Welcome to ECCIE, become a part of the fastest growing adult community. Take a minute & sign up!

Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!

Go Premium

Go Back   ECCIE Worldwide > General Interest > The Political Forum
test
The Political Forum Discuss anything related to politics in this forum. World politics, US Politics, State and Local.

Most Favorited Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Most Liked Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Top Reviewers
cockalatte 646
MoneyManMatt 490
Still Looking 399
samcruz 399
Jon Bon 396
Harley Diablo 377
honest_abe 362
DFW_Ladies_Man 313
Chung Tran 288
lupegarland 287
nicemusic 285
You&Me 281
Starscream66 278
George Spelvin 265
sharkman29 255
Top Posters
DallasRain70787
biomed163165
Yssup Rider60806
gman4453287
LexusLover51038
offshoredrilling48626
WTF48267
pyramider46370
bambino42478
CryptKicker37213
The_Waco_Kid36919
Mokoa36496
Chung Tran36100
Still Looking35944
Mojojo33117

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-21-2014, 07:05 PM   #46
IIFFOFRDB
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jun 19, 2011
Location: Dixie Land
Posts: 22,098
Default

IIFFOFRDB is offline   Quote
Old 08-21-2014, 07:35 PM   #47
IIFFOFRDB
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jun 19, 2011
Location: Dixie Land
Posts: 22,098
Default

IIFFOFRDB is offline   Quote
Old 08-21-2014, 08:05 PM   #48
IIFFOFRDB
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jun 19, 2011
Location: Dixie Land
Posts: 22,098
Default

Jihad Watch... http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/08/mo...administration


Morsi’s wife threatens to publish letters from Hillary Clinton, exposing “special relationship” between Muslim Brotherhood and Obama Administration

Raymond Ibrahim Aug 14, 2014 at 5:51am Barack Obama, Egypt, Muslim Brotherhood 53 Comments
Hillary Clinton, Mohammed MorsiThe wife of former Egyptian president Muhammad Morsi is the latest Muslim Brotherhood “insider” to threaten to expose the special relationship between Morsi and the Obama administration—a relationship the latter insists never existed.

Nagla Mahmoud, Morsi’s wife, is reportedly angry at some statements recently made by Hillary Clinton, including that Morsi was “naïve” and “unfit for Egypt’s presidency,” as reported by Arabic media.

In the words of El-Mogaz News, Morsi’s wife “is threatening to expose the special relationship between her husband and Hillary Clinton, after the latter attacked the ousted [president], calling him a simpleton who was unfit for the presidency. Sources close to Nagla confirmed that she has threatened to publish the letters exchanged between Morsi and Hillary.”

The report continues by saying that Nagla accuses Hillary of denouncing her former close ally, the Brotherhood’s Morsi, in an effort to foster better relations with his successor, Egypt’s current president, Sisi—even though, as Nagla laments, “he [Morsi] was faithful to the American administration.”

Earlier, the son of Khairat al-Shatter—another top ranking Brotherhood member who was arrested during the June 2013 revolution that ousted Morsi—made similar assertions, threatening to expose documents that would “undermine his [U.S. president Obama’s] political future and land him in prison.”

Despite all these similar threats from Brotherhood insiders, and despite all the other evidence, the Obama administration insists that its relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood was no more special than its relationships to other Egyptian parties.
IIFFOFRDB is offline   Quote
Old 08-21-2014, 09:21 PM   #49
IIFFOFRDB
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jun 19, 2011
Location: Dixie Land
Posts: 22,098
Default

IIFFOFRDB is offline   Quote
Old 08-21-2014, 10:42 PM   #50
Yssup Rider
Valued Poster
 
Yssup Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: Clarksville
Posts: 60,806
Encounters: 67
Default

Talking to yourself again Slobbrin?
Yssup Rider is offline   Quote
Old 08-22-2014, 06:47 AM   #51
IIFFOFRDB
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jun 19, 2011
Location: Dixie Land
Posts: 22,098
Default




http://shoebat.com/2014/08/22/cia-tr...organizations/

CIA-Trained Lt. Col. Says ISIS The ‘Antichrist Of Terrorist Organizations’

by Ben Barrack on August 22, 2014 in General
Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer appeared on WMAL to talk about the growing threat of ISIS and Barack Obama’s refusal to confront it. At one point, Shaffer referred to ISIS as “the antichrist of terrorist organizations”. This is indeed interesting when one considers the mounting evidence that Turkey has been aiding, abetting, and funding ISIS.

Toward the end of the clip below, Shaffer relayed that his sources inside the Pentagon told him the reason the raid to rescue James Foley failed was because Obama dithered and did not give the order until “the intel got stale”.


An interesting point made by Shaffer is that the perception Obama is disengaged or doesn’t understand the threat is belied by the fact that the President has access to far more and detailed information than anyone else. This is absolutely correct. Whenever media – both conservative and liberal – focuses on the President playing so much golf or refers to him as being “detached”, it plays right into Obama’s hands.

There are only a few explanations for Obama’s refusal to confront America’s enemies (to include leaving the southern border wide open): 1.) he is detached / naive / incompetent and doesn’t understand the threat; 2.) it’s all by design because he hates this country or is in league with America’s enemies or 3.) he’s too afraid.

He cannot have the perception that it’s by design take hold because that would carry with it severe consequences for him personally; ditto the issue of being fearful. Therefore, he must go the extra mile to create the perception that he just doesn’t understand the threat.

The degree to which politicians would rather be seen as complete buffoons who know nothing rather than as complicit actors who know more than the rest of us knows no bounds.

It’s a sad statement when someone would rather be seen as stupid than gutless.

Besides, ignorance shouldn’t be an excuse anyway. Isn’t that why the President has access to all that information?
IIFFOFRDB is offline   Quote
Old 08-22-2014, 10:28 PM   #52
IIFFOFRDB
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jun 19, 2011
Location: Dixie Land
Posts: 22,098
Default

Olawless strikes again...


Obama rejects finding that he broke the law in Bergdahl swap

August 22, 2014, 03:48 pm
By Justin Sink

The White House on Friday rejected findings by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) that President Obama broke the law when he swapped Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for five Taliban leaders from Guantánamo Bay.

"We strongly disagree with GAO's conclusion, and we reject the implication that the administration acted unlawfully," White House spokesman Eric Schultz said. "The president has the constitutional responsibility to protect the lives of Americans abroad, and specifically to protect U.S. servicemembers."

The GAO report, released Thursday, said the Pentagon violated a law that requires the administration to inform Congress at least 30 days before any prisoner exchange from Guantánamo Bay. It also said the Defense Department wrongly used $988,400 from a wartime appropriations to facilitate the transfer.

"The Department of Defense violated section 8111 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014 when it transferred five individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the nation of Qatar without providing at least 30-days notice to certain congressional committees," the GAO wrote in its report.

Lawmakers have criticized the White House for failing to inform them about the prisoner swap and for freeing the Guantánamo detainees. Some have suggested Bergdahl, who is suspected of deserting ahead of his capture, was not worth the risk of freeing captured Taliban leaders.

The Pentagon maintained to the congressional investigators that providing notice of the exchange "would have interfered with the executive's performance of two related functions that the Constitution assigns to the president: protecting the lives of Americans abroad and protecting U.S. service members."

The GAO said it would not weigh in on the constitutionality of the law requiring congressional notification, but noted the legislation passed through the legislature and was signed by the president. But the White House seized on that point to argue that the administration's actions should not be considered a violation of the law.

"It's important for everyone here to understand that the GAO report expressly does not address the lawfulness of the administration's actions as a matter of Constitutional law," Schultz said.

On Thursday, Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby said that, under the "exceptional circumstances" involved in the controversial prisoner swap, "the administration determined that it was necessary and appropriate to forego 30 days' notice."

"The executive branch must have the flexibility, among other things, to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers," Kirby said.


Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...#ixzz3BBawOGtT
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
IIFFOFRDB is offline   Quote
Old 08-22-2014, 11:08 PM   #53
Yssup Rider
Valued Poster
 
Yssup Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: Clarksville
Posts: 60,806
Encounters: 67
Default

Oslobbrin...
Yssup Rider is offline   Quote
Old 08-23-2014, 12:55 PM   #54
IIFFOFRDB
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jun 19, 2011
Location: Dixie Land
Posts: 22,098
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yssup Rider View Post
Oslobbrin...

I'm GLAD you finally admit it... Thanks
IIFFOFRDB is offline   Quote
Old 08-23-2014, 02:46 PM   #55
i'va biggen
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jan 20, 2011
Location: kansas
Posts: 28,773
Encounters: 17
Default

Way to go spam master.
i'va biggen is offline   Quote
Old 08-23-2014, 04:33 PM   #56
IIFFOFRDB
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jun 19, 2011
Location: Dixie Land
Posts: 22,098
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by i'va biggen View Post
Way to go spam master.
No problem, SPUNK guzzler...

IIFFOFRDB is offline   Quote
Old 08-23-2014, 04:41 PM   #57
WTF
Lifetime Premium Access
 
WTF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1, 2010
Location: houston
Posts: 48,267
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB View Post
[

There are only a few explanations for Obama’s refusal to confront America’s enemies (to include leaving the southern border wide open): 1.) he is detached / naive / incompetent and doesn’t understand the threat; 2.) it’s all by design because he hates this country or is in league with America’s enemies or 3.) he’s too afraid.

?





I'll ask you what I asked LL....


How much money and how much freedom are you willing to give up to feel safe IIFFOFRDB?

That is the question....not matter how you or boardman or that dumbass gnadfly pose your questions about Muslims terrorist coming over here. What are you willing to give up to the government to protect you? Your safety does not come without a price.

Personally I want less so called safety and way more personal freedom. I will take the odds that it is more likely I get killed by lightning than a terrorist and keep my money and personal freedom. You , boardman and gnadfly seem to want to have it all. Spend no money, give up no personal freedoms and take no personal responsibility for your own safety. In other words you are looking to the government to protect you.




Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
WTF is offline   Quote
Old 08-23-2014, 04:47 PM   #58
IIFFOFRDB
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jun 19, 2011
Location: Dixie Land
Posts: 22,098
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WTF View Post
I'll ask you what I asked LL....


How much money and how much freedom are you willing to give up to feel safe IIFFOFRDB?

That is the question....not matter how you or boardman or that dumbass gnadfly pose your questions about Muslims terrorist coming over here. What are you willing to give up to the government to protect you? Your safety does not come without a price.

Personally I want less so called safety and way more personal freedom. I will take the odds that it is more likely I get killed by lightning than a terrorist and keep my money and personal freedom. You , boardman and gnadfly seem to want to have it all. Spend no money, give up no personal freedoms and take no personal responsibility for your own safety. In other words you are looking to the government to protect you.




Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759



IIFFOFRDB is offline   Quote
Old 08-23-2014, 04:55 PM   #59
WTF
Lifetime Premium Access
 
WTF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1, 2010
Location: houston
Posts: 48,267
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB View Post

Sounds like you are scared of ISIS


I'll ask you what I asked LL....


How much money and how much freedom are you willing to give up to feel safe IIFFOFRDB?

That is the question....not matter how you or boardman or that dumbass gnadfly pose your questions about Muslims terrorist coming over here. What are you willing to give up to the government to protect you? Your safety does not come without a price.

Personally I want less so called safety and way more personal freedom. I will take the odds that it is more likely I get killed by lightning than a terrorist and keep my money and personal freedom. You , boardman and gnadfly seem to want to have it all. Spend no money, give up no personal freedoms and take no personal responsibility for your own safety. In other words you are looking to the government to protect you.




Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
WTF is offline   Quote
Old 08-23-2014, 05:51 PM   #60
i'va biggen
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jan 20, 2011
Location: kansas
Posts: 28,773
Encounters: 17
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB View Post
No problem, SPUNK guzzler...
Fucking little Hamas whore, just can't fucking help yourself can you whiffy? Your fucked.
i'va biggen is offline   Quote
Reply



AMPReviews.net
Find Ladies
Hot Women

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright © 2009 - 2016, ECCIE Worldwide, All Rights Reserved