Politics and Religion
Only the ones in response to mine, but that can change quickly. Should I now. . . .
MSNBC...
Between my sports and news, I simply don't have time to turn to MSNBC to see what those idiots are "thinking"..
I've never voted Republican in my life, and I think you deserve a SPOTY. There are as many stupid liberals as there are stupid Republicans.
And I get pissed off at stupid liberals like you at least as much as I do at stupid Republicans. Because I don't want my views represented by fools like you. You make me embarrassed to be a Democrat. Kind of like the late, unlamented Laffy. But at least he didn't write like a 15-year-old.
And I get pissed off at stupid liberals like you at least as much as I do at stupid Republicans. Because I don't want my views represented by fools like you. You make me embarrassed to be a Democrat. Kind of like the late, unlamented Laffy. But at least he didn't write like a 15-year-old.
I understand. Why would you want to suffer more abuse when last time you left sobbing like a.....
He is capable of making a cogent argument to back up his politics, even if I disagree with him most of the time.
You bring dick. No arguments, no thought out rebuttals, just ad hominems on virtually every post.
My guess is there is somewhat of an intelligent person behind AF and it would be cool if you brought something to the party other than "dumbfuck" and "republiscum." Try it AF. You might like it.
You bring dick. No arguments, no thought out rebuttals, just ad hominems on virtually every post.
My guess is there is somewhat of an intelligent person behind AF and it would be cool if you brought something to the party other than "dumbfuck" and "republiscum." Try it AF. You might like it.
That's why he dwells in this cesspool, having been run off the General Board for his abject stupidity. And it looks like he's not doing too well here either.
Different times in the same time zone!!!
I still think that's the stupidest thing you've said so far!!
I still think that's the stupidest thing you've said so far!!
Believe me, i've seen it in spades on the General Board. His idiocy there caused everyone to pile on his lame ass until he fled, screaming in pain with his hair on fire. He hasn't been seen since. He's an ignorant windbag and pussy.
Dang you anonymousfun! You beat me to the punch! 
But, let's face it, Benghazi-gate, Fast and Furious-Gate, IRS-gate, Jonathan Gruber Obama lying ACA-gate, will never stack up to Watergate, Iran-Contra-gate, Iraq-gate, etc. It's not too late, but time is running out on some gate they can attach to Obama to salve the pain of humiliation suffered by the gates of some of their Republican presidents.!
No one ever said there was any wrongdoing on the part of the CIA or military. The wrongdoing is 100% on the part of the Regime and it is undeniable that the incompetence that allowed the attack to happen would have further hindered Obama's already weak chances of re-election. Further, it is a loud and clear demonstration of the lies that the Regime will tell, and the corruption they will employ to keep something covered up.
I say, shout this great news from the roof tops. Make sure all of the low-info voters that make up the Democrat base all hear about this. I guarantee you their reaction will be "What's Benghazi? Isn't that a video?".
I say, shout this great news from the roof tops. Make sure all of the low-info voters that make up the Democrat base all hear about this. I guarantee you their reaction will be "What's Benghazi? Isn't that a video?".
It says they did NOT fortify the consulate well enough. The reason is they blew off numerous requests for additional forces from the people who were later murdered that night.
Maybe Dems here think it's good not to send enough troops that lead to the deaths of Americans, on 9/11, with Al Queda present, in a terrorist hotbed like Libya? Hmmmmm....yeah nothing to see here.
We now know Panetta told Obama the night of the attacks it was by terrorists, not some spur of the moment stick and stone throwing bullshit over some video. What did Obama do when he heard the news? Did he call any of our allies or did he send in backups to help repel the attack? He had no idea how long the attack would last so what did he do? He won't tell us and that is why this this Intel panel couldn't comment on it. Hmmmmmm......
Why did Obama go to the floor of the UN two whole weeks later and still blame it on a "spontaneous uprising" when he knew fact certain at that point it was a planned, premeditated assault with mortars and rpg's? He won't tell us why he lied.
Hmmmmm...indeed.
Those are my questions and should be those of anybody who cares about our country. Obama never let anyone ask these questions or refused to answer them nor did he let anyone else in his command answer them so all of these panels can only go by what info they are given.
We now know the president of the United States has lied to the American people on a number of subjects. Is Benghazi one of them? He won't comment or respond to critical questions.
How convenient.
Maybe Dems here think it's good not to send enough troops that lead to the deaths of Americans, on 9/11, with Al Queda present, in a terrorist hotbed like Libya? Hmmmmm....yeah nothing to see here.
We now know Panetta told Obama the night of the attacks it was by terrorists, not some spur of the moment stick and stone throwing bullshit over some video. What did Obama do when he heard the news? Did he call any of our allies or did he send in backups to help repel the attack? He had no idea how long the attack would last so what did he do? He won't tell us and that is why this this Intel panel couldn't comment on it. Hmmmmmm......
Why did Obama go to the floor of the UN two whole weeks later and still blame it on a "spontaneous uprising" when he knew fact certain at that point it was a planned, premeditated assault with mortars and rpg's? He won't tell us why he lied.
Hmmmmm...indeed.
Those are my questions and should be those of anybody who cares about our country. Obama never let anyone ask these questions or refused to answer them nor did he let anyone else in his command answer them so all of these panels can only go by what info they are given.
We now know the president of the United States has lied to the American people on a number of subjects. Is Benghazi one of them? He won't comment or respond to critical questions.
How convenient.
I used to check in here every once in a while. But idiots like you and fungus make it painful. Very painful.
It says they did NOT fortify the consulate well enough. The reason is they blew off numerous requests for additional forces from the people who were later murdered that night.
Maybe Dems here think it's good not to send enough troops that lead to the deaths of Americans, on 9/11, with Al Queda present, in a terrorist hotbed like Libya? Hmmmmm....yeah nothing to see here.
We now know Panetta told Obama the night of the attacks it was by terrorists, not some spur of the moment stick and stone throwing bullshit over some video. What did Obama do when he heard the news? Did he call any of our allies or did he send in backups to help repel the attack? He had no idea how long the attack would last so what did he do? He won't tell us and that is why this this Intel panel couldn't comment on it. Hmmmmmm......
Why did Obama go to the floor of the UN two whole weeks later and still blame it on a "spontaneous uprising" when he knew fact certain at that point it was a planned, premeditated assault with mortars and rpg's? He won't tell us why he lied.
Hmmmmm...indeed.
Those are my questions and should be those of anybody who cares about our country. Obama never let anyone ask these questions or refused to answer them nor did he let anyone else in his command answer them so all of these panels can only go by what info they are given.
We now know the president of the United States has lied to the American people on a number of subjects. Is Benghazi one of them? He won't comment or respond to critical questions.
How convenient.
Maybe Dems here think it's good not to send enough troops that lead to the deaths of Americans, on 9/11, with Al Queda present, in a terrorist hotbed like Libya? Hmmmmm....yeah nothing to see here.
We now know Panetta told Obama the night of the attacks it was by terrorists, not some spur of the moment stick and stone throwing bullshit over some video. What did Obama do when he heard the news? Did he call any of our allies or did he send in backups to help repel the attack? He had no idea how long the attack would last so what did he do? He won't tell us and that is why this this Intel panel couldn't comment on it. Hmmmmmm......
Why did Obama go to the floor of the UN two whole weeks later and still blame it on a "spontaneous uprising" when he knew fact certain at that point it was a planned, premeditated assault with mortars and rpg's? He won't tell us why he lied.
Hmmmmm...indeed.
Those are my questions and should be those of anybody who cares about our country. Obama never let anyone ask these questions or refused to answer them nor did he let anyone else in his command answer them so all of these panels can only go by what info they are given.
We now know the president of the United States has lied to the American people on a number of subjects. Is Benghazi one of them? He won't comment or respond to critical questions.
How convenient.
How does this justify going in front of the cameras and blatantly lying to the American people that it was the video that caused the attack? Hussein lied 6 times himself and Susan Rice went on 5 TV programs to lie about the attacks..What about that angle? You guys are wetting your pants as if something came out that exonerated Hussein of not lying to the American people.
That was something that has bothered me from day 1 as much as what CIA's involvement was.
That was something that has bothered me from day 1 as much as what CIA's involvement was.
His next post on this thread will make it an even 20. What a total tool, who just can't STFU.
TSTTT!
TSTTT!
You either misread my post or didn't read the link/watch the interview. I had no trouble finding his link. My question stands as is.
My title was an example of the correct and fair use of quotation marks, although I am disappointed you are sinking into this behavior not yet seen between you and me.
I was simply pointing out the poster's obvious misuse of the quotation marks.
Well to most people that studied the link it was probably obvious. . . see there, I can show that type of behavior too. I don't think it gained me anything though.
I was simply pointing out the poster's obvious misuse of the quotation marks.
Well to most people that studied the link it was probably obvious. . . see there, I can show that type of behavior too. I don't think it gained me anything though.
Everyone else has. That you are Too Stupid To Talk To.
Id recommend an office visit with Dr Kevorkian for you Flounder
He can fix you!!
There is a big problem if people attempt to engage in debate based on misquotes creating facts not in evidence. I assumed that pointing out that the quote he posted was wrong would motivate him to reread/rewatch his own link and then make a correction. The crickets are still chirping on that one. You then picked up his mantle and proceeded to dig the hole even deeper.
My point was not an attempt at any diversion. There was a fundamental distortion created by the misquote regarding Graham's interview. Beyond the simple fact that he did not say what was attributed to him, he actually didn't say anything close to the quote. The quote states that Graham is upset because no one in the Obama administration was found guilty. That may or may not be true but nothing in the interview would to lead one to that exact conclusion. The quote implies (quite explicitly) that Graham wanted someone, or anyone in the Obama administration to be found responsible ("guilty" in desi73's terms) for something.
What Graham DID state was that the House report was "crap" because it did not address what he considered to be an outright lie by an involved party. Graham went on to name the person, CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell. He continued to make his case with some specificity concerning the lie. Additionally, Morell is hardly a member of the Obama Administration. He is a life long CIA employee (since 1980, I'm estimating right out of college). He was the guy that produced the daily CIA briefing for President George W. Bush. Ultimately he did work for President Obama but he was not a member of his administration in the classic sense and certainly not a Whitehouse official.
Having said all that, you and desi73 might be entirely correct in your assertions regarding Graham's desires, but there is nothing in Graham's statements to support your opinions.
My point was not an attempt at any diversion. There was a fundamental distortion created by the misquote regarding Graham's interview. Beyond the simple fact that he did not say what was attributed to him, he actually didn't say anything close to the quote. The quote states that Graham is upset because no one in the Obama administration was found guilty. That may or may not be true but nothing in the interview would to lead one to that exact conclusion. The quote implies (quite explicitly) that Graham wanted someone, or anyone in the Obama administration to be found responsible ("guilty" in desi73's terms) for something.
What Graham DID state was that the House report was "crap" because it did not address what he considered to be an outright lie by an involved party. Graham went on to name the person, CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell. He continued to make his case with some specificity concerning the lie. Additionally, Morell is hardly a member of the Obama Administration. He is a life long CIA employee (since 1980, I'm estimating right out of college). He was the guy that produced the daily CIA briefing for President George W. Bush. Ultimately he did work for President Obama but he was not a member of his administration in the classic sense and certainly not a Whitehouse official.
Having said all that, you and desi73 might be entirely correct in your assertions regarding Graham's desires, but there is nothing in Graham's statements to support your opinions.