godtomsatan

Members
  • Content count

    10,300
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

godtomsatan last won the day on July 11 2012

godtomsatan had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

26 Good

About godtomsatan

  • Rank
    Huddler All-Pro

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Seattle, WA
  • Interests
    Candlelit dinners, walks on the beach.

Previous Fields

  • Fan of the
    Seahawks
  1. Seriously, why and how can you see that? What at all gives you any kind of impression that political purposes could possibly have played a factor in any kind of decision making with this? They DIDN'T react (likely because they couldn't) and people like you think its a black eye against the administration. So, wouldn't logic dictate that if they DID react (if they even could) there would be a positive "political purpose" for doing so?
  2. I get this, because everyone ought to have the same opinion about this. There was a haphazard and poor attempt at deflection, usually there is a reason for this and it makes some sense in the bigger picture. I would like to simply point out that I can disagree with an ideology, but that I can also understand a motivation behind a decision made for political purpose. As an example, as much as I may have had a terrible taste in my mouth after the Bush administrations response to Katrina, at least I understood that there was an ideological element involved in not committing federal resources right away. Regardless of whether I thought that was right or wrong. When you apply that sort of logic to this situation in Benghazi, I don't understand what the motivation is/was for the administration to tout the movie thing for so long, in the near immediate evidence available that this was a premeditated and planned attack. Seems to me that a quick and decisive response to the event gives an impression of a terrorist ass-kicking by Obama right before the elections. Even calling the event a surprise and admitting that they were caught off guard goes to show the need to be steadfast in their hunt for AQ in Pakistan and stablizing Afghanistan. So, why drag it out? What's the bigger picture here? Is it protecting the CIA's role in Libya? Or the broader role of the CIA in the Arab Spring? Getting out a different narrative to deflect the reality of who is calling the shots in North Africa? I'd at least buy in to the plausibility of that theory.
  3. Actually, that was a real helpful link. Thanks for posting something with credible reference, rather than opinions of a radio program caller or spurious dialogue from family members about a situation.
  4. 4-4 in a first half schedule that easily could have been 2-6 or worse. They'll have to continue to improve, but I'm guessing they're favorites in six of their final eight games. Is 10 enough to get a wild card (or division) in the NFC this year? Not totally sure of that....
  5. vs. Ponder, vs. Sanchez, bye, @ Tannehill, @ Cutler, vs. Skelton, @ Fitzgerald, vs. Smith, vs. Bradford.
  6. Don't tell me I'm childish, mr. poopypants.
  7. Yes, I learned that he had zero direct knowledge of this particular situation. If you were a real patriot you would turn in your military officer and defense contractor executive family members who are disclosing such sensitive material to a civilian.
  8. I wouldn't really compare the two games at all. Vernon Davis wasn't even targeted in a slugfest that was won by the team that scored a touchdown first. Calvin Johnson got at least 8 targets this afternoon, only 3 catches. It was Stafford's best game of the season, and he threw it 49 times. Tom Brady did nearly the exact same thing in Week 6 to the Seahawks, and he lost. So, hard to really call it an "exposure" by the Lions. A fun game, the defense gave up a lot of passing yards to secondary receivers. Fortunately, the most elite passer left on the Seahawks schedule might be Mark Sanchez, so I'm not sure this is going to exactly be a week-in/week-out thing to deal with.
  9. They were private security contractors. Not US military personnel. Defied orders and died. If they had followed orders, what would have been their fate? I'm hazarding a guess that you are not actually an authority on security protocols and communication procedures between the Department of State, the Department of Defense, and the White House, and everything you say above regarding the details of what went down is the equivalent of a child vomiting what was just fed to them all over a bib.
  10. If you like holocaust survivors, sure.
  11. Many people of your ilk complain that Obama supporters believe he is the savior, yet you are the most angry and disappointed that he can't be everywhere and do everything at once. Obviously, there was a failure along the line. Obviously, it was a worst case scenario situation. It was a situation that occurred 5200 miles away in another country on another continent, and the White House itself has a half dozen layers between it and the military folks and the people on the ground. I mean, it was an outlier CIA complex in a recently overthrown country where we have a lot of strategic interest, it wasn't the Manhattan skyline. Let's put our shock and surprise hat on and make sure it fits.
  12. Yeah, I was caught off guard how good she looks. And how Erin Andrews is not looking good on Fox. And how disgusted with the aging process I am when I realize I think Linda Cohn and Michele Tafoya are attractive.
  13. Monday morning QBing.
  14. I just don't get why you (or others) would complain about someone's advocacy for any particular issue, especially since I wouldn't have any idea about Chris Kluwe's advocacy of this particular issue except for the fact that you brought everyone's attention to it.
  15. Ooh ooh!! Can I be Stockard Channing??!!