2001"; which significantly precedes your "Join Date".

As for why I did not join that discussion, I did not think that it was worthwhile for me to join it so I did not do so.

So, if these two answers are now clear to you, then I will move on to the point that I raised ...

I have some news for you 'BeAChooser', probably no one in the US Senate really cares all that much for JREF or for you. Especially when you try to raise concerns about someone who just got a unanimous confirmation vote.

And by the way, that posting you refer to was made in JAN 2009 and it refers to Panetta being named as Director of the CIA and not as Secretary of Defense, so it is not relevant in this case.

So, if you really want to influence things politically, then you have to address your concerns to the actual people who make such decisions because addressing your concerns to JREF will not do any good since those decision makers care so little for JREF and even less for you.

I hope that all of these facts are now clear to you as well.
 
BeAChooser said:
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Ok, you are clearly still following this thread. But how about instead of annoying smileys you try actually responding to (or even acknowledging) the following question, which has been repeated far too often for you not to have noticed.
Biscuit said:
Oh and BaC I have a question for you...

ANY COMMENT ON WHY THE ENTIRE REPUBLICAN CACUAS IN THE SENATE SUPPORTS PANETTA? WHY DO REPUBLICANS WANT CHINA TO WIN?
Click to expand...
 
BeAChooser said:
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

And yet, not one Republican found the testimony of a single person at all compelling when considering Panetta's appointment to Secretary of Defense.

Why do you suppose that is, B? Are all Republican Senators fools or, perhaps, that one testimony isn't particularly compelling and you are pushing something you would like to be true rather than something that necessarily is true?
 
So, again: this guy knew someone who met someone and that first guy was kinda leftist and the second guy might have met a spy or something and that makes this person the most evil guy to ever be offered a government job? Is that how this works?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom