The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(07-23-2018 11:16 AM)Ken Barna Wrote:  Dear gobaseline,
You don't read well. I said the Obama administration corrected their initial statement to; "It was a terrorist attack". If, you go back and read about the investigation, you will find that the four people killed, were warned not to go there because it was a dangerous situation.
We did not have adequate protection there. This was not an embassy, not even a consulate. That was one of the reasons it did not have adequate protection. Once the compound was under attack, there was no way any forces could be sent in time to help the beleaguered Americans. The nearest forces were in Croatia, Italy, and Spain. The Libyan policy was probably flawed, but there was no cover-up as you suggest. It takes an investigation to find what happened, not jumping to conclusions as republicans did at that time, and as you still believe.

Ken,

The spade you’re using is to fill in all the holes you claimed I left, not dig new holes.

Nice touch there inferring that the deaths of these 4 Americans Patriots was a result of them not heeding warnings.

As to my reading level, it does lag. I’m at an EMU grad level.

However, my comprehension is just fine.

Like not jumping to the conclusion or using as cover the fabrication that the attack was a result of a video. This only before immediately going on talk shows and offering as a fact instead of waiting for an investigation.

Do you understand the disconnect to your statement?

(07-24-2018 08:44 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  

(07-23-2018 11:16 AM)Ken Barna Wrote:  Dear gobaseline,
You don't read well. I said the Obama administration corrected their initial statement to; "It was a terrorist attack". If, you go back and read about the investigation, you will find that the four people killed, were warned not to go there because it was a dangerous situation.
We did not have adequate protection there. This was not an embassy, not even a consulate. That was one of the reasons it did not have adequate protection. Once the compound was under attack, there was no way any forces could be sent in time to help the beleaguered Americans. The nearest forces were in Croatia, Italy, and Spain. The Libyan policy was probably flawed, but there was no cover-up as you suggest. It takes an investigation to find what happened, not jumping to conclusions as republicans did at that time, and as you still believe.

Ken,

The spade you’re using is to fill in all the holes you claimed I left, not dig new holes.

Nice touch there inferring that the deaths of these 4 Americans Patriots was a result of them not heeding warnings.

As to my reading level, it does lag. I’m at an EMU grad level.

However, my comprehension is just fine.

Like not jumping to the conclusion or using as cover the fabrication that the attack was a result of a video. This only before immediately going on talk shows and offering as a fact instead of waiting for an investigation.

Do you understand the disconnect to your statement?

The response to the Benghazi Attack by the Obama Administration was the most blatant example of cover-up and attempted deflection that I've seen in my 63 years-and I've seen some duzies! There is not a doubt in my mind that Barack and Hillary stayed up all that night focusing ENTIRELY on coming up with plausible deniability. The whole 'YouTube video' that was spread around the networks by Susan Rice the next day was a complete fabrication and attempted evasion.

The FIRST and ONLY thing that went through Hillary's mind when she got that 3:00 am telephone call-'How am I going to cover my azz?!"

She covered her azz, but it cost her the election. The American people aren't that stupid.

Dear gobaseline and BroncoPhilly,
It is unbelievable that you both ignore all the information about Benghazi, and remain fixated on the initial statement about it.
Since you only want to talk about lies...let's deflect to the biggest lier in the world. The president that you both support. President Trump.
Give me reasons why anyone with an ounce of brain matter would continue to support this buffoon? He has made a mockery of the office he holds, and has to come up with a new lie everyday to cover for the lie he told the day before. Now we see he has even changed the wording on the official documents that will be part of our historical record, from his press conference with President Putin. He knows no limits.
Please don't give me tax cuts, and the economy. We are dealing with a pathological liar.

(07-25-2018 09:12 AM)Ken Barna Wrote:  Dear gobaseline and BroncoPhilly,
It is unbelievable that you both ignore all the information about Benghazi, and remain fixated on the initial statement about it.
Since you only want to talk about lies...let's deflect to the biggest lier in the world. The president that you both support. President Trump.
Give me reasons why anyone with an ounce of brain matter would continue to support this buffoon? He has made a mockery of the office he holds, and has to come up with a new lie everyday to cover for the lie he told the day before. Now we see he has even changed the wording on the official documents that will be part of our historical record, from his press conference with President Putin. He knows no limits.
Please don't give me tax cuts, and the economy. We are dealing with a pathological lier.

I believe there was a President that committed perjury while in Office. He was disbarred by the Supreme Court and resigned before the order could go into effect.

I thought we were taking about Benghazi? As usual, every time Ken Barna gets presented with facts that don't fit his narrative he tries to change the topic.

Hillary and Obama LIED about what went-down at Benghazi. Not maybe, not possibly, not perhaps-they both lied and lied repeatedly. They tried to cover-up their actions that led up to the tragic event as well as their inaction after it commenced.

When all else fails, attempt deflection-hence the YouTube video story that was fed to the MSM the next day by Susan Rice. Naturally the MSM swallowed it hook, line and sinker-but the American public are not that stupid.

Hillary slithered away unscathed, but it cost her the election. Enough of the American voters still value character, that's why Hillary lost. And justifiably so, her character is reprehensible. But she's a perfect figurehead for today's Democrat party.

Incidentally Ken, please use spell-check. I believe they teach that even at EMU?

(07-25-2018 09:47 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  

(07-25-2018 09:12 AM)Ken Barna Wrote:  Dear gobaseline and BroncoPhilly,
It is unbelievable that you both ignore all the information about Benghazi, and remain fixated on the initial statement about it.
Since you only want to talk about lies...let's deflect to the biggest lier in the world. The president that you both support. President Trump.
Give me reasons why anyone with an ounce of brain matter would continue to support this buffoon? He has made a mockery of the office he holds, and has to come up with a new lie everyday to cover for the lie he told the day before. Now we see he has even changed the wording on the official documents that will be part of our historical record, from his press conference with President Putin. He knows no limits.
Please don't give me tax cuts, and the economy. We are dealing with a pathological lier.

I believe there was a President that committed perjury while in Office. He was disbarred by the Supreme Court and resigned before the order could go into effect.

Dear Bronco Philly,
Still can't read. I told you I was deflecting. The reason I did, is because you and gobaseline only talk about lying. So, let's talk about the liar in chief.
You also need to go back and look at your mis-spellings. It's easy to call the kettle black, but like I said before, when you have nothing to reply, people like you resort to character assassination, or grammar mistakes, or make snide remarks about one's school, etc.

(07-23-2018 05:58 PM)GullLake Wrote:  [quote='Ken Barna' pid='15395894' dateline='1532377589']
Dear GullLake,


The democrats are better.

Nah, democrats trying to repeal the second amendment. I'll pass

(07-25-2018 10:54 AM)BroncoPhilly Wrote:  I thought we were taking about Benghazi? As usual, every time Ken Barna gets presented with facts that don't fit his narrative he tries to change the topic.

Hillary and Obama LIED about what went-down at Benghazi. Not maybe, not possibly, not perhaps-they both lied and lied repeatedly. They tried to cover-up their actions that led up to the tragic event as well as their inaction after it commenced.

When all else fails, attempt deflection-hence the YouTube video story that was fed to the MSM the next day by Susan Rice. Naturally the MSM swallowed it hook, line and sinker-but the American public are not that stupid.

Hillary slithered away unscathed, but it cost her the election. Enough of the American voters still value character, that's why Hillary lost. And justifiably so, her character is reprehensible. But she's a perfect figurehead for today's Democrat party.

Incidentally Ken, please use spell-check. I believe they teach that even at EMU?

I think instead of english classes, they teach transgender studies and socialism 101 at EMU.

(07-25-2018 11:13 AM)Ken Barna Wrote:  Dear Bronco Philly,
Still can't read. I told you I was deflecting. The reason I did, is because you and gobaseline only talk about lying. So, let's talk about the liar in chief.
You also need to go back and look at your mis-spellings. It's easy to call the kettle black, but like I said before, when you have nothing to reply, people like you resort to character assassination, or grammar mistakes, or make snide remarks about one's school, etc.

Ken,
That’s Moulton rock you’re hitting as you continue to dig holes. BenGhazi was an afterthought to my other list. You have not said a single syllable about those. Take each one specifically and have at it.

Dear Fthechips,
Read the entire amendment. It states quite clearly in the first paragraph; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". We no longer need a Militia to protect us. We have the collective body of the Armed Forces. They are our security. The need for people to arm themselves for protecting our free State is not needed.
So, in my opinion, this amendment could be revisited for possible changes.

Who says we don't need a militia? Foreign countries wouldn't even think of attacking mainland US. Mainly due to our superior military, but another factor is the millions upon millions of people with hundreds of millions of guns ready to use them. It would be tough sledding for any invading force. Nobody knows what the future holds, you ever seen handmaids tale, LOL. Sorry, on the minuscule chance anything ever goes down, be it an outside threat or our own Gov't I'm not going to be sitting there with my di$% in my hand.

(07-25-2018 12:35 PM)Ken Barna Wrote:  Dear Fthechips,
Read the entire amendment. It states quite clearly in the first paragraph; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". We no longer need a Militia to protect us. We have the collective body of the Armed Forces. They are our security. The need for people to arm themselves for protecting our free State is not needed.
So, in my opinion, this amendment could be revisited for possible changes.

The second amendment was put in place to provide the citizens with arms in case of government tyranny (hence why we left England in the first place). Every tyrannical government in the history of the world disarmed the citizens, Mao, Hitler, Stalin. The second amendment is not to protect against outside invaders, but rather protect us from our own government. Besides that, the CDC estimates that guns save many more people than the kill per year so there's really no debate from a statistical point of view.

P.S. A free state is not a free state if it is controlled by a tyrannical govt.

(07-25-2018 02:15 PM)Fthechips Wrote:  

(07-25-2018 12:35 PM)Ken Barna Wrote:  Dear Fthechips,
Read the entire amendment. It states quite clearly in the first paragraph; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". We no longer need a Militia to protect us. We have the collective body of the Armed Forces. They are our security. The need for people to arm themselves for protecting our free State is not needed.
So, in my opinion, this amendment could be revisited for possible changes.

The second amendment was put in place to provide the citizens with arms in case of government tyranny (hence why we left England in the first place). Every tyrannical government in the history of the world disarmed the citizens, Mao, Hitler, Stalin. The second amendment is not to protect against outside invaders, but rather protect us from our own government. Besides that, the CDC estimates that guns save many more people than the kill per year so there's really no debate from a statistical point of view.

P.S. A free state is not a free state if it is controlled by a tyrannical govt.

When I see and listen to the authoritarian government nut jobs on the far right - who are taking over the GOP - I am glad we have a 2nd Amendment.

When I see and listen to the authoritarian government nut jobs on the far left - who are taking over the Democrat Party - I am glad we have a 2nd Amendment.

Neither side respects, or is tolerant of, ANYBODY who differs with them and will go to great ends to silence them. Neither side respects the will of the majority. Both sides are equally dangerous.

Glad we have a 2nd Amendment because the extremist nut jobs would be thrilled to take it away, along with the 1st and 5th amendments. A generation ago, I could never imagine that happening. Now, it does not seem so far fetched.

(07-25-2018 03:18 PM)GullLake Wrote:  

(07-25-2018 02:15 PM)Fthechips Wrote:  

(07-25-2018 12:35 PM)Ken Barna Wrote:  Dear Fthechips,
Read the entire amendment. It states quite clearly in the first paragraph; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". We no longer need a Militia to protect us. We have the collective body of the Armed Forces. They are our security. The need for people to arm themselves for protecting our free State is not needed.
So, in my opinion, this amendment could be revisited for possible changes.

The second amendment was put in place to provide the citizens with arms in case of government tyranny (hence why we left England in the first place). Every tyrannical government in the history of the world disarmed the citizens, Mao, Hitler, Stalin. The second amendment is not to protect against outside invaders, but rather protect us from our own government. Besides that, the CDC estimates that guns save many more people than the kill per year so there's really no debate from a statistical point of view.

P.S. A free state is not a free state if it is controlled by a tyrannical govt.

When I see and listen to the authoritarian government nut jobs on the far right - who are taking over the GOP - I am glad we have a 2nd Amendment.

When I see and listen to the authoritarian government nut jobs on the far left - who are taking over the Democrat Party - I am glad we have a 2nd Amendment.

Neither side respects, or is tolerant of, ANYBODY who differs with them and will go to great ends to silence them. Neither side respects the will of the majority. Both sides are equally dangerous.

Glad we have a 2nd Amendment because the extremist nut jobs would be thrilled to take it away, along with the 1st and 5th amendments. A generation ago, I could never imagine that happening. Now, it does not seem so far fetched.

I’ll buy that. Libertarian for president.

(07-25-2018 12:35 PM)Ken Barna Wrote:  Dear Fthechips,
Read the entire amendment. It states quite clearly in the first paragraph; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". We no longer need a Militia to protect us. We have the collective body of the Armed Forces. They are our security. The need for people to arm themselves for protecting our free State is not needed.
So, in my opinion, this amendment could be revisited for possible changes.

If you feel that way, take it to the US Supreme Court and argue your position. Otherwise, shut your pie hole.

(07-25-2018 05:44 PM)BroncoPhilly Wrote:  

(07-25-2018 12:35 PM)Ken Barna Wrote:  Dear Fthechips,
Read the entire amendment. It states quite clearly in the first paragraph; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". We no longer need a Militia to protect us. We have the collective body of the Armed Forces. They are our security. The need for people to arm themselves for protecting our free State is not needed.
So, in my opinion, this amendment could be revisited for possible changes.

If you feel that way, take it to the US Supreme Court and argue your position. Otherwise, shut your pie hole.

Well with trumps last SCOTUS nomination we shouldn’t have to worry about that for some time.

KEN,

Start filling in those holes with specifics and facts.

Put your brain where your mouth is.

Dear gobaseline,
I have given you facts. You refuse to believe them, but here's one more. Your republican congress cut funding for embassies and consulates two years in a row to the tune of about 400 million dollars before the incident at Benghazi. How much of that amount was to be used for defense of those embassies and consulates? We will never know, but I'm sure some would have been used for defensive purposes.

Dear Fthechips,
Your interpretation of the second amendment is just that.