Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

OCATA THERAPEUTICS, INC. Message Board

  • craigsswanndo craigsswanndo May 6, 2013 11:10 AM Flag

    O/T- H Clinton and Obama

    To get their a*s*ses handed to them this week over the Benghazi affair,, we are about to hear about the mis-information they tried to blow smoke up our bu*tts and lied from the start to the american people,, funny, not one bit of coverage from the leftest stations as they have their noses up Obama's but*thole,, just pathetic,, wonder how many more lies they will tell,,
    C

    Sentiment: Hold

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Is there any reason not to call them ignoramus hypocrites.

      We all know, even the hypocrites know, that if the President were a Republican the hypocrites would be all over him like stink on sh*it for Fast and Furious and Benghazi. But because the President is the messiah, the chosen one, The Dear Leader, it's OK to cover up, lie and obfuscate.

      Hypocrites, how many of you believe that Benghazi was a spontaneous demonstration brought on by a video? And if you don't believe this, how come you support the liars that perpetrated the video lie? How come you make up really dip sh*it excuses and illogical reasoning to justify the leaving Americans to be brutally murdered in Benghazi?

      Tell me with a straight face if a Republican had done this you would be using the same dip #$%$ arguments to defend a Republican as you use to perpetuate The Dear Leader's lies?

      Sentiment: Buy

      • 1 Reply to lonesome_polecatt
      • Not to mention the HC demoted those brave whistle blowers who testified before congress this week,, and they want that witch to be president,, wonder if them fellers can get their status back now,, what nerve she has,, don't expect to get an answer cat,, they's aint smart enough and I really think it is all out war now to get to the truth, and it should be by both sides,, Remember " I'm not a #$%$",,
        The president is high and mighty but is not acting the part,,
        C

        Sentiment: Hold

    • MEGYN KELLY SAYS MEDIA ISSUED 'COLLECTIVE YAWN' ON BENGHAZI, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS COVERED EXTENSIVELY

      The Huffington Post  |  By Jack Mirkinson, 05/10/2013

      Megyn Kelly claimed on Thursday that the mainstream media issued a "collective yawn" about the Congressional hearings — a contention that drew scrutiny from some media-watchers.

      Kelly quoted headlines from outlets like the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle and The Huffington Post which she felt underplayed the drama of the hearings.

      "if you look at, sort of, across the mainstream media, it was a collective yawn," she said.

      The Washington Post's Erik Wemple took the claim head-on in a Thursday blog post. Wemple—who has followed the Benghazi story very closely—noted that the hearings had been given top billing on the front pages of the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal. These are probably the three most important and influential newspapers in the country, and they all had straightforward, non-dismissive headlines that Kelly did not cite, such as "In Riveting Account Of Benghazi Raid, Official Knocks Administration Response," and "Officials: Facts on Benghazi withheld."

      In her segment, Kelly also criticized outlets for focusing on the Jodi Arias trial and the story of the three women kidnapped in Cleveland.

      "When you look at what folks chose to concentrate on, they were much more interested in Jodi Arias and what happened in Cleveland," she said. "In neither case were four Americans killed in a terrorist attack on our country!"

      Kelly failed to note that she was one of the anchors who turned their focus to Arias and Cleveland. On Thursday, Newsbusters rapped MSNBC's Chris Hayes over the knuckles for playing footage of Kelly updating viewers on both stories. The entire network also turned to Arias when she was declared guilty. Fox News even led the ratings with its Arias coverage.

      The media's investigations into Benghazi continued on Friday morning, as ABC's Jon Karl published an exclusive story about the State Department's revisions of talking points. That would suggest that reporters are still looking into things.

      Wemple wrote that Fox News was resorting to an old pattern:

      Forgive Fox News for its analytical blindness. For years, the network has been shredding the mainstream media for ignoring its pet issues. It’s a mantra, a reflex response. So when contrary information pops up on street-corner newspaper boxes, on TV screens and on computer screens everywhere, we can excuse Fox News for not noticing. Give it a pass on this one.

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • Democrats: No scandal in Benghazi deaths

      By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press /  May 10, 2013

      WASHINGTON (AP) — Politicians love few things better than a scandal to trip up their opponents, and Republicans hope last year’s fatal attack on U.S. diplomats in Libya will do exactly that to Hillary Rodham Clinton and other Democrats.

      History suggests it might be a tough lift. The issue is complex, the next presidential election is more than three years away, and a number of reports and officials have disputed criticisms of Clinton’s role when she was secretary of state.

      Still, Republicans and conservative talk hosts are hammering away at Clinton’s and the Obama administration’s handling of the 8-month-old tragedy. A daylong House Oversight Committee hearing Wednesday starred three State Department officials invited by Republicans.

      Security was poorly handled in Benghazi, Libya, they said, and administration officials later tried to obscure what happened.

      Clinton, seen by many as the early Democratic favorite for president in 2016, generally drew strong reviews for her four-year stint as secretary of state. Her darkest moment was the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi.

      Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed. Top administration officials initially said the attackers were spontaneous protesters, angry about an anti-Islamic video. But they later acknowledged the attackers were well-equipped terrorists acting under plans.

      A major independent inquiry largely absolved Clinton of wrongdoing.

      The findings incensed many Republican leaders and conservative news outlets, who portray Benghazi as a simmering scandal about to erupt.

      The three officials testifying Wednesday offered little that has not been aired in previous congressional hearings. Afterward, Republicans all but acknowledged they’re still seeking a knockout punch.

      ‘‘This hearing is now over, but this investigation is not,’’ said Rep. Darrell Issa of California, the hard-charging Republican chairman of the House committee. He urged ‘‘whistle-blowers’’ and ‘‘witnesses who have been afraid to come forward’’ to step up and ‘‘tell us your story, and we will make sure it gets public.’’

      Republicans hope public anger over the Benghazi attacks and their aftermath will besmirch congressional Democrats in next year’s midterm elections.

      By late Wednesday, Democrats expressed confidence.

      ‘‘The unsubstantiated Republican allegations about Benghazi disintegrated one by one,’’ said Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the House committee’s top Democrat. ‘‘There’s no evidence of a conspiracy to withhold military assets for political reasons, no evidence of a cover-up.’’

      Ethical lapses and even full-blown scandals have a mixed record of influencing U.S. elections. Watergate not only forced Richard Nixon from the White House in August 1974; it also triggered crushing losses for congressional Republicans in midterm elections three months later.

      President Gerald Ford’s pardon of Nixon may have ended any hope he had of defeating Jimmy Carter in 1976.

      Other scandals, however, did far less political damage. The Iran-Contra affair of Ronald Reagan’s second term and Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky did not prevent either man’s vice president from winning the popular vote in the next presidential election.

      More recently, Virginia Democrats were crowing about news that Gov. Bob McDonnell—a potential GOP presidential contender—accepted large, unreported gifts from a businessman. A short time later, a Washington Post poll showed high approval ratings for McDonnell and scant public interest in the budding ‘‘scandal’’ that titillated the state’s political elite.

      Some Democratic campaign veterans say the Benghazi affair is too complex and too muddled to swing national elections next year and in 2016.

      ‘‘The Republicans are pulling out the stops to manufacture a scandal, but it’s not likely to stick on Hillary Clinton or Democrats in general,’’ said veteran Clinton strategist Doug Hattaway.

      Republicans seem determined to push on. House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio on Thursday asked President Barack Obama to direct the State Department to release internal emails, sent the day after the Benghazi attacks, regarding the deadly assault. ‘‘This is his chance to show his cooperation so that we can get to the truth of what happened in Benghazi,’’ Boehner said.

      On Wednesday, Democratic Rep. Mark Pocan of Wisconsin showed little concern about the larger impact on politics. ‘‘I don’t think there’s a smoking gun today,’’ he told the House panel. ‘‘I don’t think there’s a lukewarm slingshot."

      ‘‘It may not be a smoking gun or a warm slingshot,’’ Republican Rep. Doug Collins said in the hearing’s final hour. ‘‘But we have four dead Americans,’’ and his constituents ‘‘are looking for the truth.’’

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • BENGHAZI AGAIN
      By Joe Klein, May 08, 2013, TIME

      The Republicans, apparently with nothing better to do, are still chasing their tails over the tragic events in Benghazi on September 11.

      Actually, no. That’s not true. They’re chasing their tails over what happened after the tragic events of September 11. They’re mostly concerned that the Obama Administration tried to cover up the fact that this was a terrorist attack by a local militia (translation: local street gang) which aspired toward bad-butt Al Qaeda status. This is a pretty hard sell since, the day after the attack, the President called it an “act of terror.”

      It does seem that the Administration’s talking points were massaged a bit after the President’s candor. This may have been attributable to the presidential campaign and the Administration’s desire to low-ball the Al Qaeda threat. If so, this was a venial, not a mortal, sin. It affected not one life. More likely, though, the wording was scrubbed as a result of the nature of the investigation going on at the time–it may have been deemed premature to announce that it was a pre-meditated act of terror. Perhaps the local militia lucked into a situation where they showed up at the consulate and found very little security protection. Hard to say. There were protests all over the middle east that night, ginned up by jihadis using the excuse of a near-unseen anti-Muslim You Tube video.

      But let’s say the street gang had been casing the joint in advance. WHO’S TO BLAME  FOR  THE LAX SECURITY? This is the real substance of the case. Could it have been the Secretary of State? Undoubtedly, no. This sort of question is well below her pay grade. Could it have been the person in charge of embassy security issues? More likely, and that person resigned after the subsequent investigations…and even that might have been unfair for two reasons. Security was up to the Ambassador and Chris Stevens was well known for erring on the side of greater public access to U.S. facilities. Or, more plausibly, reason number two…

      COULD IT HAVE BEEN THE REPUBLICANS WHO CONSISTENTLY VOTED AGAINST FUNDS FOR INCREASED EMBASSY SECURITY? Hmmm…that makes their current carping seem awfully political, doesn’t it? Again, sins of politics are not mortal. But ONE DOES WONDER WHY THE REPUBLICANS TEND TO FIX ON ISSUES LIKE THIS, WHICH ARE DEFINED BY THEIR ABSENCE OF SUBSTANCE. (I haven’t noticed the Republicans clamoring to spend more on embassy security–which would be a matter of substance, happily embraced by the Administration.But that would require a budget deal, which would give the President a win.)

      In fact, the Republicans are now, according to the Washington Post, back in their standard dilatory mode when it comes to producing a budget agreement because–wait for it–things are going pretty well in the deficit department. With recovery, there are higher tax revenues (up 16%) and lower government payouts for services to the unemployed, and the deficits are melting away. So the Republicans believe that they’ve lost their leverage to reduce government spending.

      Reducing government spending–rather than speeding a recovery–was always the Republican intent. The evidence was just too overwhelming that reducing spending in a recession #$%$, rather than speeded, a recovery. What the current, intellectually limited GOP really care about is: government spending=wasting money on the poor. Everything else is flummery and encrustation.

      THE SAD THING HERE IS THAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE RIGHT, IN PART, ABOUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING. IT IS WASTEFUL. THERE ARE FAR MORE EFFICIENT WAYS TO DO MEDICARE THAT WOULD PRODUCE A BETTER HEALTH CARE SYSTEM FOR THE ELDERLY. SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY IS SLOUCHING TOWARD SCAMDOM. THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION IS A 19TH CENTURY BUREAUCRATIC DISASTER. UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS AND FOOD STAMPS SHOULD REQUIRE SOME SORT OF RETURN SERVICE FROM RECIPIENTS. THE LIST GOES ON…BUT RATHER THAN ADDRESS THE SUBSTANCE OF THOSE PROBLEMS–PROBLEMS THAT DEMOCRATS DON’T SEEM VERY INTERESTED IN SOLVING–THEY OBSESS ON THE STUPID: FIXING ON MORE-OR-LESS BUDGET DEBATES, FEDERAL DICTATORSHIP FANTASIES AND MEANINGLESS POLITICAL PLOYS LIKE BENGHAZI.

      I SUSPECT THEY WON’T BE A VIABLE POLITICAL PARTY UNTIL THEY BEGIN TO FOCUS ON SUBSTANCE RATHER THAN EMPTINESS.

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

      • 3 Replies to elk_1l
      • Elk, you can continue to post this garbage but you really should be seeking he truth. It is difficult to understand why you support a C-I-C who lies and misleads the American people. Being partisan is one thing but to stand closed mouth while your country is misled by incompetent people is another. Remember Watergate? iI was Republicans as much as Democrats who were responsible for the removal of Nixon. What is wrong with you and the rest of the liberals? It appears you have no sense of justice because you tolerate and even applaud this administrations actions.

      • Oh, the RepubliCONS have something better to do, like just the other day the HOUSE CONS voted to do away with OVERTIME pay. In their eyes, the working class should work over 40 hours and simply get paid straight time. Yes, they actually voted for this just a couple of days ago. It won't go anywhere, somewhat symbolic of the Republican party in general. Oh, and it's probably time for them to vote for the 35th, or is it the 36th time to repeal Obamacare again. It costs about 24 million to run the House of Reps each week and it takes about 2 weeks to draw up a vote on Obamacare. Gee what will the frugal TEA BAGS fakes say about this huge waste of taxpayer dollars? Nothing, because they are corporate HORSSS who have duped the working class, that's why they are fading into political obscurity.

      • Elky my boy, Why are you progs deathly afraid of the word BNGHAZI?

        Do you know that More curious emails have come out because of this new W/blower testimony. One of these emails from a DS senior staffer was shot off on September 12, 2012, only one day after the murder of 4 Americans. The email grossly contradicted the 5 sunday talk show narrative of "spontaneous mob attack as a result of an offensive video" So who's chasing what tail or tale....tale of lies?

        Will your dummy cuuks give you the TRUTH?, whatabout the puff po?

    • Hearings set to start today,, hopefully we's fixin to find out who lies,, the buck stops at the top,,Did Obama let those folks get murdered and went to a fund raiser instead of doing what he was elected to do,, protect our countries citizens,, if we find out that all this is true then impeachment hearings need to start and he leaves in total shame,,
      C

      Sentiment: Hold

      • 2 Replies to craigsswanndo
      • It's going to be hard get to the bottom of things since your man with several prior arrests, ISSA, didn't want the MILITARY to testify. They are the ones that can answer the details and ISSA and your party knows that better than anyone and yet you are deliberately leaving them out in some lame attempt to FIND something, If only you sad party were so motivated to find out why your man BUSH ignored the warnings that lead to the 911 attacks and the lies he said to start a war that our children and grandchildren are dying for and paying for. Oh, and since you CONS are investigating, find out why the rubber stamp RepubliCONgress and BUSH destroyed our economy and then handed it off to the next guy who you now blame for it. What losers. Can't you all just go away and leave the repair work to those who can and are doing it? You all failed at everything except failure itself.

      • The finger of guilt points to the devious Democrats who are only interested in winning elections. The testimony today verifies that. Nobody will admit it but the order to "stand down" on military support for Benghazi had to be the Commander-in-Chief. Who else could have authorized it? If the American people wake up they would insist on impeachment and removal of Democrats from Congress in 2014 It is either that or they like to be lied to. (Elk, there's a wakeup call here for you too.)

    • they should be paraded through the streets in handcuffs and shackles .......

    • Wow,, even the leftest media is starting to cover this story,, who gave the order not to help those people,, and was it for political purposes so as to not to get Obama involved and not to loose the election due to his incompetence,, if this turns out to be the case, he could be impeached and if he is involved, then he should be,,
      C

      Sentiment: Hold

    • they will both burn in hell......

    • What is this stand down order for help in Benghazi that is part of one of the whistle blowers story that he will tell under oath in the hearings this week,, who the hell has the authority to tell troops to stand down and why,, There will be pain and knashing of teeth,,
      C

      Sentiment: Hold

    • throw them both in jail to rot forever......

    • View More Messages
 
ACTC
0.00(0.00%)