Still want to talk Benghazi Repubs?

[ChrisL]

I used to think ALL life was precious.

Then I listened to a few Democrats speaking on abortion and realize my error.

Only non-Democrat lives are precious so we ought not object to their approach to birth control. So long as they keep it in the family.

I'd have a modicum of respect for that argument if Republicans expanded their concern and care for babies and children beyond the womb.

Democrats repeat that like a mantra, but it makes no sense. Republicans don't want anything different than they think should apply to everyone else. The idea that opposing abortion has to come at the price of giving you what Democrats want is frankly just inane

I couldn't disagree more. Having a child means you care for that child until it becomes an adult and you assume the responsibility of making sure that the child is healthy, fed, educated and taught to love, laugh, and be a responsible American, something that has been the antithesis of Republican legislation since day one.

Right, when a child is born, it's the responsibility of taxpayers. Do we want to pay for the abortion or to raise the kid? Our choice.

I reject that as the crap that it is

Well, to be fair, that is the case if you want to ban abortion. You tell a woman who cannot afford a child that she has to have one . . . .

I know people are going to say things like "she should have kept her legs closed," but she didn't apparently and what's done is done.

 

[bullwinkle]

well then divine I demand an investigation ,,,not 8 or 9 like with Benghazi but a few to see what dump actually is or is not responsible for OR do we only have investigations when it's dems on the hot seat?

Go for it. The death of American heroes should always be investigated. Especially if the WH is pushing a lie such as the cause of the death was a movie, not a military operation and underestimating the enemy.

Divine, that too has been overplayed. Who knows, maybe they even believed the video excuse as told to them by Egypt. It was handy in the first hours and probably a relief since they didn't know what the heck actually happened. But they were very quickly apprised of that piece of garbage and didn't cling to the story and admitted to bad judgement, how many times do you suppose? Only Republican's wouldn't let it die. Think of the clinging to the video bomb as a precursor to today's admin denying any incident they don't like as 'fake news'. Only this admin doesn't have the sense to drop it as a form of denial. One of these days, they too will name it a bad call.

 

[kaz]

I used to think ALL life was precious.

Then I listened to a few Democrats speaking on abortion and realize my error.

Only non-Democrat lives are precious so we ought not object to their approach to birth control. So long as they keep it in the family.

I'd have a modicum of respect for that argument if Republicans expanded their concern and care for babies and children beyond the womb.

Democrats repeat that like a mantra, but it makes no sense. Republicans don't want anything different than they think should apply to everyone else. The idea that opposing abortion has to come at the price of giving you what Democrats want is frankly just inane

I couldn't disagree more. Having a child means you care for that child until it becomes an adult and you assume the responsibility of making sure that the child is healthy, fed, educated and taught to love, laugh, and be a responsible American, something that has been the antithesis of Republican legislation since day one.

Right, when a child is born, it's the responsibility of taxpayers. Do we want to pay for the abortion or to raise the kid? Our choice.

I reject that as the crap that it is

If you legislate morality then you are stuck with morality.

Edit to add: Last comment. Superbowl is coming up and I have friends coming over.

All you're arguing is you want your socialist way and using it as an excuse. Anyway, a universal abortion ban isn't coming back

 

[kaz]

I used to think ALL life was precious.

Then I listened to a few Democrats speaking on abortion and realize my error.

Only non-Democrat lives are precious so we ought not object to their approach to birth control. So long as they keep it in the family.

I'd have a modicum of respect for that argument if Republicans expanded their concern and care for babies and children beyond the womb.

Democrats repeat that like a mantra, but it makes no sense. Republicans don't want anything different than they think should apply to everyone else. The idea that opposing abortion has to come at the price of giving you what Democrats want is frankly just inane

I couldn't disagree more. Having a child means you care for that child until it becomes an adult and you assume the responsibility of making sure that the child is healthy, fed, educated and taught to love, laugh, and be a responsible American, something that has been the antithesis of Republican legislation since day one.

Right, when a child is born, it's the responsibility of taxpayers. Do we want to pay for the abortion or to raise the kid? Our choice.

I reject that as the crap that it is

Well, to be fair, that is the case if you want to ban abortion. You tell a woman who cannot afford a child that she has to have one . . . .

I know people are going to say things like "she should have kept her legs closed," but she didn't apparently and what's done is done.

Now we're in the realm of so what about a 2 year old, is it the government's job then? Same logic.

I'm pro-choice though and I don't want to pursue this argument. I'm not saying not to comment further, just that I don't want to continue to go back and forth defending the pro-lifers. I just don't consider it's government's job to force a woman to carry a baby or to redistribute money

 

[ChrisL]

I'd have a modicum of respect for that argument if Republicans expanded their concern and care for babies and children beyond the womb.

Democrats repeat that like a mantra, but it makes no sense. Republicans don't want anything different than they think should apply to everyone else. The idea that opposing abortion has to come at the price of giving you what Democrats want is frankly just inane

I couldn't disagree more. Having a child means you care for that child until it becomes an adult and you assume the responsibility of making sure that the child is healthy, fed, educated and taught to love, laugh, and be a responsible American, something that has been the antithesis of Republican legislation since day one.

Right, when a child is born, it's the responsibility of taxpayers. Do we want to pay for the abortion or to raise the kid? Our choice.

I reject that as the crap that it is

Well, to be fair, that is the case if you want to ban abortion. You tell a woman who cannot afford a child that she has to have one . . . .

I know people are going to say things like "she should have kept her legs closed," but she didn't apparently and what's done is done.

Now we're in the realm of so what about a 2 year old, is it the government's job then? Same logic.

I'm pro-choice though and I don't want to pursue this argument. I'm not saying not to comment further, just that I don't want to continue to go back and forth defending the pro-lifers. I just don't consider it's government's job to force a woman to carry a baby or to redistribute money

What do you mean "what about a 2-year-old?" If a parent cannot afford to care for their child, then what would you suggest? If they give up the child, then the state is also going to be paying for said child in a lot of cases. A person could also get their child taken from them by the state if they have no heat, no hot water, no food, etc. In that case, the taxpayer is also going to be responsible for feeding, clothing and housing the child. This, I do not have a problem with. There are some real fuck-ups in this world and some really unstable people. That is just a fact of life.

 

[HenryBHough]

An unaborted liberal pregnancy is a terrorist attack waiting to happen!

 

[kaz]

Democrats repeat that like a mantra, but it makes no sense. Republicans don't want anything different than they think should apply to everyone else. The idea that opposing abortion has to come at the price of giving you what Democrats want is frankly just inane

I couldn't disagree more. Having a child means you care for that child until it becomes an adult and you assume the responsibility of making sure that the child is healthy, fed, educated and taught to love, laugh, and be a responsible American, something that has been the antithesis of Republican legislation since day one.

Right, when a child is born, it's the responsibility of taxpayers. Do we want to pay for the abortion or to raise the kid? Our choice.

I reject that as the crap that it is

Well, to be fair, that is the case if you want to ban abortion. You tell a woman who cannot afford a child that she has to have one . . . .

I know people are going to say things like "she should have kept her legs closed," but she didn't apparently and what's done is done.

Now we're in the realm of so what about a 2 year old, is it the government's job then? Same logic.

I'm pro-choice though and I don't want to pursue this argument. I'm not saying not to comment further, just that I don't want to continue to go back and forth defending the pro-lifers. I just don't consider it's government's job to force a woman to carry a baby or to redistribute money

What do you mean "what about a 2-year-old?" If a parent cannot afford to care for their child, then what would you suggest? If they give up the child, then the state is also going to be paying for said child in a lot of cases. A person could also get their child taken from them by the state if they have no heat, no hot water, no food, etc. In that case, the taxpayer is also going to be responsible for feeding, clothing and housing the child. This, I do not have a problem with. There are some real fuck-ups in this world and some really unstable people. That is just a fact of life.

You argued that if Republicans stop abortions, which they think is murder, then somehow they owe the woman welfare because she can't pay for the baby. So how does that argument change between a fetus and a 2 year old? She can't murder the baby, so she's somehow entitled to welfare? I don't agree with linking murder and welfare.

Then again I do not think abortion is murder, particularly when things like rape, incest and medical issues are involved. I think it's wrong and people shouldn't do it, but I can't call it murder. However, I believe it's up to the woman carrying a baby in her body, not me, not the government, not anyone else. However, whatever one's position is on that, I don't see any valid link between abortion and welfare, none at all

 

[imawhosure]

Let me know when the Trump administration tries to proclaim that people were shot and or killed, because of some movie.

You will go to your grave being STILL the brainwashed moron you are now........

Riots occurred in Cairo (that's in the country next to Libya for all you fucked up ignorant right wingers) BECAUSE of the video................So, what should then be the first assumption when....AT THE SAME TIME.......riots broke out in Benghazi killing 4 of our people????

Please put me on ignore, because you are a piece of work, and I am to old to rehab, your worthless ass-) Go away, I have no use for a narrative leftist. We have to work to save the country, and after we arrest people like you, it is full steam ahead

 

[ChrisL]

I couldn't disagree more. Having a child means you care for that child until it becomes an adult and you assume the responsibility of making sure that the child is healthy, fed, educated and taught to love, laugh, and be a responsible American, something that has been the antithesis of Republican legislation since day one.

Right, when a child is born, it's the responsibility of taxpayers. Do we want to pay for the abortion or to raise the kid? Our choice.

I reject that as the crap that it is

Well, to be fair, that is the case if you want to ban abortion. You tell a woman who cannot afford a child that she has to have one . . . .

I know people are going to say things like "she should have kept her legs closed," but she didn't apparently and what's done is done.

Now we're in the realm of so what about a 2 year old, is it the government's job then? Same logic.

I'm pro-choice though and I don't want to pursue this argument. I'm not saying not to comment further, just that I don't want to continue to go back and forth defending the pro-lifers. I just don't consider it's government's job to force a woman to carry a baby or to redistribute money

What do you mean "what about a 2-year-old?" If a parent cannot afford to care for their child, then what would you suggest? If they give up the child, then the state is also going to be paying for said child in a lot of cases. A person could also get their child taken from them by the state if they have no heat, no hot water, no food, etc. In that case, the taxpayer is also going to be responsible for feeding, clothing and housing the child. This, I do not have a problem with. There are some real fuck-ups in this world and some really unstable people. That is just a fact of life.

You argued that if Republicans stop abortions, which they think is murder, then somehow they owe the woman welfare because she can't pay for the baby. So how does that argument change between a fetus and a 2 year old? She can't murder the baby, so she's somehow entitled to welfare? I don't agree with linking murder and welfare.

Then again I do not think abortion is murder, particularly when things like rape, incest and medical issues are involved. I think it's wrong and people shouldn't do it, but I can't call it murder. However, I believe it's up to the woman carrying a baby in her body, not me, not the government, not anyone else. However, whatever one's position is on that, I don't see any valid link between abortion and welfare, none at all

Owe her? No. Owe the child who has no control over it's circumstances? Yes. The argument doesn't change. I have no idea what you are talking about.

I wouldn't do it, but it's not my decision to make for another person. People who WANT to be parents will have their children.

 

[edward37]

when men can become pregnant then they can have a say into abortions or not Until then keep your republican mouths shut when it's mine or some one elses daughter involved

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Is the shoe on the other foot now?






Military Officials Say Trump Botched Yemen Raid, He Never Even Came to Situation Room
If you tried to count how many times Donald J. Trump slammed Hillary Clinton for the night of the Benghazi attacked, it would take you weeks of research. Trump…
BLUEDOTDAILY.COM

When Trump went to Dover AFB, did he lie to the SEALs family and tell them it was all because of a video?

think he signed off on it at dinner

So?

If you have a point, make it. Since you don't, do us all a favor and keep quiet!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Yeah, two weeks in. Look pal, you shot your wad, it went into your skivvies. No way to rescue it.

LOL I've got plenty left to deal with dumb republicans,,,,,

...except that you abandoned your topic.

yes I did Felt an urge to throw that into the pot I'll be more careful in the future But since it's there,,What do you feel about the moron talking ill of Mexican judges and so called judge?

I heard one comment, if you have more post them up. I saw Obama give the Supreme Court justices a dressing down at a state of the union address. Let me know when Trump does something that low.

Trump has done more than that already. He's insulted the judiciary from top to bottom, and threatened their jobs. An independent judiciary is the third pillar of your government.

Obama gave the SC justices a well-deserved dressing down on the Citizen's United decision, which I too believe is wrong on every level. The laws regarding corporations say that a corporation will have the same rights as a natural person "to own and hold property, and to conduct business". That doesn't give corporation the same rights as a person without any qualifications or limitations. Such a ruling flies in the face of anything ever intended by the Founding Fathers.

When did he say that?

Why don't you stick to the facts and stop making things up as you go?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Benghazi - three key facts:

• Prior notification of a threat - American embassy officials and Ambassador Stevens repeatedly requested additional security for the Benghazi compound between 2011 and 2012 and the requests were either denied or ignored.
• During a known threat no action was taken - During the attack on the Benghazi compound calls were made for immediate assistance and nothing was done.
• The Ambassador was not a soldier.

.

During 2011/12, Congress cut the security budget for diplomatic outposts by 1/3. In spite of this constraint, there had been numerous upgrades to the Benghazi facility in the months leading up to the attack. New fencing and better lighting had been installed, among other improvements, but Republicans stubbornly refused to increase the budget.

This is an outright lie. See Benghazi Reports 1 through 7. All of them say this is a false narrative.

Ambassador Stevens was told not to go to Benghazi that day, and he chose to go anyway. Everyone there knew the risks and the State Department had warned all outposts, especially those in the Middle East, of the risks leading up to the anniversary of 9/11.

But continue to believe your alternative version of reality, so you can hate on Obama and Hillary.

Did you read how much money the State Department spent on electric vehicle charging stations in Vienna despite the fact that there were no electric vehicles?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Let me know when the Trump administration tries to proclaim that people were shot and or killed, because of some movie.

You will go to your grave being STILL the brainwashed moron you are now........

Riots occurred in Cairo (that's in the country next to Libya for all you fucked up ignorant right wingers) BECAUSE of the video................So, what should then be the first assumption when....AT THE SAME TIME.......riots broke out in Benghazi killing 4 of our people????

How many people carry RPGs and mortars to a protest?

Also, that video had been viewed by how many people on September 11th of that year? The video was an excuse concocted by the CIA under the direction of Obama.

 

[kaz]

Right, when a child is born, it's the responsibility of taxpayers. Do we want to pay for the abortion or to raise the kid? Our choice.

I reject that as the crap that it is

Well, to be fair, that is the case if you want to ban abortion. You tell a woman who cannot afford a child that she has to have one . . . .

I know people are going to say things like "she should have kept her legs closed," but she didn't apparently and what's done is done.

Now we're in the realm of so what about a 2 year old, is it the government's job then? Same logic.

I'm pro-choice though and I don't want to pursue this argument. I'm not saying not to comment further, just that I don't want to continue to go back and forth defending the pro-lifers. I just don't consider it's government's job to force a woman to carry a baby or to redistribute money

What do you mean "what about a 2-year-old?" If a parent cannot afford to care for their child, then what would you suggest? If they give up the child, then the state is also going to be paying for said child in a lot of cases. A person could also get their child taken from them by the state if they have no heat, no hot water, no food, etc. In that case, the taxpayer is also going to be responsible for feeding, clothing and housing the child. This, I do not have a problem with. There are some real fuck-ups in this world and some really unstable people. That is just a fact of life.

You argued that if Republicans stop abortions, which they think is murder, then somehow they owe the woman welfare because she can't pay for the baby. So how does that argument change between a fetus and a 2 year old? She can't murder the baby, so she's somehow entitled to welfare? I don't agree with linking murder and welfare.

Then again I do not think abortion is murder, particularly when things like rape, incest and medical issues are involved. I think it's wrong and people shouldn't do it, but I can't call it murder. However, I believe it's up to the woman carrying a baby in her body, not me, not the government, not anyone else. However, whatever one's position is on that, I don't see any valid link between abortion and welfare, none at all

Owe her? No. Owe the child who has no control over it's circumstances? Yes. The argument doesn't change. I have no idea what you are talking about.

I wouldn't do it, but it's not my decision to make for another person. People who WANT to be parents will have their children.

So charity isn't generosity it's a debt? You're getting downright silly now

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Asswipe...the problem with Bhengazi was the refusal to actually provide the security to keep those men safe....they requested over and over to get more security and hilary refused over and over again to do it.......she sent men into a dangerous part of the world and did not give them the protection they needed to stay alive....

So keep lying about what happened....and you will lose again in 2020...

Now lets get down to the nitty gritty If Obama was president what hell would republicans pour on him after a seal was killed in an attack that he signed off on ?

If it was Obama bashing our long time and great ally Australia while offering kind words to russia and the murdering swine Putin ,what trash would republicans rain down on Obama?
and what shit would these cowardly republicans toss at obama if he dared call out 2 judges one being mexican and the other a ""supposed"" judge?,,,just asking

Ass hat 2aguy,,, Trump shit in the hat and you're wearing it Did republicans TURN DOWN Obamas call or hills for more money for security??? Look in the fn mirror you coward

She decides how the money is spent. If she needed funds, she should have asked for them, since the Dems controlled everything for two years..

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Back to Yemen. Who tipped off AQ?

Not sure if there was a tip off. As one of the links noted, it was an intell mission and the place our guys went to visit was a lot more well armed than had been previously believed.

What shocked the crap out of me is that the commandos had not expected the women to pick up weapons and join in the fire fight. Wow. That just blows me away.

Who said they didn't expect it? We use women in training special ops troops just for that very reason.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Back to Yemen. Who tipped off AQ?

Not sure if there was a tip off. As one of the links noted, it was an intell mission and the place our guys went to visit was a lot more well armed than had been previously believed.

What shocked the crap out of me is that the commandos had not expected the women to pick up weapons and join in the fire fight. Wow. That just blows me away.

I think some Muslim cultures are misogynistic and don't allow women to fight. Obviously the more radical Muslims are recognizing they need all the help they can get.

Nope. Think again.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Obama was in the middle of military action and the deaths were collateral. Trump was in a country not at war with the United States and killed up to 30 civilians and 9 children. His Fox and Friends interview went further:

"Trump doubled down on his position: "I would be very, very firm with families" and repeating his sentiment that even though people think "they may not care much about their lives … they do care, believe it or not, about their families' lives."

Later in the debate, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul took Trump to task for that approach.

"If you are going to kill the families of terrorists," Paul said, "Realize that there's something called the Geneva Convention we're going to have to pull out of. It would defy every norm that is America."

Terrorists hide behind their families. You're just word parsing now

Sounds to me that you're the one parsing.

You're OK with Obama doing what you are attacking Trump for doing, yeah, you go with that I'm the one parsing. Both are targeting terrorists and stopping them

Trump's operation was an exercise in stupidity and waste, that's the difference.

They were going after an AQ base.

What is stupid and wasteful is knowing that there had been an intercept and then continuing the mission.

How do you know that?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It depends on what you call successful. Petulant former President Obama did not believe it was necessary which is probably the reason he nixed two previous plans to assassinate Osama bin Laden.

That was just to keep bin Ladens guard down THE PROOF is in the pudding,,,Obama got bin ladin the guy who did that to us while your repubs did shit

So...petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama, after twice denying the operation, approved of assassinating Osama bin Laden.

Former President Obama pulled all our troops out of Iraq inviting ISIS to take hold in Iraq and costing thousands of lives around the world. Obama then refused to keep his word about Syria, costing hundreds of thousands of lives and MILLIONS of refugees. Would you like me to continue?

LOL, Fixing George W. Bush's and Republican cabinet secretaries messes was hard work.

When did petulant former President Obama fit that in? Between tee times or on his multi-million dollar vacations in the most exotic, expensive locals in the world?

please don't talk about vacations think gwb holds the record and the chump is sure to follow ,,,if he lasts that long

Vacations? GWB went home or to his Dad's home most of the time. Does Obama have property in Hawaii, Martha's Vineyard, etc.?