Conservative65
Gold Member
- Oct 14, 2014
- 26,127
- 2,208
- 265
- Banned
- #81
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Your post implied he was not at the helm. If that was not your intention then you made a retarded pointless post anyway.Who was at the helm, if not the President?They will often INSIST that President George W. Bush was "at the helm" on 9/11/2001 and so he bears responsibility for those tragic attacks.
Nobody said he wasn't at the helm; nor is that even a coherent interpretation of what I posted, you ignorant drip.
Which is why he supports Rush. Full circle!Your post implied he was not at the helm. If that was not your intention then you made a retarded pointless post anyway.Who was at the helm, if not the President?They will often INSIST that President George W. Bush was "at the helm" on 9/11/2001 and so he bears responsibility for those tragic attacks.
Nobody said he wasn't at the helm; nor is that even a coherent interpretation of what I posted, you ignorant drip.
As far as I can tell, all his posts are retarded and pointless.Your post implied he was not at the helm. If that was not your intention then you made a retarded pointless post anyway.Who was at the helm, if not the President?They will often INSIST that President George W. Bush was "at the helm" on 9/11/2001 and so he bears responsibility for those tragic attacks.
Nobody said he wasn't at the helm; nor is that even a coherent interpretation of what I posted, you ignorant drip.
Yeah thats what happens when people make implications. I suspect you dont know what inferred means?Your post implied he was not at the helm. If that was not your intention then you made a retarded pointless post anyway.Who was at the helm, if not the President?They will often INSIST that President George W. Bush was "at the helm" on 9/11/2001 and so he bears responsibility for those tragic attacks.
Nobody said he wasn't at the helm; nor is that even a coherent interpretation of what I posted, you ignorant drip.
That's what you inferred.
Yeah thats what happens when people make implications. I suspect you dont know what inferred means?Your post implied he was not at the helm. If that was not your intention then you made a retarded pointless post anyway.Who was at the helm, if not the President?They will often INSIST that President George W. Bush was "at the helm" on 9/11/2001 and so he bears responsibility for those tragic attacks.
Nobody said he wasn't at the helm; nor is that even a coherent interpretation of what I posted, you ignorant drip.
That's what you inferred.
No. Isn't that what I said?You don't know who Matt Lewis, of the Daily Caller, is?Never heard of any of these people.What a bunch of palookas!
Conservative pundits were not impressed with the GOP's disastrous Benghazi hearing
Unless something happens, it's starting to look like Hillary Clinton won't merely survive this hearing -- she will have come out on top.
— Matt Lewis (@mattklewis) October 22, 2015
Hillary = Lucy GOP = Charlie Brown Except the football is a grenade and Charlie Brown wrestles until he grabs it, unpins, and swallows it.
— Michael B Dougherty (@michaelbd) October 22, 2015
Why doesn't Pompeo just go over and swear her in for president now--if he goes on like this he'll practically get her elected
— John Podhoretz (@jpodhoretz) October 22, 2015
Pompeo's second round of questioning was snarky in tone and ineffective in substance. A net negative.
— Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes) October 22, 2015
You don't know who Stephen Hayes, of the Weekly Standard, is?
![]()
What other inference could you get from that statement? I hope you dont fail at this as well boy.Yeah thats what happens when people make implications. I suspect you dont know what inferred means?Your post implied he was not at the helm. If that was not your intention then you made a retarded pointless post anyway.Who was at the helm, if not the President?
Nobody said he wasn't at the helm; nor is that even a coherent interpretation of what I posted, you ignorant drip.
That's what you inferred.
I suspect you think that your inference of what you claimed was implied is correct simply because your black ass said so.
Eric Erickson? Isn't he the one that sends swat teams to people's homes on false alarms?
Then point them out! You keep repeating she lied, but you have no supporting evidence for that claim. How pathetic.
Start to finish boy. What don't you understand that everything she said was a lie other than her name?
Clinton Claims She Didn't Blame Benghazi Attack on a YouTube Video
Then point them out! You keep repeating she lied, but you have no supporting evidence for that claim. How pathetic.
Start to finish boy. What don't you understand that everything she said was a lie other than her name?
What other inference could you get from that statement? I hope you dont fail at this as well boy.Yeah thats what happens when people make implications. I suspect you dont know what inferred means?Your post implied he was not at the helm. If that was not your intention then you made a retarded pointless post anyway.Nobody said he wasn't at the helm; nor is that even a coherent interpretation of what I posted, you ignorant drip.
That's what you inferred.
I suspect you think that your inference of what you claimed was implied is correct simply because your black ass said so.
Oh goodness gracious! It depends on how one interprets this evidence, but, even so, if it is a lie, it is ONE LIE. You keep repeating the plural: lies, lies, lies....Where are, what are all these other lies?Clinton Claims She Didn't Blame Benghazi Attack on a YouTube Video
Try watching the 2nd video (casket turnover) around the 6:17 mark and the last one of the three from the beginning. She says she didn't say a video did where these two have her saying it was a video.