- Joined
- Aug 30, 2011
- Messages
- 5,411
- Reaction score
- 2,228
- Location
- In a Blue State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
My inability to understand what situation? Benghazi? It's the conservative outrage vehicle of choice at the moment now that Obama care seems to be working. It will change to Susan Rice in a week or so after Republicans realize that their hypocrisy is so blatant on this that even the faithful start to notice. Then this board will fill up with rants about that.
This is what happens when a party can no longer govern.
In summary: Obama and Progressives are liars, criminals, radicals, extremists, terrorists, tyrannical, arrogant, belligerent, psychopathic, snug, arrogant, narcissistic.
Sounds like you're more Bowerick Wowbagger than John Galt.
I do not protect my family by killing Able when Kane is the threat. You never got that. Nor to I lead men to die in the thousands based on lies. You, however, didn't mind at all.
On the other hand, if you show Obama lies lead to deaths, with at least as much evidence as there is against Bush, I'll call him the same. No one who makes excuses for Bush lies really cares about people dying.
Actually, you just need to look at embassy deaths to see Bush is way ahead of Obama.
Bob Cesca: 13 Benghazis That Occurred on Bush's Watch Without a Peep from Fox News
There are 13 attacks total...
How many ambassadors in that list?
How many requests for help that went unanswered? How many cover ups of what happened?
Well, that would take a whole lot of research to prove that all those other attacks had similar circumstances...But if you wish to take it on then be my guest...
But to just throw it out there as insinuation is irrelevant, unless you think that just because we've been attacked before in the past 35 years it makes it ok for the Obama administration to obstruct congressional investigations...
Now Blue, I know you're a smart person, and have agreed with some things you have posted in the past, but to say that bad actions are, or should be excused because someone, anyone else "did it too" is a juvenile, and unacceptable justification for covering up to carry on a campaign without the negative news that this would have brought in truth....You know that....
If that is what you're saying of course.
Oh, sorry j-mac. I don't think my comment was perceived correctly. I was agreeing with you and saying that not only did that attack have an ambassador killed; which we haven't seen since the 70's. But prior to this attack the people on the ground were requesting aid. And furthermore, the events were swept under the carpet. That didn't happen in those other events. I was saying those previous attacks were not similar.
It was a fly by night comment. I saw your response and jumped on.
What is well established is that he'll try to drag George W. Bush into virtually every thread no matter the topic. Oh wait, too late. He already delivered. It's literally (apparently) a requirement he imposes upon himself. No matter how obvious and pathetic it is to anyone with an IQ above room temperature. As another poster in this thread would gleefully say, it's retarded.:lamoNo you won't. That's well established.
Actually, you just need to look at embassy deaths to see Bush is way ahead of Obama.
Bob Cesca: 13 Benghazis That Occurred on Bush's Watch Without a Peep from Fox News
There are 13 attacks total...
No you won't. That's well established.
And our conservatives here were so outraged they are still harping on them . . . . Not.
Really, showed me when you've ever shown anything equivalent? As nothing of that nature has happened, aren't you just pretending that you know?
How many ambassadors died under Bush?
Nope. I don't have to prove anything to you...I just let you show your own ignorance.
How many people would be the more appropriate question. Each one had families and loved ones.
Meaning you can't, and you're just blowing smoke to hide that you know I'm right. Got it. :coffeepap
So, ambassadors are no different than a native staffer to you?
LOL, not at all...I see you are shutting down and resorting to dishonesty.
Do you even know what you write? I can only respond to what you give me. You might want to look up dishonesty.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?