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.
Sure, that's because even the Washington Post agrees with me in that regard, you dolt. It just goes to show to the extent of how much you're wrong.
The 'Washington Post' took an official position that act of terror cannot mean terrorist attack?
Why dont you cut that quote out, precisely, and post it? Not some link I have to wade through.
I want the words.
And then you can explain why that would matter anyway. Explain how the WP got to be official arbiter on such matters.
What I find disappointing on a continual basis is that you and others that I have known as good and solid debaters are arguing and debating a point that is not up for grabs.
Now you are sitting there all warm and fuzzy trying to deflect from the issue but it is more than duly noted.
Pity.
Like him or hate him. Bush took responsibility for everything under his watch. WE still have yet to see this from the Progressive Crowned Boy King named Obama, or ANYONE under him take responsibility for anything.Oh the House Republicans are drooling again over the prospects that they have something that will stop Hillary.
IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!
It's another RW circle jerk which will be fodder on RW radio for weeks to come.
What's I find particularly pathetic is this RW concern for four men who were killed while working in a foreign country during a Democratic administration and the anger directed at that Democratic administration compared to the pass conservatives gave to Bush when 3,000 Americans died on American soil while Bush sat on his ass in a classroom in Florida as the attack unfolded on American television.
Why they think Americans take their faux outrage seriously is beyond understanding.
Its called an surprise attack, same thing that happened to FDR on Dec 7, 1941, Also Bush did not lie or try to cover it up.
Like him or hate him. Bush took responsibility for everything under his watch. WE still have yet to see this from the Progressive Crowned Boy King named Obama, or ANYONE under him take responsibility for anything.It's another RW circle jerk which will be fodder on RW radio for weeks to come.
What's I find particularly pathetic is this RW concern for four men who were killed while working in a foreign country during a Democratic administration and the anger directed at that Democratic administration compared to the pass conservatives gave to Bush when 3,000 Americans died on American soil while Bush sat on his ass in a classroom in Florida as the attack unfolded on American television.
Why they think Americans take their faux outrage seriously is beyond understanding.
Its called an surprise attack, same thing that happened to FDR on Dec 7, 1941, Also Bush did not lie or try to cover it up.
Oh the House Republicans are drooling again over the prospects that they have something that will stop Hillary.
IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!
It's another RW circle jerk which will be fodder on RW radio for weeks to come.
What's I find particularly pathetic is this RW concern for four men who were killed while working in a foreign country during a Democratic administration and the anger directed at that Democratic administration compared to the pass conservatives gave to Bush when 3,000 Americans died on American soil while Bush sat on his ass in a classroom in Florida as the attack unfolded on American television.
Why they think Americans take their faux outrage seriously is beyond understanding.
What a whacked out statement.
Sure, that's because even the Washington Post agrees with me in that regard, you dolt. It just goes to show to the extent of how much you're wrong.
The 'Washington Post' took an official position that act of terror cannot mean terrorist attack?
Why dont you cut that quote out, precisely, and post it? Not some link I have to wade through.
I want the words.
And then you can explain why that would matter anyway. Explain how the WP got to be official arbiter on such matters.
What I find disappointing on a continual basis is that you and others that I have known as good and solid debaters are arguing and debating a point that is not up for grabs.
Now you are sitting there all warm and fuzzy trying to deflect from the issue but it is more than duly noted.
Pity.
But...What difference does it make?Oh the House Republicans are drooling again over the prospects that they have something that will stop Hillary.
IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!
It's another RW circle jerk which will be fodder on RW radio for weeks to come.
What's I find particularly pathetic is this RW concern for four men who were killed while working in a foreign country during a Democratic administration and the anger directed at that Democratic administration compared to the pass conservatives gave to Bush when 3,000 Americans died on American soil while Bush sat on his ass in a classroom in Florida as the attack unfolded on American television.
Why they think Americans take their faux outrage seriously is beyond understanding.
Where should his ass have been?
Panetta and Ham on record, in testimony briefed Obama once. Then as far as we know, Obama whacked off to a video with Beyonce and went to sleep. He didn't care according to testimony to stay awake and become involved.
TESTIMONY
Clinton was not even engaged.
This is testimony.
Since you insist on continuing to use the word, 'doctored,' it's on you to prove that the wording of some official document or report was altered to change the meaning or the conclusions of an official document or report, and that this was all done without attribution. If you can't show that, then you have failed to make your case that anything was 'doctored.'
I suggest you deal with THAT!
Only a liberal would resort to debating grammar when all of his other arguments have failed.
lol, you resorted to trying to argue that 'act of terror' was not synonymous with 'terrorist attack' grammar boy.
You have not proven that the video wasn't involved.
Only a liberal would resort to debating grammar when all of his other arguments have failed.
lol, you resorted to trying to argue that 'act of terror' was not synonymous with 'terrorist attack' grammar boy.
It's so fun watching you pummel the shit out of him.
The 'Washington Post' took an official position that act of terror cannot mean terrorist attack?
Why dont you cut that quote out, precisely, and post it? Not some link I have to wade through.
I want the words.
And then you can explain why that would matter anyway. Explain how the WP got to be official arbiter on such matters.
What I find disappointing on a continual basis is that you and others that I have known as good and solid debaters are arguing and debating a point that is not up for grabs.
Now you are sitting there all warm and fuzzy trying to deflect from the issue but it is more than duly noted.
Pity.
I know. I 've proven beyond any doubt that the president called Benghazi an act of terror. I've proven that Susan Rice did not deny it was an act of terror. I've proven that no one really knows for certain whether the video motivated the attack.
and yet they post on....
Only a liberal would resort to debating grammar when all of his other arguments have failed.
lol, you resorted to trying to argue that 'act of terror' was not synonymous with 'terrorist attack' grammar boy.
It's so fun watching you pummel the shit out of him.
lol, you resorted to trying to argue that 'act of terror' was not synonymous with 'terrorist attack' grammar boy.
It's so fun watching you pummel the shit out of him.
Oh bite me. What score card are you playing?
Fuck you. I work for a living, unlike you.lol, you resorted to trying to argue that 'act of terror' was not synonymous with 'terrorist attack' grammar boy.
It's so fun watching you pummel the shit out of him.
Wishful thinking. I'm surprised you're back after the beating I gave you. You flamed out and negged me. That was a nice ragequit by the way.
"Chowder head"?
Wahaha!
Fuck you. I work for a living, unlike you.
It's so fun watching you pummel the shit out of him.
Wishful thinking. I'm surprised you're back after the beating I gave you. You flamed out and negged me. That was a nice ragequit by the way.
"Chowder head"?
Wahaha!
& You didn't do shit, and embarrassed yourself all along the way, as you normally do.
And it was YOU who negged me first -- and I returned fire.
So not only are you a piss poor debater with his head up his ass regarding logic - you're a liar too.
Q: What's your response to the Independent story that says we have intelligence 48 hours in advance of the Benghazi attack that was ignored? Was this an intelligence failure?
We are not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent. The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently its annex.
Oh the House Republicans are drooling again over the prospects that they have something that will stop Hillary.
IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!
It's another RW circle jerk which will be fodder on RW radio for weeks to come.
What's I find particularly pathetic is this RW concern for four men who were killed while working in a foreign country during a Democratic administration and the anger directed at that Democratic administration compared to the pass conservatives gave to Bush when 3,000 Americans died on American soil while Bush sat on his ass in a classroom in Florida as the attack unfolded on American television.
Why they think Americans take their faux outrage seriously is beyond understanding.
Its called an surprise attack, same thing that happened to FDR on Dec 7, 1941, Also Bush did not lie or try to cover it up.
It's so fun watching you pummel the shit out of him.
Oh bite me. What score card are you playing?
There's an open competition among them, like Legolas and Gimli:
Who can deflect to Bush the most?
