Mr. Speaker! We Need To Get Back To Benghazi

[unregistered]

 

[phrodeau]

Not accurate in regard to funding. They probably didn't secure the outpost because it would have drawn attention to the dire security situation in Benghazi when Obama was saying bin Laden's demise had mostly quelled terrorism.

So Obama, Rice, and Hillary concocted the fairy tale about a precipitating video. And they lied on as many TV shows as would have them.

The other sad thing is that the once-august NY Times, once deemed to be scribbling the first draft of history, is now reduced to spindoctoring for Obama and Hillary.

Genuine discussion has nothing to do with Person A versus Person B on a porn bulletin board.

Obama's reelection campaign had a focus, inter alia, on his oversight of the killing of bin Laden and the end of the war in Iraq, with the thrust that it had the intrinsic effect of quelling terrorism.

Did Obama actually say it, or is it only your opinion that he meant to?

Or were you simply telling lies?

 

[landslider2000]

Trolls here seek to drag every discussion away from the issue and down into the mire of insults.
Genuine discussion has nothing to do with Person A versus Person B on a porn bulletin board.

It is beyond dispute that Obama's reelection campaign had a focus, inter alia, on his oversight of the killing of bin Laden and the end of the war in Iraq, with the thrust that it had the intrinsic effect of quelling terrorism.

 

[phrodeau]

Trolls here seek to drag every discussion away from the issue and down into the mire of insults.
Genuine discussion has nothing to do with Person A versus Person B on a porn bulletin board.

It is beyond dispute that Obama's reelection campaign had a focus, inter alia, on his oversight of the killing of bin Laden and the end of the war in Iraq, with the thrust that it had the intrinsic effect of quelling terrorism.

Funny, but you seem to be disputing your own earlier claim. Maybe you need to familiarize yourself with the meaning of words like "dispute" and "quell".

 

[Bad_Doggie]

Genuine discussion has nothing to do with Person A versus Person B on a porn bulletin board.

Genuine discussion depends on the attitudes of the individuals concerned; on a porn board, at a bar or anywhere else for that matter.

So far I’ve ask you one simple question in a civil tone to substantiate something that you have repeatedly claimed as part of your argument. And rather than answer that question in a simple and civil way you have instead accused me, without foundation, of attempting to bring the discussion to a mire of insults. So let it be noted here where any insults started, with you, so don’t whine about it if it does degenerate to such.

Obama's reelection campaign had a focus, inter alia, on his oversight of the killing of bin Laden and the end of the war in Iraq, with the thrust that it had the intrinsic effect of quelling terrorism.

I’ll ask you yet again for a quote where Obama makes a suggestion that terrorism has be quelled, it certainly wasn’t in the article you directed me to, not even close.

That said the killing of OBL was a major setback for terrorism in general al qaeda in particular, it would be ridiculous to claim otherwise……but quelled???

Woof!

 

[Sean]

Trolls here seek to drag every discussion away from the issue and down into the mire of insults.
Genuine discussion has nothing to do with Person A versus Person B on a porn bulletin board.

It is beyond dispute that Obama's reelection campaign had a focus, inter alia, on his oversight of the killing of bin Laden and the end of the war in Iraq, with the thrust that it had the intrinsic effect of quelling terrorism.

And all you do is repeat the same bullshit post over and over again. When asked for evidence, you repeat exactly the same post. You're a joke.

 

[landslider2000]

It is beyond dispute that Obama's reelection campaign had a focus, inter alia, on his oversight of the killing of bin Laden and the end of the war in Iraq, with the thrust that it had the intrinsic effect of quelling terrorism. This was stump material throughout the campaign.

It worked in the sense that Obama won the election. But there was a price to pay for the absurd argument that a video (described in testimony as a "non-event" in Benghazi) catalyzed the attack.

The Times would have continued to essentially ignore Benghazi but for the need to clear a path for Hillary.

If they had just admitted the failure to secure the outpost, and the failure to help its defenders, the White House would have been spared all the subsequent attempts to explain away the lies about a video.

 

[Sean]

It is beyond dispute that Obama's reelection campaign had a focus, inter alia, on his oversight of the killing of bin Laden and the end of the war in Iraq, with the thrust that it had the intrinsic effect of quelling terrorism. This was stump material throughout the campaign.

It worked in the sense that Obama won the election. But there was a price to pay for the absurd argument that a video (described in testimony as a "non-event" in Benghazi) catalyzed the attack.

The Times would have continued to essentially ignore Benghazi but for the need to clear a path for Hillary.

If they had just admitted the failure to secure the outpost, and the failure to help its defenders, the White House would have been spared all the subsequent attempts to explain away the lies about a video.

It's like trying to talk sense into a fucking two year old.

EVIDENCE!​

 

[landslider2000]

Yep, there was a plethora of evidence in the form of hundreds of stump speeches made by Obama throughout the campaign.

And it is like talking to a child to explain that genuine discussion consists of more than posting insults.

It is beyond dispute that Obama's reelection campaign had a focus, inter alia, on his oversight of the killing of bin Laden and the end of the war in Iraq, with the thrust that it had the intrinsic effect of quelling terrorism. This was stump material throughout the campaign.

It worked in the sense that Obama won the election. But there was a price to pay for the absurd argument that a video (described in testimony as a "non-event" in Benghazi) catalyzed the attack.

The Times would have continued to essentially ignore Benghazi but for the need to clear a path for Hillary.

If they had just admitted the failure to secure the outpost, and the failure to help its defenders, the White House would have been spared all the subsequent attempts to explain away the lies about a video.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

It is beyond dispute that Obama's reelection campaign had a focus, inter alia, on his oversight of the killing of bin Laden and the end of the war in Iraq, with the thrust that it had the intrinsic effect of quelling terrorism. This was stump material throughout the campaign.

It worked in the sense that Obama won the election. But there was a price to pay for the absurd argument that a video (described in testimony as a "non-event" in Benghazi) catalyzed the attack.

The Times would have continued to essentially ignore Benghazi but for the need to clear a path for Hillary.

If they had just admitted the failure to secure the outpost, and the failure to help its defenders, the White House would have been spared all the subsequent attempts to explain away the lies about a video.

Look it's a simple fucking question did Obama make the claim that terrorism had be quelled or not and if so where?

Woof!

 

[Adre]

As long as you folks keep quoting the attention seeker he'll post the same bullshit.

 

[landslider2000]

"It is beyond dispute that Obama's reelection campaign had a focus, inter alia, on his oversight of the killing of bin Laden and the end of the war in Iraq, with the thrust that it had the intrinsic effect of quelling terrorism. This was stump material throughout the campaign."

 

[Bad_Doggie]

"It is beyond dispute that Obama's reelection campaign had a focus, inter alia, on his oversight of the killing of bin Laden and the end of the war in Iraq, with the thrust that it had the intrinsic effect of quelling terrorism. This was stump material throughout the campaign."

It is in dispute because you are unable, or unwilling, to substantiate one of your core claims.

In fact at this point it is starting to look like an outright lie made for wanton political gain and that being the case it bringings into question the rest of what you have claimed here.

Woof!

 

[Sean]

"It is beyond dispute that Obama's reelection campaign had a focus, inter alia, on his oversight of the killing of bin Laden and the end of the war in Iraq, with the thrust that it had the intrinsic effect of quelling terrorism. This was stump material throughout the campaign."

Don't send me PMs because you can't back up your bullshit, you pathetic little nobody.

 

[landslider2000]

Look at all the people wanting to post insults, but adding absolutely nothing about Benghazi.

What everybody here does have to agree upon is that no serious discussion is possible because every thread is dragged down to the level of insults.

Obama's reelection campaign was very amply documented, and he made stump speech after stump speech citing his approval of the hit on bin Laden.

The lies about the Benghazi video worked in the sense that Obama won the election.

But there was a price to pay for the absurd argument that a video (described in testimony as a "non-event" in Benghazi) catalyzed the attack.

The Times would have continued to essentially ignore Benghazi but for the need to clear a path for Hillary.

If they had just admitted the failure to secure the outpost, and the failure to help its defenders, the White House would have been spared all the subsequent attempts to explain away the lies about a video.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

Look at all the people wanting to post insults, but adding absolutely nothing about Benghazi.

What everybody here does have to agree upon is that no serious discussion is possible because every thread is dragged down to the level of insults.

Obama's reelection campaign was very amply documented, and he made stump speech after stump speech citing his approval of the hit on bin Laden.

The lies about the Benghazi video worked in the sense that Obama won the election.

But there was a price to pay for the absurd argument that a video (described in testimony as a "non-event" in Benghazi) catalyzed the attack.

The Times would have continued to essentially ignore Benghazi but for the need to clear a path for Hillary.

If they had just admitted the failure to secure the outpost, and the failure to help its defenders, the White House would have been spared all the subsequent attempts to explain away the lies about a video.

So let’s get this straight…..you ‘re whining about people being insulting and not discussing the subject at hand.

Then you’re asked an on topic question about a main claim to your argument in a civil way.

You respond to this by being insulting.

You then lie that it’s substantiated and direct me to an article which doesn’t even mention the thing that you claim to have been said, in any way shape or form.
You continue repeat the same refuted non-sense as before again without substantiating a damn thing.

You sit there and wonder why you get insulted.

Believe me, it’s nothing to do with the topic or what is being discussed……it’s because you’re fucking idiot.

Woof!

 

[Bad_Doggie]

Don't send me PMs because you can't back up your bullshit, you pathetic little nobody.

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s232/Bad_Doggie/LaughingDog.gif

What?

Woof!

 

[Sean]

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s232/Bad_Doggie/LaughingDog.gif

What?

Woof!

He sent me a PM asking my age, education and experience. I don't have the heart to tell him I have a GF.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

As long as you folks keep quoting the attention seeker he'll post the same bullshit.

It is beyond dispute that landslider2000's repeating posts has a focus, inter alia, on his overuse and misunderstanding of the word "quell," with the thrust that it has the intrinsic effect of derping threads into tar-consistency muck.

 

[landslider2000]

It would be interesting -- well, mildly -- to know the age, education, vocational experience, and military experience of some of the trolls here.

This is so because they seem so puerile and incapable of rational discourse.

Meanwhile, Obama's reelection campaign was very amply documented. In stump speech after stump speech, he touted his national security credentials from approving the hit on bin Laden.

It worked in the sense that Obama won the election. But there was a price to pay for the absurd argument that a video (described in testimony as a "non-event" in Benghazi) catalyzed the attack.

The Times would have continued to essentially ignore Benghazi but for the need to clear a path for Hillary.

If they had just admitted the failure to secure the outpost, and the failure to help its defenders, the White House would have been spared all the subsequent attempts to explain away the lies about a video.

 

[Sean]

Meanwhile, Obama's reelection campaign was very amply documented..

Then it should be very easy for you to back up your claim, shouldn't it?

 

[Bad_Doggie]

He sent me a PM asking my age, education and experience. I don't have the heart to tell him I have a GF.

A pm containing a slightly, but not much, advanced version of "asl" lucky you.

It fits.

Woof!

 

[landslider2000]

Vide the election campaign, kiddo.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

This is so because they seem so puerile and incapable of rational discourse.

I know it's beyond your limited ability to realize, but, I tried that and you have proven yourself incapable of rational discourse in an honest way.....the reason you are being ridiculed is no one's fault except your own.

Woof!

 

[landslider2000]

Threads, at least in a cesspool such as this, follow a predictable path.

First an assertion of some sort, then the ideological trolls gather.

Being mostly young and lightly educated, they tend to be incapable of serious conversation.

So they do all they can do -- seek to personalize the discussion and drag it down into an exchange of insults.

That happened here.

Now we are in the final phase of the thread (at least for today), which is where juvenile jackals gather to congratulate each other in simpering fashion.