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.
[
My theory is that since Democrats lie they assume everyone else does too. So they don't care particularly. Republicans generally tell the truth so they assume everyone else does too. That's fatal when dealing with Democrats. Because those people lie.
How about drafting moochers and putting them on the front line? Kind of a win-win situation, but we'd probably be waging wars with high casualties intentionally.holarship."
Hey, here's a neat idea. Let's have a drafta nd put all the children of the rich in a special forces unit that will be the first deployed to a war zone.
Betcha we never fight another war again after that.
Bill Clinton and AL Gore said there were WMDs. Democrats lie.[
My theory is that since Democrats lie they assume everyone else does too. So they don't care particularly. Republicans generally tell the truth so they assume everyone else does too. That's fatal when dealing with Democrats. Because those people lie.
Really? Republicans tell the truth?
Ummmm, where are those WMD's in Iraq again?
Here's the thing, I believed Republican lies for years.
And then in 2008, I woke up with a busted 401K, and underwater mortgage and getting let go from my job because I had made claims against medical insurance I paid for.
So someone lied to me, but it wasn't Democrats.
Neither party is having the discussion about the middle east I want to have.
So obsessing about 4 dead guys in Libya and ignoring the 5000 dead in iraq is just kind of silly.
Niether party is saying, "Hey, we should have nothing to do with the Middle East, but the Zionists and Oil Companies OWN both political parties, so you'd better be used to the idea of your kid coming back in a body bag if he tries for that scholarship."
Hey, here's a neat idea. Let's have a drafta nd put all the children of the rich in a special forces unit that will be the first deployed to a war zone.
Betcha we never fight another war again after that.
My only question is why you are not outraged that the president of the United States lied about a terrorist attack. Why is that, Joe? I know you're a stupid bigot. But even you must have some kind of standard.
1) He called it a terrorist attack.
2) They were really upset about that video
3) Romney didn't lose because of Benghazi. He lost because he didn't slather enough religous crazy over the plutocracy.
CARBINE!
There's your answer.
That's simply false. He was talking ABOUT Benghazi just before he referenced acts of terror.
It's called context. Look it up.
It's called spin, and you're quite good at it. Crowley admitted she was wrong, and Obama never referred to Benghazi as an "act of terror." She was promptly forced to apologize for interjecting herself into a presidential debate.
No, Carbine, what you said is 'simply false.'
My only question is why you are not outraged that the president of the United States lied about a terrorist attack. Why is that, Joe? I know you're a stupid bigot. But even you must have some kind of standard.
1) He called it a terrorist attack.
2) They were really upset about that video
3) Romney didn't lose because of Benghazi. He lost because he didn't slather enough religous crazy over the plutocracy.
Show me a video of Obama calling Benghazi a terrorist attack. Those words, not some general nonsense. It has to be Obama saying "Benghazi was an attack by al Qaeda affiliates and it was an act of terror".
The video was an afterthought or at best a plant by the administration after the fact.
Romney lost because he didn't think Obama would stoop to such a low level in order to win. Obama has never won an election without using tricks or race to weasel his way into office. Hillary can testify what happened. She hates him with a passion because the rules during the primaries allowed Obama to get as many points as she did even when she won the state. She would win the state and Obama would come in with his caucuses and still take half of the points. Obama just had better cheaters than she did.
[
Show me a video of Obama calling Benghazi a terrorist attack. Those words, not some general nonsense. It has to be Obama saying "Benghazi was an attack by al Qaeda affiliates and it was an act of terror".
The video was an afterthought or at best a plant by the administration after the fact.
.
Romney lost because he didn't think Obama would stoop to such a low level in order to win. Obama has never won an election without using tricks or race to weasel his way into office. Hillary can testify what happened. She hates him with a passion because the rules during the primaries allowed Obama to get as many points as she did even when she won the state. She would win the state and Obama would come in with his caucuses and still take half of the points. Obama just had better cheaters than she did
1) He called it a terrorist attack.
2) They were really upset about that video
3) Romney didn't lose because of Benghazi. He lost because he didn't slather enough religous crazy over the plutocracy.
Show me a video of Obama calling Benghazi a terrorist attack. Those words, not some general nonsense. It has to be Obama saying "Benghazi was an attack by al Qaeda affiliates and it was an act of terror".
The video was an afterthought or at best a plant by the administration after the fact.
Romney lost because he didn't think Obama would stoop to such a low level in order to win. Obama has never won an election without using tricks or race to weasel his way into office. Hillary can testify what happened. She hates him with a passion because the rules during the primaries allowed Obama to get as many points as she did even when she won the state. She would win the state and Obama would come in with his caucuses and still take half of the points. Obama just had better cheaters than she did.
What the hell is the difference between "act of terror" and "terrorist attack?"
Does one of them not use terror, or something?
Are towel-heads not involved somehow?
Seriously, I can't figure it the fuck out....
That's simply false. He was talking ABOUT Benghazi just before he referenced acts of terror.
It's called context. Look it up.
It's called spin, and you're quite good at it. Crowley admitted she was wrong, and Obama never referred to Benghazi as an "act of terror." She was promptly forced to apologize for interjecting herself into a presidential debate.
No, Carbine, what you said is 'simply false.'
Crowley is just another person who doesn't know what she's talking about.
The President said this:
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.
'ACTS of terror' opens the remark.
'this terrible ACT' ends it.
The President refers to the broad category of acts of terror, and then puts Benghazi into that category, referring to it as another specific act.
He references 'four MORE Americans', thus ADDING them to those who have already in the past died in 'acts of terror'. Do you know what the word 'more' means in that context?
why are libs freaking out over an investigation into Benghazi?
i dont recall Republicans hyperventilating over the 9-11 Commission
all we seek is the truth?
what are the obama-bots and rabid Dems afraid of?
the desperate lib comparisons to 9-11 are hilarious!1
you had your 9-11 Commission; nobody freaked out and accused you of a witch hunt
left-wing losers are amazing morons; you never proved anything of the things you rant about Bush; no "stolen elections", no 9-11 cover-up, no lying about WMDs.
but it doesnt stop you losers from believing the lies you tell yourselves
lol
why are libs freaking out over an investigation into Benghazi?
i dont recall Republicans hyperventilating over the 9-11 Commission
all we seek is the truth?
what are the obama-bots and rabid Dems afraid of?
I'd have no problem if we ran the Benghazi commission the same way we ran the 9-11 commission.
WHich means equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans with no hyper-partisans or people running for office on it.
They probably come to the same conclusion. A lot of things could have been done better, but the incident probably couldn't have been prevented.
why are libs freaking out over an investigation into Benghazi?
i dont recall Republicans hyperventilating over the 9-11 Commission
all we seek is the truth?
what are the obama-bots and rabid Dems afraid of?
I'd have no problem if we ran the Benghazi commission the same way we ran the 9-11 commission.
WHich means equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans with no hyper-partisans or people running for office on it.
They probably come to the same conclusion. A lot of things could have been done better, but the incident probably couldn't have been prevented.
That defeatist attitude cannot be acceptable in today's world.
If you want a bunch of losers in the White House, you got your wish.
It seems to me that failure is celebrated by you guys on the left, not success.
If you can't succeed you just bull shit everyone into thinking you won.
We're losing out to Russia, China, and Iran because our president is a bull shit artist with no real backbone and a big mouth. Everyone is laughing at us.
the desperate lib comparisons to 9-11 are hilarious!1
you had your 9-11 Commission; nobody freaked out and accused you of a witch hunt
left-wing losers are amazing morons; you never proved anything of the things you rant about Bush; no "stolen elections", no 9-11 cover-up, no lying about WMDs.
but it doesnt stop you losers from believing the lies you tell yourselves
lol
It's called spin, and you're quite good at it. Crowley admitted she was wrong, and Obama never referred to Benghazi as an "act of terror." She was promptly forced to apologize for interjecting herself into a presidential debate.
No, Carbine, what you said is 'simply false.'
Crowley is just another person who doesn't know what she's talking about.
The President said this:
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.
'ACTS of terror' opens the remark.
'this terrible ACT' ends it.
The President refers to the broad category of acts of terror, and then puts Benghazi into that category, referring to it as another specific act.
He references 'four MORE Americans', thus ADDING them to those who have already in the past died in 'acts of terror'. Do you know what the word 'more' means in that context?
In the real world just saying "Terror" shouldn't bail they lying asshole out if he insisted on claiming it wasn't caused by terrorists for weeks afterward, but in your little world of self-denial, it works.
So, either he believed during that speech, that it was an act of terror, and then decided to change his story afterward, the fact remains that he sent Susan Rice on 5 talk shows to lie to America. This cannot be excused by the fact that he admitted the truth initially, even though that admission wasn't obvious and reluctant at best.
I'd have no problem if we ran the Benghazi commission the same way we ran the 9-11 commission.
WHich means equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans with no hyper-partisans or people running for office on it.
They probably come to the same conclusion. A lot of things could have been done better, but the incident probably couldn't have been prevented.
That defeatist attitude cannot be acceptable in today's world.
If you want a bunch of losers in the White House, you got your wish.
It seems to me that failure is celebrated by you guys on the left, not success.
If you can't succeed you just bull shit everyone into thinking you won.
We're losing out to Russia, China, and Iran because our president is a bull shit artist with no real backbone and a big mouth. Everyone is laughing at us.
Guy, i don't know anyone who would rather live in ANY of those countries than the USA.
And what does any of that have to do with anything I just said?
If you really think we need an "investigation" of it, then do a non-partisan commission to review it. Just like we did with 9/11.
If you are just out to validate your ODS, we can do that, too, I guess.
I'd rather have government working on the real problems.
