Thread Rating:
01-26-2013, 01:16 PM
What a complete travesty of the workings of our democracy. Every last citizen has been defrauded by this pseudo proceeding of strawmen, evasions and lies. In the end, it boiled down to the same old story. Hillary Clinton blaming a lack of congressional funding for the whole thing. I recall the White House offering this excuse shortly after the scandals broke and typically, they stayed with their story. Can somebody on here think of a single thing the liberals know how to do other than throw money at our problems? And, of course, it's those damnable republicans that won't fund our endeavors overseas and therefore, it is they who are ultimately culpable.
So, let me get this straight. A former first lady and controversial lawyer from Arkansas. Gets a senatorship bought for her in New York. And then gets named the Obama Secretary of State. Goes on the record with the following;
First, the buck stops with her and her department with regard to the four slain diplomats, and the failings of the state department to see to their safety, even though we have a raft of correspondence proving they had asked for help over and over.
Second, the secretary never saw any cable or email leading up to the attacks, even though 'said buck' stopped with her. So, what are we saying here, employees of the US State Department are all email dysfunctional and therefore exonerated by default? Anybody else confused yet?
Third, real time video was on all the White House monitors in the Egyptian Embassy uprising but, there was none to be found for Benghazi even though TWO drones are known to have been circling over the Benghazi Compound for nearly SEVEN hours and said drones were equipped with the capability to send real time video to the situation room in the White House. (Hillary was at the White House during this time BTW) Charlene Lamb is on record with her sworn testimony as having watched the Benghazi affair in real-time, as is CIA Director General David Patraeus, who then suddenly felt compelled to resign. As have State Department Security Chiefs Charlene Lamb and Eric Boswell, with pay of course. Of course to my knowledge, the fact that Doherty and Woods were in communication with a number of department officials and the US military in the region via cell phone and radio during the attacks wasn't brought up. Now that's my idea of an inconvenient truth.
Fourth, absolutely nobody has been charged with the responsibility for the murders of the fallen, or the security failures of her department, even though there are a number of survivors of the attacks that have never been identified or questioned by her department, as of over the past 140 days now, after the attack. I mean, we can't have any witnesses running around blowing the administration's story out of the water now can we?
Fifth, even though she has assumed personal responsibility she insisted on blaming the "intelligence community" and possibly the 'fog of war'.
Sixth, despite volumes of verifiable secure military communications traffic, before during and after the attacks on the compound, there was no order coming down to deploy any of our military assets that by all accounts were well within range?
Seventh, then there are the two strawmen, the FBI and the Review Board. Who can say they really understand the workings of the FBI, that obscure federal enforcement agency? Regardless of how innocuous and meaningless their investigation of Benghazi turns out to be, nobody will get up in their face but, if they did, all that would happen is somebody would step up (with pay and medical for life) and fall on his sword, ala Charlene Lamb and Eric Boswell. If that's a bad deal for them somebody, would have to explain the way it works to me. How about the Review Board? The best way I know to defuse a volatile situation at the national level is to appoint a committee or review board. That way nobody gets held accountable. If the R B comes down with a finding, according to Hillary, (hundreds if times during her laughable testimony) that settles the matter.
She's stonewalling, and Obama (at the time in a very close presidential race) was more concerned about the public's perception of whether Commander-In-Chief Obama, actually had the middle east firmly under his control or not.
So, let me get this straight. A former first lady and controversial lawyer from Arkansas. Gets a senatorship bought for her in New York. And then gets named the Obama Secretary of State. Goes on the record with the following;
First, the buck stops with her and her department with regard to the four slain diplomats, and the failings of the state department to see to their safety, even though we have a raft of correspondence proving they had asked for help over and over.
Second, the secretary never saw any cable or email leading up to the attacks, even though 'said buck' stopped with her. So, what are we saying here, employees of the US State Department are all email dysfunctional and therefore exonerated by default? Anybody else confused yet?
Third, real time video was on all the White House monitors in the Egyptian Embassy uprising but, there was none to be found for Benghazi even though TWO drones are known to have been circling over the Benghazi Compound for nearly SEVEN hours and said drones were equipped with the capability to send real time video to the situation room in the White House. (Hillary was at the White House during this time BTW) Charlene Lamb is on record with her sworn testimony as having watched the Benghazi affair in real-time, as is CIA Director General David Patraeus, who then suddenly felt compelled to resign. As have State Department Security Chiefs Charlene Lamb and Eric Boswell, with pay of course. Of course to my knowledge, the fact that Doherty and Woods were in communication with a number of department officials and the US military in the region via cell phone and radio during the attacks wasn't brought up. Now that's my idea of an inconvenient truth.
Fourth, absolutely nobody has been charged with the responsibility for the murders of the fallen, or the security failures of her department, even though there are a number of survivors of the attacks that have never been identified or questioned by her department, as of over the past 140 days now, after the attack. I mean, we can't have any witnesses running around blowing the administration's story out of the water now can we?
Fifth, even though she has assumed personal responsibility she insisted on blaming the "intelligence community" and possibly the 'fog of war'.
Sixth, despite volumes of verifiable secure military communications traffic, before during and after the attacks on the compound, there was no order coming down to deploy any of our military assets that by all accounts were well within range?
Seventh, then there are the two strawmen, the FBI and the Review Board. Who can say they really understand the workings of the FBI, that obscure federal enforcement agency? Regardless of how innocuous and meaningless their investigation of Benghazi turns out to be, nobody will get up in their face but, if they did, all that would happen is somebody would step up (with pay and medical for life) and fall on his sword, ala Charlene Lamb and Eric Boswell. If that's a bad deal for them somebody, would have to explain the way it works to me. How about the Review Board? The best way I know to defuse a volatile situation at the national level is to appoint a committee or review board. That way nobody gets held accountable. If the R B comes down with a finding, according to Hillary, (hundreds if times during her laughable testimony) that settles the matter.
She's stonewalling, and Obama (at the time in a very close presidential race) was more concerned about the public's perception of whether Commander-In-Chief Obama, actually had the middle east firmly under his control or not.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
![[-]](https://bluegrassrivals.com/forum/images/lifestyle/collapse.png)
01-26-2013, 04:49 PM
I don't believe that Hillary suffered a concussion. She needed a good excuse for delaying her testimony to Congress on the Bengazi debacle, so she dreamed up a concussion. She seems to have lost some wrinkles while she was recovering from her "concussion" too. If she was under a doctor's care, I suspect that the doctor's specialty was more superficial than brain injuries.
01-26-2013, 05:02 PM
Hoot Gibson Wrote:I don't believe that Hillary suffered a concussion. She needed a good excuse for delaying her testimony to Congress on the Bengazi debacle, so she dreamed up a concussion. She seems to have lost some wrinkles while she was recovering from her "concussion" too. If she was under a doctor's care, I suspect that the doctor's specialty was more superficial than brain injuries.
That makes two of us Hoot. By the time she finally did answer the first question, all the congressional ire and administrational rationale, had been debated at length. For her to just come into chambers and parrot the afore mentioned safely debated material and the talking points of the RB findings, meant nothing. Any question that fell outside that safe zone she just filed under "I'll have get back to you later on that".
I would say that if there are any contradictions in her testimony dems will chalk them up to the lingering effects of the concussion.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
01-26-2013, 05:12 PM
BUT..gentlemen....the media SAID she suffered a concussion!!
nicker:
Something is going on though..see those vertical lines that were etched into her glasses? Guess we don't have the technology to etch contact lens anymore..
:eyeroll:
Dunno about our gal Hillary. Double press conference with NObama, weight gain, etched glasses, resigning....curious.
nicker:Something is going on though..see those vertical lines that were etched into her glasses? Guess we don't have the technology to etch contact lens anymore..
:eyeroll:
Dunno about our gal Hillary. Double press conference with NObama, weight gain, etched glasses, resigning....curious.
01-26-2013, 05:59 PM
Granny Bear Wrote:BUT..gentlemen....the media SAID she suffered a concussion!!
Something is going on though..see those vertical lines that were etched into her glasses? Guess we don't have the technology to etch contact lens anymore..
:eyeroll:
Dunno about our gal Hillary. Double press conference with NObama, weight gain, etched glasses, resigning....curious.
LOL, your meaning sort of went over my head Granny. The weight gain is likely due to living the high life and cocktail parties aplenty. Her glasses were a prop in keeping with the story of her concussion. You know, like the courtroom tactic of wearing a neck brace by the victim of an accident? The vertical lines are some kind of prism that forces eyes muscles to compensate for double vision, according to the talk. I'm not convinced.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
01-26-2013, 06:11 PM
Sorry. Sometimes, when I write what's in my head it is unrecognizeable when I read it back. The etching is indeed a treatment to strengthen eye muscles. You remember years ago when they used to cover the "good" eye to treat the lazy one. Sort of like that. The reason that this is being done could be one of many. However, it is done with contact lens all the time. I can't come up with an explanation as to why her glasses are being used instead of contacts though, but for the fact that glasses are much more conspicuous. So, they must want the public to see it.
In conjuction with the weight gain though it makes me wonder. You guys were joking about her wrinkles earlier. Well, that's true. And it's more noticeable in her face. I guess I'm just suspicious by nature, but weight gain (more in the face)...she being treated with steroids?
In conjuction with the weight gain though it makes me wonder. You guys were joking about her wrinkles earlier. Well, that's true. And it's more noticeable in her face. I guess I'm just suspicious by nature, but weight gain (more in the face)...she being treated with steroids?
02-01-2013, 04:56 PM
Classless and clueless till the end, Hillary departs her post as Secretary of State slamming critics and dodging her responsibility to do the job.
EXCERPT---
"Clinton left office with a slap at critics of the Obama administration's handling of the September attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya. She told The Associated Press in an interview Thursday that critics of the administration's handling of the attack don't live in an "evidence-based world," and their refusal to "accept the facts" is unfortunate and regrettable for the political system."
END---
One of the on-line news articles of the day deals with "7 financial mistakes made by The Beatles" Though they are all hauntingly familiar to some of the same misteps of the Obama administration in general, one stands out as relative to the arrogant nose thumbing Hillary was guilty of as she made her departure, consider the following----
"Out of all the failures of Apple Corps, this was the most glaring. Many companies face the theft of paper clips and notepads, but Apple Corps was scammed out of houses and cars, including three cars that simply vanished and a house that was purchased without reason or explanation.
Money was stolen and swindled, and so was merchandise.
Clothing from the boutique went missing regularly, taken by customers and employees alike; promotional records wound up in staffers' homes; and office items including rugs, televisions, cameras, alcohol, cash and even the lead on the roof went missing so frequently that Lennon reportedly said "18 or 20 thousand (British) pounds" worth of value waltzed out the door weekly.
Lesson: If you have your own company, Romano says it's essential for a company to have "multiple layers of compliance" in order to ensure a tight ship and minimize this sort of double-dealing and theft.
"There has to be a culture of safety," he says. "If one person's in charge of compliance and accountability throughout the organization, then you're basically entrusting that one person to oversee everything. There has to be more than one person. If there isn't, that unfortunately tempts people and causes people to do the wrong thing."
This kind of thinking is exactly what everybody in the present administration hates with a passion, and is the source of Hill's contempt for her critics. Taken to a grander scale, it is exactly what is wrong with the federal government these days. The dems don't want to have to deal with any opposition from across the aisle, hence the $**t storm of lies and slander intended to destroy the credibility of republicans. To eliminate the effectiveness of one of the two parties would mean that we'd all become the slaves of that party. Allow me to demonstrate the point using the AARP as an example. (Organized Labor would do just as well). Once the AARP totally aligned themselves with the dems they became bought and paid for. As a result they are now nothing more than gophers of the left, nor do they tolerate the views of the right even though their membership is comprised largely of right leaning seniors. They are 100% predictable about who and what they are going to come out in favor of, it's roothog liberality or die.
Same thing is panoramically true for American politics across the board. If we see the death of the republican party we will all be slaves of that party. Why? Well, it's more than just being absolutely sure we will be lied to everyday as the matter of course. If we see the emergence of one party in power that in itself will completely neutralize our much cherished system of checks and balances. I mean, do we want to be ruled by the liberal democrats, or do we want to continue our lives in a free society?
In order for that to happen we need multiple layers of compliance. That is what congress is for and folks need to understand that. We must preserve our system of governance and the only way that will happen is if folks wake up and realize the cul-de-sac toward which, our political system is being steered by the liberals among us. I know which way I want it to be and I don't want state generated propaganda to replace truth and freedom.
But, back to Hillary. She wants the liberals to rule the common masses and you can bet if she does have designs on the White House, and I believe she does, it will be a continuation of the present nightmare. I've had enough. :igiveup:
EXCERPT---
"Clinton left office with a slap at critics of the Obama administration's handling of the September attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya. She told The Associated Press in an interview Thursday that critics of the administration's handling of the attack don't live in an "evidence-based world," and their refusal to "accept the facts" is unfortunate and regrettable for the political system."
END---
One of the on-line news articles of the day deals with "7 financial mistakes made by The Beatles" Though they are all hauntingly familiar to some of the same misteps of the Obama administration in general, one stands out as relative to the arrogant nose thumbing Hillary was guilty of as she made her departure, consider the following----
"Out of all the failures of Apple Corps, this was the most glaring. Many companies face the theft of paper clips and notepads, but Apple Corps was scammed out of houses and cars, including three cars that simply vanished and a house that was purchased without reason or explanation.
Money was stolen and swindled, and so was merchandise.
Clothing from the boutique went missing regularly, taken by customers and employees alike; promotional records wound up in staffers' homes; and office items including rugs, televisions, cameras, alcohol, cash and even the lead on the roof went missing so frequently that Lennon reportedly said "18 or 20 thousand (British) pounds" worth of value waltzed out the door weekly.
Lesson: If you have your own company, Romano says it's essential for a company to have "multiple layers of compliance" in order to ensure a tight ship and minimize this sort of double-dealing and theft.
"There has to be a culture of safety," he says. "If one person's in charge of compliance and accountability throughout the organization, then you're basically entrusting that one person to oversee everything. There has to be more than one person. If there isn't, that unfortunately tempts people and causes people to do the wrong thing."
This kind of thinking is exactly what everybody in the present administration hates with a passion, and is the source of Hill's contempt for her critics. Taken to a grander scale, it is exactly what is wrong with the federal government these days. The dems don't want to have to deal with any opposition from across the aisle, hence the $**t storm of lies and slander intended to destroy the credibility of republicans. To eliminate the effectiveness of one of the two parties would mean that we'd all become the slaves of that party. Allow me to demonstrate the point using the AARP as an example. (Organized Labor would do just as well). Once the AARP totally aligned themselves with the dems they became bought and paid for. As a result they are now nothing more than gophers of the left, nor do they tolerate the views of the right even though their membership is comprised largely of right leaning seniors. They are 100% predictable about who and what they are going to come out in favor of, it's roothog liberality or die.
Same thing is panoramically true for American politics across the board. If we see the death of the republican party we will all be slaves of that party. Why? Well, it's more than just being absolutely sure we will be lied to everyday as the matter of course. If we see the emergence of one party in power that in itself will completely neutralize our much cherished system of checks and balances. I mean, do we want to be ruled by the liberal democrats, or do we want to continue our lives in a free society?
In order for that to happen we need multiple layers of compliance. That is what congress is for and folks need to understand that. We must preserve our system of governance and the only way that will happen is if folks wake up and realize the cul-de-sac toward which, our political system is being steered by the liberals among us. I know which way I want it to be and I don't want state generated propaganda to replace truth and freedom.
But, back to Hillary. She wants the liberals to rule the common masses and you can bet if she does have designs on the White House, and I believe she does, it will be a continuation of the present nightmare. I've had enough. :igiveup:
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
02-01-2013, 05:19 PM
^Point of clarification. If the republican party became ineffective we would then become slaves of the dems.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
02-02-2013, 09:39 PM
I believe that are already ineffective to a great point on many serious issues.
Something has got to give one way or the other.
Something has got to give one way or the other.
02-03-2013, 12:14 AM
Granny Bear Wrote:I believe that are already ineffective to a great point on many serious issues.
Something has got to give one way or the other.
Right, we just cannot allow the dems to be soley in charge. That's the way they want it but one viewpoint is never a good idea. Like the one man in charge of everything as in the Beatle's company, Apple Corps., one party would similarly destroy the US. The "common good" is to be overseen by a representative government of the people, by the people, for the people and should likely be legislated from a center right position. Not a liberal point of view.
If only one party were to gain too much control, the same kind of corruption that brought down Apple Corps would bring down the whole nation. Harry Reid IMO, has done far more to thwart the workings of government than anybody else I can think of. He has turned his democratically controlled Senate into a kind of big bully because he has the power to trump every thing the republican controlled House tries to do. That's why we haven't had a budget since George W left offfice and the congress has been locked in partisan gridlock since the day democrats lost their majority in the House. Remember, it was the House that rammed through ObamaCare. Prince Harry Reid sure didn't hesitate to bring up that legislation on the floor and then ratified it ASAP! I would think it is obvious by now the democrats are trying to destroy the republicans. My contention is, if they manage to do that they will also destroy the country along with them. We can't survive with only one party. Especially one which is ruthless enough to defy the constitution and gut as much of it as they can while they still control the Senate. In short, they're trying to govern from a point of view rather than the traditional workings of government. That point of view is one of social justice. http://www.stthomas.edu/socialwork/socia...iples.html
You watch and see. Obama knows that two years may be all he has left in which to "fundamentally change the face of America", therefore, prior to the mid-terms of 2014, he will pass every left wing extremist agenda item he possibly can. You'll see nothing but social justice nonsense being voted on from gun control to more ways to redistribute wealth. And, Harry Reid and his side kick, Nancy Pelosi, will shamelessly (and mindlessly) assist him any way they possibly can. I just pray conservative America shows evidence of a heartbeat and republicans take back the Senate in 2014.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
04-24-2013, 02:34 PM
Hill; "I never saw any requests for additional security in Benghazi. I did not deny or approve any security measures."
Despite Hill's sworn testimony to the contrary, a signed memo has surfaced in which she denied Ambassador Stevens additional security and even withdrew security according to Utah Rep Jason Chaffetz.
Despite Hill's sworn testimony to the contrary, a signed memo has surfaced in which she denied Ambassador Stevens additional security and even withdrew security according to Utah Rep Jason Chaffetz.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
04-24-2013, 02:53 PM
04-24-2013, 04:20 PM
TheRealVille Wrote:[IMG] https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-a...7078_n.png[/IMG]
Just can't tear yourself away from Mother Jones huh? So, how many of these deaths you posted were American citizens? At least in these cases the attackers were repelled. My argument has nothing to do with the fact that Islamist Radicals attack our foreign outposts. We can't control them in this country, much less over in the middle east. My argument revolves around the fact that administration officials purposefully positioned our diplomatic corps in a way to unnecessary sacrifice themselves so that the liberal bleeding hearts could prove how sincere they are. Then after they got them killed they lied about any knowledge of the whole affair. Even if that were the truth, (and we know it isn't thanks to the recently unearthed memo with Hill's sig on it) are we supposed to feel better that administration heads are inept?
There was a cover up and anybody who isn't drunk on the kool aid could easily recognize the torrent of lies flowing out of DC with regard to Benghazi.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
04-24-2013, 04:50 PM
04-24-2013, 05:54 PM
American peoples suicidal thoughts under Bush-25%, suicidal thoughts under Obama-99.9%
04-24-2013, 07:59 PM
nky Wrote:[Image: http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/images/obamavsbush.jpg]
Can we see an Iraq war graph?
04-24-2013, 08:00 PM
RunItUpTheGut Wrote:American peoples suicidal thoughts under Bush-25%, suicidal thoughts under Obama-99.9%
:thatsfunn
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
04-24-2013, 10:11 PM
nky Wrote:[Image: http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/images/obamavsbush.jpg]
All the rhetoric about ending the war in Afghanistan and putting Al Qaeda on the run were just campaign slogans. It was all about staying in power for BHO. Now that he has been reelected, the fact he has seen the death toll triple under his watch means squat to him. After all, these guys don't vote for him, they vote for the other guy.
I hope Jason Chaffetz doesn't weary of the chase. We deserve to know the truth about Benghazi. And we deserve to get full disclosure on presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. If she misled the American people about this matter, as President Clintonette we could expect more of the same.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
04-25-2013, 06:18 AM
Know something RealVille....you blast racism at every opportunity. Remember the remark from Clinton about Obama "carrying our bags"? Even with that remark IN PRINT, they sort of suck up to one another on a monumental level. It's the same with Republicans, too. When we start debating in here, lots of times we get so defensive that we can lose some of our perspective. I know that I do.
Bottom line is there's good/bad in every party, good/bad in every human. It's up to us as American citizens to weed through issues, and make a smart decision. Lord knows, this day and time, the media doesn't lend an unbiased opinion. It's more difficult to make an "informed" decision these days than it has been in the past.
It never ceases to surprise me how many sheeple are in the kool aid line.
Bottom line is there's good/bad in every party, good/bad in every human. It's up to us as American citizens to weed through issues, and make a smart decision. Lord knows, this day and time, the media doesn't lend an unbiased opinion. It's more difficult to make an "informed" decision these days than it has been in the past.
It never ceases to surprise me how many sheeple are in the kool aid line.
04-25-2013, 07:17 AM
Granny Bear Wrote:Know something RealVille....you blast racism at every opportunity. Remember the remark from Clinton about Obama "carrying our bags"? Even with that remark IN PRINT, they sort of suck up to one another on a monumental level. It's the same with Republicans, too. When we start debating in here, lots of times we get so defensive that we can lose some of our perspective. I know that I do.Reported, never proven.
Bottom line is there's good/bad in every party, good/bad in every human. It's up to us as American citizens to weed through issues, and make a smart decision. Lord knows, this day and time, the media doesn't lend an unbiased opinion. It's more difficult to make an "informed" decision these days than it has been in the past.
It never ceases to surprise me how many sheeple are in the kool aid line.
I don't really know the point of your post, Granny. I know there is good and bad, on both sides. Aren't the republicans here sheeple for the other side. I don't remember any here giving the former administration to much mouth for ALL the bad he did. He brought this country to it's knees, and nobody said a word.
04-25-2013, 07:22 AM
I for one, tried to get Hillary over Obama.
04-25-2013, 07:50 AM
Granny Bear Wrote:Know something RealVille....you blast racism at every opportunity. Remember the remark from Clinton about Obama "carrying our bags"? Even with that remark IN PRINT, they sort of suck up to one another on a monumental level. It's the same with Republicans, too. When we start debating in here, lots of times we get so defensive that we can lose some of our perspective. I know that I do.Let me ask you a question, Granny. How many democrats have you voted for, on the state or national level, in the last 20 years?
Bottom line is there's good/bad in every party, good/bad in every human. It's up to us as American citizens to weed through issues, and make a smart decision. Lord knows, this day and time, the media doesn't lend an unbiased opinion. It's more difficult to make an "informed" decision these days than it has been in the past.
It never ceases to surprise me how many sheeple are in the kool aid line.
04-25-2013, 08:24 AM
I don't know RV, it just seems to me that when everyone gets into these debates, good sense is sometimes left behind.
Years ago, I voted for a very few democrats on the national level. Right now, I can't remember the last time I voted democratic. As far as state level is concerned, I've voted democratic far more. The man I work for was State Rep for our area for two terms. I voted, worked and was chairperson of his campaign both times he ran. He's a democrat.
Bottom line, he was a good person with sound morals and ideas.
To be honest, I believe it is getting more and more difficult to find people willing to serve in this capacity who fit that description.
Years ago, I voted for a very few democrats on the national level. Right now, I can't remember the last time I voted democratic. As far as state level is concerned, I've voted democratic far more. The man I work for was State Rep for our area for two terms. I voted, worked and was chairperson of his campaign both times he ran. He's a democrat.
Bottom line, he was a good person with sound morals and ideas.
To be honest, I believe it is getting more and more difficult to find people willing to serve in this capacity who fit that description.
04-25-2013, 02:54 PM
^
Democrats have gotten to far caught up in being everything to the extreme.
They automatically believe they have to love gays, pro choice, and mexicans.
Its all about party, party, party. Well the democratic party use to be a good party before they quit worrying about people and only worried about party.
Democrats have gotten to far caught up in being everything to the extreme.
They automatically believe they have to love gays, pro choice, and mexicans.
Its all about party, party, party. Well the democratic party use to be a good party before they quit worrying about people and only worried about party.
05-06-2013, 11:54 AM
05-06-2013, 10:09 PM
crickets
05-06-2013, 10:18 PM
WideMiddle03 Wrote:look at this
http://news.yahoo.com/benghazi-whistlebl...36065.html
It's finally coming to head. Some people cannot be threatened into not testifying honestly. We'll see how it all turns out.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
05-07-2013, 07:58 AM
TheRealThing Wrote:It's finally coming to head. Some people cannot be threatened into not testifying honestly. We'll see how it all turns out.
At this point I tend to believe that Hillary could come out and admit she fired the RPG that night that killed Americans and she still would nominated in 2016.
Wait and see, if she comes out of this with two black eyes the media will sway public opinion back in her favor while making liars out of those that testify...just wait and see.
The majority of voters in this country are absolute morons. It is right at the point she so vividly made...WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?!
05-07-2013, 08:30 AM
SKINNYPIG Wrote:At this point I tend to believe that Hillary could come out and admit she fired the RPG that night that killed Americans and she still would nominated in 2016.
Wait and see, if she comes out of this with two black eyes the media will sway public opinion back in her favor while making liars out of those that testify...just wait and see.
The majority of voters in this country are absolute morons. It is right at the point she so vividly made...WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?!
even the liberal media knows something is up
http://news.yahoo.com/benghazi-ghosts-ha...00914.html
hopefully our voters will know the difference
people can say what they want about romney but he was dead on with his 47% comment
like with obama, these people will vote for hillary no matter what
although she doesn't have the media around her finger as good as obama does, even she complained about the bias for obama in the 08 primary
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
