Hillary

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Where's the proof?

-spence

I assume you ignored my link.

(1) there is video of her saying, during testimony to Congress, that she didn't personally reject any requests for increased security from her employees in Libya.

(2) it is coming out that some in Congress have memos, signed by her, that rejected the requests for security.

I'll say this...if those congressmen (mostly conservatives) who say they have those documents are lying, they should be kicked out. If they are telling the truth, she should be charged with perjury.

There is no reason for them to lie about having documents signed by her...it's too easy to show that as a lie, and they would be attacked, justly, in the media. And if it matters, I haven't seen any liberals deny that those signed documents exist...rather, the liberals are just ignoring this.

[Raven]

Hillary is unaware of her underwear

[Jim in CT]

Also, Spence...when confronted with the irrefutable evidence that she lied about being shot at, your response was that it doesn't really matter. SO to you, it's OK when liberals lie.

Some of us hope that our elected officials could be held to a slightly higher standard. The families of the 4 dead Americans, are entitled to an jonest explanation of what happened, EVEN IF the truth is inconvenient for those in your party. Dont you agree?

This woman lost her credibility with her past deceit, so we need to investigate.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

This woman lost her credibility with her past deceit, so we need to investigate.

Yup, and she loses either way. As Secretary of State the buck stops there.
If she didn't know Benghazi was a hot spot and taken action to beef up security, she loses. If she knew about it she loses.

What is it that "doesn't matter" Madam Secretary?

Again, show us the tape in the situation room in real time the night of the attack.
That will settle everything.

[justplugit]

To follow up, Bret Baird started a 3 part series today which included an interview of a member of a special military ops group that was 3 and 1/2 hours away, able to get there in time for the second half of the fight.
In addition it was reported that 3 whistle blowers from the State Dept. and 1
from the CIA have lawyered up in order to give info about Benghazi.
Just sayin.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

To follow up, Bret Baird started a 3 part series today which included an interview of a member of a special military ops group that was 3 and 1/2 hours away, able to get there in time for the second half of the fight.
In addition it was reported that 3 whistle blowers from the State Dept. and 1
from the CIA have lawyered up in order to give info about Benghazi.
Just sayin.

I think that's from last fall before the Mullen report. What's funny is that while the Mullen report lays plenty of blame on the State Department, because it doesn't hang Clinton people like Jim ignore it.

GOD PLEASE LET THERE BE A CONSPIRACY

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

I think that's from last fall before the Mullen report. What's funny is that while the Mullen report lays plenty of blame on the State Department, because it doesn't hang Clinton people like Jim ignore it.

GOD PLEASE LET THERE BE A CONSPIRACY

-spence

No Spence, it was the lead story on his 6PM program today and will continue for 2 more nights.

GOD PLEASE LET THE TRUTH COME OUT NO MATTER WHAT IT IS.

[Nebe]

How about the 1 million families in Iraq who had family members die due to the bush administration's lies? How do you think they feel?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Nebe

How about the 1 million families in Iraq who had family members die due to the bush administration's lies? How do you think they feel?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What the hell does that have to do with this?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

How about the 1 million families in Iraq who had family members die due to the bush administration's lies? How do you think they feel?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm sure they are devastated. And if President Bush did indeed lie about starting that war, he should be punished for the pain and suffering he caused. He hasn't been so punished, because no sane person believes that he lied about the war because his goal was to make money. He (and many liberal Democrats) were "wrong" about WMDs. That doesn't mean they lied.

However, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton are not charged with looking out for the welfare of families in Iraq. They are charged with protecting and representing American interests. Failing to provide available help to Americans under fire, and then blaming the attack on another American citizen who made a dopey video, are serious charges that need to be investigated. There's abundant evidence that suggests gross incompetence, as well as a possible cover-up.

[Nebe]

Agreed. Your point is valid.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Completely off topic. Halliburton charges the us government $75 for a soldier's single load of laundry in Iraq.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

It's been pointed out before and it's clear to this point that the administrations and The sec of states response was all about 4 more years and not about 4 human lives
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Sounds like your a little biased Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Sounds like your a little biased Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The lady said she was shot at by snipers, which never happened.

I said she lied, which she clearly did.

Spence siad she "mischaracterized" what happened.

And I am the one who is biased. Got it.

My wife likes blown glass, is that what you do? Do you have a website?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The lady said she was shot at by snipers, which never happened.

Yes she did, but her lying isn't important to liberals. They will give her a
pass because maybe something traumatic happened in her past and she could
be rehabilitated. Like Spence says, credibility can be rebuilt.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by justplugit

credibility can be rebuilt.

At Present, see Mark Sanford.

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

At Present, see Mark Sanford.

Yes but extrapolating the demographics established by ScottW that would mean his supporters are not idiots.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

I said your biased because you knew the security team. If I had to wear a flak jacket after my plane was doing funny maneuvers, I'd think I was under fire as well... However. Under the risk of fire is different than under fire.
Yes I have a website. Google "the glass station Wakefield rhode island"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

I said your biased because you knew the security team. If I had to wear a flak jacket after my plane was doing funny maneuvers, I'd think I was under fire as well... However. Under the risk of fire is different than under fire.
Yes I have a website. Google "the glass station Wakefield rhode island"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Under the risk of fire is different than under fire. "

Very, very different. No one could ever confuse being shot at, with having to have a security detail but never coming under fire. If the pressure of simply having to take precautions, causes her to have delusional episodes about being in a combat situation, obviously she is nowhere near fit to be president. But she's not delusional, she's just a liar. Which, in a rational world, would also make her unfit for the Oval Office. But not if your last name is 'Clinton' or 'Kennedy'. If you are a democrat with one of those names, no amount of repugnant, immoral, hedonistic, greedy, degenarate actions, will ever cause the sheep to turn their backs on you.

My wife is excited to browse. I genuinely wish I had some creative talent...

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Under the risk of fire is different than under fire. "

Very, very different. No one could ever confuse being shot at, with having to have a security detail but never coming under fire. If the pressure of simply having to take precautions, causes her to have delusional episodes about being in a combat situation, obviously she is nowhere near fit to be president. But she's not delusional, she's just a liar. Which, in a rational world, would also make her unfit for the Oval Office. But not if your last name is 'Clinton' or 'Kennedy'. If you are a democrat with one of those names, no amount of repugnant, immoral, hedonistic, greedy, degenarate actions, will ever cause the sheep to turn their backs on you.

My wife is excited to browse. I genuinely wish I had some creative talent...

Jim. They are all liars! Ever single one. Republican and democrat.
The honest ones are the ones who lie less.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Jim. They are all liars! Ever single one. Republican and democrat.
The honest ones are the ones who lie less.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I hear you. The vast majority of career politicians are flawed. Similarly, if I had a sister, I'd tell her nnot to believe everything a guy tells her in a singles bar.

But Nebe...come on...you have to admit, it takes a special kind of liar, to be able to say with a straight face that you came under sniper fire, when you know that never happened.

Or my current favorite, CT Senator #^&#^&#^&#^& Blumenthal, democrat. Mr Blumenthal was caught lying about serving in the Vietnam War, he never went anywhere near Vietnam. Yet he won his election easily. I don't understand that, especially in this day and age, when we recognize the sacrifices those guys made. How do you nominate and then elect, such a weasel?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

But Nebe...come on...you have to admit, it takes a special kind of liar, to be able to say with a straight face that you came under sniper fire, when you know that never happened.

Or my current favorite, CT Senator #^&#^&#^&#^& Blumenthal, democrat. Mr Blumenthal was caught lying about serving in the Vietnam War, he never went anywhere near Vietnam. Yet he won his election easily. I don't understand that, especially in this day and age, when we recognize the sacrifices those guys made. How do you nominate and then elect, such a weasel?

Yes, the worst kind of liars in my mind, egocentric liars who try to build themselves up and fool others into thinking they are more than they are,insecure and not to be trusted.
Phonies.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

My wife is excited to browse.

You should take her shopping, he has plenty of warez that make great statement pieces in the house. Bring plenty of money

I genuinely wish I had some creative talent...

Ha, such modesty. When it comes to the application of facts you're a regular Leonardo Da Vinici

-spence

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by spence

Ha, such modesty. When it comes to the application of facts you're a regular Leonardo Da Vinici

-spence

LMFAO!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Ha, such modesty. When it comes to the application of facts you're a regular Leonardo Da Vinici

-spence

This from the guy who will not concede that Hilary lied about getting shot at...

[spence]

Yes 100% for sure. I guess that makes the majority a bunch of idiots.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Yes 100% for sure. I guess that makes the majority a bunch of idiots.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

aren't we told that all of the time?

both probably enjoy a helpful tailwind thanks to the fact that they've been media darlings since hitting the national scene...through good and bad the MSM has propped them both up....should probably add that "contex" when comparing those #'s to others who didn't enjoy the mediagasm to the same degree.......

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I guess that makes the majority a bunch of idiots.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You said it, not me...

I'd say 'clueless' rather than 'idiotic'. That, plus 99% of the media is in the bag for your side, and your side is great at putting a positive spin on an economically suicidal, and morally bankrupt, ideology.

My father, who is my hero, has a PhD in electrical engineering. He is brilliant. He, like most Catholics of his generation, grew up voting for Democrats, back in the 1950's, before the democrats got radicalized in the 1960's. Today, my Dad believes that as a conservative, I am out to steal his social security benefits. I can show him the numbers that clearly show that we need to either double the federal income tax, or make serious cuts to SS and medicare. He's not quite convinced, because every TV station except one, says that conservatives dislike old people and poor people.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You said it, not me...

I was extrapolating from ScottW's post.

I'd say 'clueless' rather than 'idiotic'. That, plus 99% of the media is in the bag for your side, and your side is great at putting a positive spin on an economically suicidal, and morally bankrupt, ideology.

I assume you're exempting FOX News which is #1 on TV, Rush and Hannity who are #1 and #2 on talk radio, the WSJ which is the largest newspaper in the country (followed by USA Today which isn't exactly a liberal rag).

We don't even need to go into the conservative personalities like Will, Krauthamer, Brooks, Doutha, Parker etc... etc... etc... that contribute regularly to the largest newspapers you've accused of being liberal.

I'd say your 99% number is off by about a billion.

My father, who is my hero, has a PhD in electrical engineering. He is brilliant. He, like most Catholics of his generation, grew up voting for Democrats, back in the 1950's, before the democrats got radicalized in the 1960's. Today, my Dad believes that as a conservative, I am out to steal his social security benefits. I can show him the numbers that clearly show that we need to either double the federal income tax, or make serious cuts to SS and medicare. He's not quite convinced, because every TV station except one, says that conservatives dislike old people and poor people.

He's probably like my father who believes he's paid into something with the assumption he's going to get a return in the form of income stability when they retire. He's made a deal with the country and believes the country has an obligation to make good on that contract.

I highly doubt your father with a PhD in EE has been brainwashed by the 99%.

-spence