Chef Jim Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 She said their deaths don't matter? Out of context much? She said what caused those deaths don't matter. That's leadership for ya huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 yes, he most certainly was. what ever happened to him....does anyone know? I'm guessing he's in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 She said what caused those deaths don't matter. That's leadership for ya huh? What was the context of the question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 What was the context of the question? http://youtu.be/u0jo1h35EU0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 She said what caused those deaths don't matter. That's leadership for ya huh? Her leadership won't matter. The left is already crying sexism whenever anyone questions Hillary's accomplishments That didn't take long... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 Do you like your President-to-be with long hair or short hair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 What was the context of the question? The context is her answer. Never was there more of a contracticion in a statement than this: “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?” Clinton asked the Republican Senator. “It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again.” So we need to find out what happened so we can prevent it but what difference does it make what happened. That is just the convoluted response from a confused hysterical person. Not the type of person I want as President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 The context is her answer. Never was there more of a contracticion in a statement than this: So we need to find out what happened so we can prevent it but what difference does it make what happened. That is just the convoluted response from a confused hysterical person. Not the type of person I want as President. Wow, you really got something there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 Wow, you really got something there... You don't see the contradiction in her statement? By the way the two scenarios she posed (a protest and some guys out walking around that wanted to kill Americans)? She knew damn well at that point it was neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 You don't see the contradiction in her statement? By the way the two scenarios she posed (a protest and some guys out walking around that wanted to kill Americans)? She knew damn well at that point it was neither. A Republican President lies us into a nation building fiasco in which there are thousands os casualties and perhaps trillions of dollars wasted and the country is suppose to get all bent out of shape about a surprise attack in the middle east on one of our embassies? Well, it doesn't seem to be happening. As much as Conservatives want to call the American people ignorant and brainwashed, they are not falling for this scam. Our next "Commander in Chief ? Hillary Cancels Friday Speech Where Benghazi Victim's Mom, Protestors Await... It's the new Cindy Sheehan!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 A Republican President lies us into a nation building fiasco in which there are thousands os casualties and perhaps trillions of dollars wasted and the country is suppose to get all bent out of shape about a surprise attack in the middle east on one of our embassies? Well, it doesn't seem to be happening. As much as Conservatives want to call the American people ignorant and brainwashed, they are not falling for this scam. It's the new Cindy Sheehan!!! Well, since you know damn well that's not how it happened, who would be the liar here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 A Republican President lies us into a nation building fiasco in which there are thousands os casualties and perhaps trillions of dollars wasted and the country is suppose to get all bent out of shape about a surprise attack in the middle east on one of our embassies? Well, it doesn't seem to be happening. As much as Conservatives want to call the American people ignorant and brainwashed, they are not falling for this scam. It's the new Cindy Sheehan!!! McKinley freaking blew up the Maine and lies to us about it. Millions, then, were wasted, as we tried to help liberate Cuba and rebuild their nation. Of course it was no surprise that decades later they still hold a grudge and dudes like Castro still f with us. That rebuilding of Cuba went so good. As much as Conservatives want to call the American people ignorant and brainwashed, they are not falling for this scam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 (edited) A Republican President lies us into a nation building fiasco in which there are thousands os casualties and perhaps trillions of dollars wasted and the country is suppose to get all bent out of shape about a surprise attack in the middle east on one of our embassies? Well, it doesn't seem to be happening. As much as Conservatives want to call the American people ignorant and brainwashed, they are not falling for this scam. Using "...but BOOOOOOOOSH!!!!!111" to excuse Obama's malfeasance is so 2009. Get with the times, brah. Edited April 13, 2014 by Koko78 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 (edited) Benghazi cover-up was more to protect Hillary than Obama http://www.washingto...5SoG8dk.twitter . They are just getting this now? Man who changes talking points to suit Obama narrative, that just happens to protect Hillary...gets job working for Clinton "research group" right after he quits government. Yeah, what a coincidence! This whole thing has always been about Hillary. The right has been looking in the wrong place, largely because they made a bad assumption. The bad assumption? That Obama/his staff is actually competent enough, and has enough personal wealth and political clout in DC, to pull something like this off. All we know about Obama/his staff is governing incompetence. So, why would we assume that on this one issue, they were not only competent, but quick and smart enough to respond this well? Ask yourself: does Obama have any real political power beyond the office he currently holds? Will he have any power when he leaves? Does he have personally funded "strategy companies" just laying around waiting to hire people as reward for doing his unseemly bidding? Of course not. In fact, unless he tries to pull a Jimmy Carter, he's going to be completely ignored when he leaves(Obama, post-president is going to be a real shitshow of consistent embarrassment for the left, but, that's for later). The right appears to have forgotten this as well. The right can't seem to shake the idea that Obama is nothing more than a Hollywood character actor. He's the black guy that you hire to make the show more "real", and...what are the other words they like to use? Oh yes, "marketable...to a larger audience". Ask GreggyT, he's the expert. Obama: the LL Cool J of Democratic politics. Now ask yourself: how much political power/$ did Hillary have before she lost the nomination, after, the entire time in office, and now? Answer: tons. Clintons have people willing to shove NSC papers in thier socks: http://en.wikipedia....ki/Sandy_Berger And guess who showed up as NS advisor in 2008? They, meaning the real power in D politics, see Hillary as Chris O'Donnell, the actual reason the show does well. They have to protect "the show", so they have to protect "the Hillary". They can always re-write the script, and find themselves another Obama. There are plenty of Obama wannabes lying around. But, there are very few stars in D politics today, and nobody is a bigger star than Hillary. None of the DC establishment ever forgot what a Clinton means to them, and what a satisfied Clinton can do for them, just because they let this Obama thing get away from them. Edited April 15, 2014 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 A Republican President lies us into a nation building fiasco in which there are thousands os casualties and perhaps trillions of dollars wasted and the country is suppose to get all bent out of shape about a surprise attack in the middle east on one of our embassies? Well, it doesn't seem to be happening. As much as Conservatives want to call the American people ignorant and brainwashed, they are not falling for this scam. Ohhh I get it now. What a fool I've been. Seeing someone has a bigger lie (which I'd like to see your proof) any lie that comes after it (no matter how big, just as long as the death toll and money spent is lower) is no big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 What a fool I've been. Thank you! Now please do not follow this up with a question to explain what a fool is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Ohhh I get it now. What a fool I've been. Seeing someone has a bigger lie (which I'd like to see your proof) any lie that comes after it (no matter how big, just as long as the death toll and money spent is lower) is no big deal. Sorta. But not really. Accepting the "original sin" of the Bill Clinton/Lewinsky lie has gotten them where they are today. It's the social contract they've written for themselves. Ever since they took it upon themselves to defend Clinton's bald-faced lie, they now have to defend all other bald-faced lies from any leftist. It's about: consistency. The Clinton lie made Obama, and really, his handlers, think it was OK to tell the "If you like your doctor/plan you can keep it" lie. Or, in this case, makes it Ok to keep telling the Benghazi lie. It makes going on TV and telling everybody the same big lie, that you are almost certainly going to get caught telling....feasible. So, we can see the great effect it has. It causes new outrageous lies to be considered plausible political tactics/strategy, even though the consequences of getting caught does incalculable political damage. Because? "Bill Clinton got away with it, so why can't we?" They are blind to the risk, because they think it won't happen to them, because it didn't happen to Bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Sorta. But not really. Accepting the "original sin" of the Bill Clinton/Lewinsky lie has gotten them where they are today. It's the social contract they've written for themselves. Ever since they took it upon themselves to defend Clinton's bald-faced lie, they now have to defend all other bald-faced lies from any leftist. It's about: consistency. The Clinton lie made Obama, and really, his handlers, think it was OK to tell the "If you like your doctor/plan you can keep it" lie. Or, in this case, makes it Ok to keep telling the Benghazi lie. It makes going on TV and telling everybody the same big lie, that you are almost certainly going to get caught telling....feasible. So, we can see the great effect it has. It causes new outrageous lies to be considered plausible political tactics/strategy, even though the consequences of getting caught does incalculable political damage. Because? "Bill Clinton got away with it, so why can't we?" They are blind to the risk, because they think it won't happen to them, because it didn't happen to Bill. And he thought it was only going to be a little BJ, now people are losing their doctors and the President is murdering ambassadors...tangled web Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Thank you! Now please do not follow this up with a question to explain what a fool is... I do have one more question (BTW I'm a huge Columbo fan). Can you explain to me why the Iraq fiasco means the country should not get bent out of shape about Benghazi? What does one event have to do with the other? Sorry that was two questions. Can you handle that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 I do have one more question (BTW I'm a huge Columbo fan). Can you explain to me why the Iraq fiasco means the country should not get bent out of shape about Benghazi? What does one event have to do with the other? Sorry that was two questions. Can you handle that? Sure, because the war was based on a huge serious of lies leading us into an expensive fiasco in lives and treasure while Obama's lies, if there even were any, were expost facto and had no influence on the events. You don't see that though, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts