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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
This thread has got to hold the record for the number of posts to a thread when there's absolutely no evidence to support the contention that's at its very core of the OP.
Naw, Tampon Kotex "knows" something is true.
And he posts threads from batshit crazy sources to back up his view.
Oh by the way, that was reposted from the Associated Press by Fox News, Carbine. Geesh you are a complete idiot.
That Bush and his administration lied to push an invasion of Iraq is not even in dispute.
mudwhistle, I do try to keep civil on the board (I believe anyone here would pull me out of a well IRL regardless of who I voted for), but I've gotta say it pains me to see someone who's lost all perspective on this issue using the avatar of Science Officer Spock.
I have very good perspective on this.
One of them is similar to the way a witness in a court of law is treated. Once their credibility is gone because they've perjured themselves, everything thing they say from then on should be questioned. You feel that way about Bush so strongly, yet you don't seem to feel that way about Obama. After all, he did say "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor", did he not????? He also said this week that health care premiums have gone up slower the last 2 years because of Obamacare. Not only is this not true, but he said that premiums wouldn't go up at all. As a matter of fact he said this program would save us $2500.
If Obama is willing to lie about the little things I'm afraid that he'll lie about everything if the truth sheds him in an unfavorable light. List of Obama's Lies | Barack Obama Lies
It's very unfortunate that Obama lied about 100% of Americans being able to keep their doctor, when the actual number came closer to 98%. And it was very disappointing Obama lied during a debate with Romney, while defending Romney's own healthcare plan against an unbelievable string of falsehoods from Romney himself. There's no saying those things didn't happen. Of course, stories of Obama's lying streak have been greatly exaggerated. Honestly, sometimes I don't think anyone expected more out of Obama than his conservative detractors.
Now stop deflecting. It should be obvious from my posts, but once again for the cheap seats: I'm not talking about Bush and I'm not talking about Obama, I'm talking about you. And all the other Benghazi Truthers: why are you so "outraged" about this specific story, and not Bush's campaign of deception? Not the CIA lying that its "enhanced interrogation" methods were yielding results? There have been so many opportunities to be outraged about incredibly harmful government deception. Where was the outrage then, if you're not just making political hay now?
LOL. Carbine. 58% of Senate Democrats voted in favor of the Iraq Resolution in 2002. Please check your history.
This thread has got to hold the record for the number of posts to a thread when there's absolutely no evidence to support the contention that's at its very core of the OP.
Naw, Tampon Kotex "knows" something is true.
And he posts threads from batshit crazy sources to back up his view.
And most that haven't paid are the young that are counted upon to bear the brunt.I have very good perspective on this.
One of them is similar to the way a witness in a court of law is treated. Once their credibility is gone because they've perjured themselves, everything thing they say from then on should be questioned. You feel that way about Bush so strongly, yet you don't seem to feel that way about Obama. After all, he did say "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor", did he not????? He also said this week that health care premiums have gone up slower the last 2 years because of Obamacare. Not only is this not true, but he said that premiums wouldn't go up at all. As a matter of fact he said this program would save us $2500.
If Obama is willing to lie about the little things I'm afraid that he'll lie about everything if the truth sheds him in an unfavorable light. List of Obama's Lies | Barack Obama Lies
It's very unfortunate that Obama lied about 100% of Americans being able to keep their doctor, when the actual number came closer to 98%. And it was very disappointing Obama lied during a debate with Romney, while defending Romney's own healthcare plan against an unbelievable string of falsehoods from Romney himself. There's no saying those things didn't happen. Of course, stories of Obama's lying streak have been greatly exaggerated. Honestly, sometimes I don't think anyone expected more out of Obama than his conservative detractors.
Now stop deflecting. It should be obvious from my posts, but once again for the cheap seats: I'm not talking about Bush and I'm not talking about Obama, I'm talking about you. And all the other Benghazi Truthers: why are you so "outraged" about this specific story, and not Bush's campaign of deception? Not the CIA lying that its "enhanced interrogation" methods were yielding results? There have been so many opportunities to be outraged about incredibly harmful government deception. Where was the outrage then, if you're not just making political hay now?
He said "If you like your doctor or your health care, you can keep them, period."
That means we have a choice. It doesn't matter if one person gets screwed by the ACA. The fact that they did means Obama lied.
The problem is, according to the federal registry dated 2011, over 50% of us will lose our health care and most of us will lose our doctors once this is allowed to kick in after 2016. So far 6 million people have lost their insurance. They claimed they needed 7 million. How many people with no insurance did they actually sign up?
No more than 900,000.
There's still over 35 million people that still don't have health insurance, and that was the whole reason for this law in the first place. According to the insurance companies 80% of the ones they did sign up have paid. I figure all of those they got in the last week to reach 7 million haven't paid and most never will.
Oh by the way, that was reposted from the Associated Press by Fox News, Carbine. Geesh you are a complete idiot.
The AP is a Foxnews source. Do you wish to deny the content? Or make another deflection?
Administration walks tightrope, in carefully worded accounts of Libya violence | Fox NewsAt first blush, it appears Libyan and Obama administration officials are offering two completely different accounts. The Libyans, including the Libyan president, say the attack was pre-planned. The Obama administration says it was spontaneous. Both sides are sticking to their version of events.
But Obama administration officials may be easing off just a little, in acknowledging that the protest in Libya before the attack was a relatively tiny one and that perhaps agenda-driven extremists took their cue from protests in Cairo and seized the opportunity to strike.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said as much when she told ABC News' "This Week" that "as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons."
This, by itself, is not so far off from what the Libyans are saying. The administration just won't go so far as to call this a coordinated terrorist attack. To the contrary, they still describe the whole situation as spontaneous.
To that, the Libyans say "preposterous."
Fox News was told that the assault on the consulate came without warning, and, to strengthen the view that it was pre-meditated, the assault included RPGs and mortars -- including at least one round that hit the consulate roof.
There were two waves to the assault, Fox News was told. According to the intelligence source, in the first wave, the attackers were heard to say "we got him" -- a reference to Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was killed in the attack. Word spread, the attackers regrouped and the second wave went after the motorcade and support personnel.
This thread has got to hold the record for the number of posts to a thread when there's absolutely no evidence to support the contention that's at its very core of the OP.
Bush is relevant because he never suffered any consequences for his fuckup in Iraq, nor did any of his administration, and Iraq was 1000 times the fuckup Benghazi was,
even if one were to concede all the wacky arguments you people have made.
So unless you believe the Bush administration got off too easy, consistency in the administration of justice is an important and relevant issue.
Worst case scenario for the Obama administration - it should be punished at 1/1000th the level the Bush administration was punished -
and that is only if every single accusation against Obama's administration is proven true.
Fair enough? You of all people certainly wouldn't want one administration held to a different standard than another now would you?
Does it matter that a majority of the Democratic Senate voted to go to war?
Does it matter that a majority of Democrats in the House voted against the resolution?
no one , NOT a single person, voted to GO TO WAR, there was no appropriate, and constitutional, Declaration of war by both houses of Congress with 2/3's voting yea....
Bush is relevant because he never suffered any consequences for his fuckup in Iraq, nor did any of his administration, and Iraq was 1000 times the fuckup Benghazi was,
even if one were to concede all the wacky arguments you people have made.
So unless you believe the Bush administration got off too easy, consistency in the administration of justice is an important and relevant issue.
Worst case scenario for the Obama administration - it should be punished at 1/1000th the level the Bush administration was punished -
and that is only if every single accusation against Obama's administration is proven true.
Fair enough? You of all people certainly wouldn't want one administration held to a different standard than another now would you?
Does it matter that a majority of the Democratic Senate voted to go to war?
No because the Senate is not part of the executive branch. Most Democrats voted against the authorization.
Does it matter that a majority of the Democratic Senate voted to go to war?
No because the Senate is not part of the executive branch. Most Democrats voted against the authorization.
The VOTE was 29 FOR 21 AGAINST for you Dimwits.... what don't you understand here?
No because the Senate is not part of the executive branch. Most Democrats voted against the authorization.
The VOTE was 29 FOR 21 AGAINST for you Dimwits.... what don't you understand here?
Have you EVER heard of the House of Representatives?
Oh by the way, that was reposted from the Associated Press by Fox News, Carbine. Geesh you are a complete idiot.
The AP is a Foxnews source. Do you wish to deny the content? Or make another deflection?
The AP is CNN's, CBS's and ABC's source too. But hey, you only cite them because Fox News did. Cute. Perhaps you can explain this:
'Completely false': Sources on ground in Benghazi challenge NYT report | Fox News
EXCLUSIVE: Jailed filmmaker vows to finish film wrongly blamed for Benghazi attack | Fox News
The coup de gras, 6 days after that report was published:
Administration walks tightrope, in carefully worded accounts of Libya violence | Fox NewsAt first blush, it appears Libyan and Obama administration officials are offering two completely different accounts. The Libyans, including the Libyan president, say the attack was pre-planned. The Obama administration says it was spontaneous. Both sides are sticking to their version of events.
But Obama administration officials may be easing off just a little, in acknowledging that the protest in Libya before the attack was a relatively tiny one and that perhaps agenda-driven extremists took their cue from protests in Cairo and seized the opportunity to strike.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said as much when she told ABC News' "This Week" that "as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons."
This, by itself, is not so far off from what the Libyans are saying. The administration just won't go so far as to call this a coordinated terrorist attack. To the contrary, they still describe the whole situation as spontaneous.
To that, the Libyans say "preposterous."
Fox News was told that the assault on the consulate came without warning, and, to strengthen the view that it was pre-meditated, the assault included RPGs and mortars -- including at least one round that hit the consulate roof.
There were two waves to the assault, Fox News was told. According to the intelligence source, in the first wave, the attackers were heard to say "we got him" -- a reference to Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was killed in the attack. Word spread, the attackers regrouped and the second wave went after the motorcade and support personnel.
So, what more of your contentions must I crush beneath my heel?
The AP is a Foxnews source. Do you wish to deny the content? Or make another deflection?
The AP is CNN's, CBS's and ABC's source too. But hey, you only cite them because Fox News did. Cute. Perhaps you can explain this:
'Completely false': Sources on ground in Benghazi challenge NYT report | Fox News
EXCLUSIVE: Jailed filmmaker vows to finish film wrongly blamed for Benghazi attack | Fox News
The coup de gras, 6 days after that report was published:
Administration walks tightrope, in carefully worded accounts of Libya violence | Fox NewsAt first blush, it appears Libyan and Obama administration officials are offering two completely different accounts. The Libyans, including the Libyan president, say the attack was pre-planned. The Obama administration says it was spontaneous. Both sides are sticking to their version of events.
But Obama administration officials may be easing off just a little, in acknowledging that the protest in Libya before the attack was a relatively tiny one and that perhaps agenda-driven extremists took their cue from protests in Cairo and seized the opportunity to strike.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said as much when she told ABC News' "This Week" that "as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons."
This, by itself, is not so far off from what the Libyans are saying. The administration just won't go so far as to call this a coordinated terrorist attack. To the contrary, they still describe the whole situation as spontaneous.
To that, the Libyans say "preposterous."
Fox News was told that the assault on the consulate came without warning, and, to strengthen the view that it was pre-meditated, the assault included RPGs and mortars -- including at least one round that hit the consulate roof.
There were two waves to the assault, Fox News was told. According to the intelligence source, in the first wave, the attackers were heard to say "we got him" -- a reference to Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was killed in the attack. Word spread, the attackers regrouped and the second wave went after the motorcade and support personnel.
So, what more of your contentions must I crush beneath my heel?
So Foxnews flipflopped and embraced the rightwing propaganda machine's position?
Big surprise.
Innocence of Muslims purported to be an online trailer for a film about the mistreatment of Christians in contemporary Egypt. But it included bawdy historical flashbacks that derided the Prophet Muhammad. Someone dubbed it into Arabic around the beginning of September 2012, and a Cairo newspaper embellished the news by reporting that a Florida pastor infamous for burning the Quran was planning to debut the film on the 11th anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks.
Then, on Sept. 8, a popular Islamist preacher lit the fuse by screening a clip of the video on the ultraconservative Egyptian satellite channel El Nas. American diplomats in Cairo raised the alarm in Washington about a growing backlash, including calls for a protest outside their embassy.
No one mentioned it to the American diplomats in Libya. But Islamists in Benghazi were watching. Egyptian satellite networks like El Nas and El Rahma were widely available in Benghazi. It is Friday morning viewing, popular on the day of prayer, said one young Benghazi Islamist who turned up at the compound during the attack, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.
By Sept. 9, a popular eastern Libyan Facebook page had denounced the film. On the morning of Sept. 11, even some secular political activists were posting calls online for a protest that Friday, three days away.
The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia
The VOTE was 29 FOR 21 AGAINST for you Dimwits.... what don't you understand here?
Have you EVER heard of the House of Representatives?
Have you EVER heard of the Senate?
The AP is a Foxnews source. Do you wish to deny the content? Or make another deflection?
The AP is CNN's, CBS's and ABC's source too. But hey, you only cite them because Fox News did. Cute. Perhaps you can explain this:
'Completely false': Sources on ground in Benghazi challenge NYT report | Fox News
EXCLUSIVE: Jailed filmmaker vows to finish film wrongly blamed for Benghazi attack | Fox News
The coup de gras, 6 days after that report was published:
Administration walks tightrope, in carefully worded accounts of Libya violence | Fox NewsAt first blush, it appears Libyan and Obama administration officials are offering two completely different accounts. The Libyans, including the Libyan president, say the attack was pre-planned. The Obama administration says it was spontaneous. Both sides are sticking to their version of events.
But Obama administration officials may be easing off just a little, in acknowledging that the protest in Libya before the attack was a relatively tiny one and that perhaps agenda-driven extremists took their cue from protests in Cairo and seized the opportunity to strike.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said as much when she told ABC News' "This Week" that "as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons."
This, by itself, is not so far off from what the Libyans are saying. The administration just won't go so far as to call this a coordinated terrorist attack. To the contrary, they still describe the whole situation as spontaneous.
To that, the Libyans say "preposterous."
Fox News was told that the assault on the consulate came without warning, and, to strengthen the view that it was pre-meditated, the assault included RPGs and mortars -- including at least one round that hit the consulate roof.
There were two waves to the assault, Fox News was told. According to the intelligence source, in the first wave, the attackers were heard to say "we got him" -- a reference to Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was killed in the attack. Word spread, the attackers regrouped and the second wave went after the motorcade and support personnel.
So, what more of your contentions must I crush beneath my heel?
So Foxnews flipflopped and embraced the rightwing propaganda machine's position?
The AP is CNN's, CBS's and ABC's source too. But hey, you only cite them because Fox News did. Cute. Perhaps you can explain this:
'Completely false': Sources on ground in Benghazi challenge NYT report | Fox News
EXCLUSIVE: Jailed filmmaker vows to finish film wrongly blamed for Benghazi attack | Fox News
The coup de gras, 6 days after that report was published:
Administration walks tightrope, in carefully worded accounts of Libya violence | Fox News
So, what more of your contentions must I crush beneath my heel?
So Foxnews flipflopped and embraced the rightwing propaganda machine's position?
First, explain how it is 'propaganda' second, had Fox News continued to blame the video, you wouldn't be whining about it now, would you? Funny how they don't fall in line with you. Funny how you dismiss two years worth of testimony as 'propaganda.'
Ironic you cite the New York Times, too.
No because the Senate is not part of the executive branch. Most Democrats voted against the authorization.
The VOTE was 29 FOR 21 AGAINST for you Dimwits.... what don't you understand here?
Have you EVER heard of the House of Representatives?
