Mr. Speaker! We Need To Get Back To Benghazi

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.

Oh, so only military experienced people can offer opinions on Benghazi? Even, if you do some research, that it was the military powers in the area that denied requests for help?

Oh now the NYT's article is a "puff piece", one trying to make Hillary look good?

Faced with all the facts, you obfuscate. You've never been in a real debate, have you?
 
Here's some military experience:

We are at war. Sometimes in war, you lose a battle or two. We lost a battle. Get over it.
 
Being mostly young and lightly educated, they tend to be incapable of serious conversation.

Dude you had your chance and I think if you look back I gave you 4 chances to enter into a conversation. This is not an unsubstantiated claim, anyone can go back and read the last few pages.

You were either incapable or unwilling and that's why we're here, there was no where else to go.

But, like your kind, you cannot even except that small amount of responsibility either.

Woof!
 
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
.

Nothing left for you to do but declare victory and move on here!

You've successfully trolled another thread and kept your record of consecutive fact-free posts intact.
 
It is amusing to ask the age-educ-experience question of trolls because they run from it.

If trolls -- here and in every other Internet cesspool -- could deal in substantive fashion with the issue at hand, they would.

They can't, so they post insults.

But any Benghazi thread will continue because the Times merely stirred up the issue rather than resolving it.

National security is a part of every presidential reelection campaign, and it is indisputable that Obama and his minions touted daily Obama's role in bin Laden's demise.

Along came what State knew almost instantly was a terrorist attack and it bid fair to destroy Obama's reelection nat security narrative.

So they claimed a catalyzing video despite testimony from those there that it was a "non-event."

In the grand tradition of LBJ and Nixon et al., Obama and his minions were confronted by a problem and so they lied.
 
You know what trolling is? It's calling the place you hang a cesspool and repeating the same incorrect nonsense over and over again.
 
Landslider, most of us will NEVER answer asinine questions in PMs. Why? Because it's none of your FUCKING BUSINESS.

But it it keeps you from obfuscating:

49
College educated, two Associates degrees: Business Administration, Computer Science
None, because I failed the Federally mandated eye exam: I almost had my left eye poked out when I was 10, the small twig ripped a couple of tendons under my eye, making it weak. If I were to lose my glasses during combat, as the military doctor said, I would be FUCKED!
 
Trolls repeat the same insults, which they would not utter in real life, day after day after day.
They do so in tens of thousands of posts.

Attempting to steer the thread away from inarticulate jackals back to the topic is hardly repetitive.

National security is a part of every presidential reelection campaign, and it is indisputable that Obama and his minions touted daily Obama's role in bin Laden's demise.

Along came what State knew almost instantly was a terrorist attack and it bid fair to destroy Obama's reelection nat security narrative.

So they claimed a catalyzing video despite testimony from those there that it was a "non-event."

In the grand tradition of LBJ and Nixon et al., Obama and his minions were confronted by a problem and so they lied.
 
If trolls -- here and in every other Internet cesspool -- could deal in substantive fashion with the issue at hand, they would.

<sigh> If you have any intent to deal with this matter in a “substantive fashion” what is require is that you back-up , substantiate one of the central points of your claims.

And until you do so all we are doing is discussing something that is going on in your head and not reality.

Woof!
 
Trolls repeat the same insults, which they would not utter in real life, day after day after day.
They do so in tens of thousands of posts.

Attempting to steer the thread away from inarticulate jackals back to the topic is hardly repetitive.

National security is a part of every presidential reelection campaign, and it is indisputable that Obama and his minions touted daily Obama's role in bin Laden's demise.

Along came what State knew almost instantly was a terrorist attack and it bid fair to destroy Obama's reelection nat security narrative.

So they claimed a catalyzing video despite testimony from those there that it was a "non-event."

In the grand tradition of LBJ and Nixon et al., Obama and his minions were confronted by a problem and so they lied.

trolls obfuscate and blame the messenger. You have done both.

If this is such a cesspool, why are you here then?
 
Hey guys, I think Landslider has passed the criteria for the don't quote him club, don't you?
 
He's one of those low-information voters you hear tell about.

You mean the ones who eat falling paint chips from the ceiling as ersatz nachos because the body is made up of "chemicals" anyway so what harm could they do?
 
Back
Top