[50 Cent]

The UN is really trying to set itself up for a fall:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2...ct-Mitt-Romney

[Angry Fist]

These *******s need to be tortured.

[coastal4974]

All the more reason to vote twice

[G17Jake]

If the UN says to NOT vote for Romney, that is like an endorsement TO vote for Romney, in my opinion.

[shotgunred]

The UN wants a weak US! Obama wants a weak US!

This is just more voter intimidation like all the threats of blood in the streets if Obama loses.

[Providence]

"The re-introduction of torture under a Romney administration would significantly increase the threat levels to (Americans) at home and abroad," Emmerson said. "Such a policy, if adopted, would expose the American people to risks the Obama administration is not currently exposing them to."

This sounds like denial to me. We are safe now? Wasn't that story line part of the reason for the Benghazi cover-up? Well, that and the fact that we've now gotten ourselves into an arms deal with al Qaeda?

Sorry, I guess I'm a off subject.

[dpadams6]

The first think Romney needs to do once he gets in is pull us out of the un completely and boot them out of new York. Un needs us. We do not need them. Their relevance is no longer.

[Clutch Cargo]

When Romney takes office, he should push for the U.S. to immediately stop all funding and leave the U.N.

[Providence]

From your lips to God's ear!

[bmoore]

United Nothings. Romney really has my vote now (not that he ever didn't).

[sourdough44]

All the more reason to vote for Mitt.

[JW1178]

LMAO.... I find that funny. I guess they like the POTUS to say one thing and do another. Although they all do that, Obama said in 2008 how he would close GITMO and a bunch of other stuff but didn't do much of it, so I don't think it's about that.

Judging by the photo on that story, I say it's because they want further muslim empowerment and Obama is their best choice. Obama is the best thing to happen to Isliamics since, well, Mohammad, who was probably much like Obama.

[sns3guppy]

The article is without credibility and anyone who stands to cheer over it is an idiot.

Bin Ladin was located based on waterboarding in 2004, and yet despite moves and billions of dollars spend trying to find him, and the administration's inability to locate Bin Ladin, that waterboarding yielded the death of Bin Ladin's death seven years later? Ridiculous.

The article all but attempts to return the credit for finding and killing Bin Ladin to the Bush administration. That's certainly not true.

The web site linked above is agenda-driven, hardly newsworthy, and contains a great deal of incorrect or false information. However for those of you who are cheerleaders no matter what the facts, cheer on. You'll be 100% wrong in ways a blind man can see, but you don't really care about that, do you?

[mac66]

"However for those of you who are cheerleaders no matter what the facts, cheer on. You'll be 100% wrong in ways a blind man can see, but you don't really care about that, do you? "

sns3guppy,

What will "cheerleaders" be 100% wrong about?
What do you know that you aren't telling them?
Are you saying cheerleaders should care about the UN's warning?
What does this story have to do with cheers and blind men anyway?

I really don't understand what your point it unless it comes with a sound track of diabolical, sinister laughter behind it.

[Providence]

Originally Posted by sns3guppy

The article is without credibility and anyone who stands to cheer over it is an idiot.

Bin Ladin was located based on waterboarding in 2004, and yet despite moves and billions of dollars spend trying to find him, and the administration's inability to locate Bin Ladin, that waterboarding yielded the death of Bin Ladin's death seven years later? Ridiculous.

The article all but attempts to return the credit for finding and killing Bin Ladin to the Bush administration. That's certainly not true.

The web site linked above is agenda-driven, hardly newsworthy, and contains a great deal of incorrect or false information. However for those of you who are cheerleaders no matter what the facts, cheer on. You'll be 100% wrong in ways a blind man can see, but you don't really care about that, do you?

Facts is facts. You don't have to like them, and you are free to interpret as you wish. But they are still facts. The chain of intelligence is established. And as far as your point about the article defending Bush, I don't think it means water boarding is effective. That would be an interpretation.

From the article: "U.S. intelligence services were able to pinpoint Osama bin Laden's location and carry out the successful mission to kill him in May 2011 based on information yielded during waterboarding of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and information from Al Qaeda operative Hassan Ghul, who was captured in Iraq in 2004."

The clue to your lack of facts was labeling people as idiots if they think the UN wanting Obama to win is a shame. So let me ask, do you think it's okay that the UN has interjected itself in our election debate? Do you agree with the UN?

[frizz]

Originally Posted by Providence

Facts is facts. You don't have to like them, and you are free to interpret as you wish. But they are still facts. The chain of intelligence is established. And as far as your point, I don't think it means water boarding is effective. That would be an interpretation.

From the article: "U.S. intelligence services were able to pinpoint Osama bin Laden’s location and carry out the successful mission to kill him in May 2011 based on information yielded during waterboarding of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and information from Al Qaeda operative Hassan Ghul, who was captured in Iraq in 2004."

The clue to your lack of facts was labeling people as idiots if they think the UN wanting Obama to win is a shame. So let ,e ask,do you think it's okay that the UN has interjected itself in our election debate? Do you agree with the UN?

This post makes no sense it all. It is a disjointed rambling that goes nowhere.

Do you want to try that again? Also, if you are replying to someone, quote them or at least mention the name.

[treeline]

nevermind, not worth it

[Providence]

Originally Posted by frizz

This post makes no sense it all. It is a disjointed rambling that goes nowhere.

Do you want to try that again? Also, if you are replying to someone, quote them or at least mention the name.

I fixed it for you. If it still makes no sense, then I don't know how to help you. Maybe I'm just not making sense today.

[frizz]

Originally Posted by Providence

I fixed it for you. If it still makes no sense, then I don't know how to help you. Maybe I'm just not making sense today.

Just this one sentence is indecipherable:

The clue to your lack of facts was labeling people as idiots if they think the UN wanting Obama to win is a shame.

The rest has more than just typographical errors. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

[G19Tony]

Originally Posted by coastal4974

All the more reason to vote twice

If you're in Chicago, you can.

[mgs]

I vote to throw the UN out of the USA!!!!

[g30sfjeepguy]

Ill second that.

[mgs]

All those in favor signify by saying I.

[jpa]

Originally Posted by JW1178

LMAO.... I find that funny. I guess they like the POTUS to say one thing and do another. Although they all do that, Obama said in 2008 how he would close GITMO and a bunch of other stuff but didn't do much of it, so I don't think it's about that.

Judging by the photo on that story, I say it's because they want further muslim empowerment and Obama is their best choice. Obama is the best thing to happen to Isliamics since, well, Mohammad, who was probably much like Obama.

I agree. "Sure, we'll stop waterboarding terrorists..." (wink wink, nudge nudge)

"Sure, we're making every effort to close Gitmo...." (wink wink, nudge nudge)

We have no verifiable proof that prisoners aren't being waterboarded or the president is actively working to close Gitmo. We just have the president's statement that he won't allow waterboarding and he wants to close Gitmo. Actions speak louder than words....

[Averageman]

Originally Posted by G19Tony

If you're in Chicago, you can.

When Mayor Richard Daley was in Office the dead voted....and often!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...election,_1960


As a matter of fact, they still do.

http://www.championnews.net/2012/10/...s-in-illinois/