Hillary "Rodent" Clinton Lied, 4 Peop...
First Prev
of 4
Next Last
right on right on righton

Fayetteville, AR

#61 May 10, 2013
not for pansy pinko libtards

“Radical Islam! Radical Islam! ”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#62 May 20, 2013
HILLARY GETS HERSELF A SCAPEGOAT...

Raymond Maxwell, the only official at the State Department's bureau of Near Eastern Affairs to lose his job after the attacks, tells Josh Rogin that he’s been scapegoated by Hillary Clinton.

Following the attack in Benghazi, senior State Department officials close to Hillary Clinton ordered the removal of a mid-level official who had no role in security decisions and has never been told the charges against him. He is now accusing Clinton’s team of scapegoating him for the failures that led to the death of four Americans last year.

Raymond Maxwell was placed on forced “administrative leave” after the State Department’s own internal investigation, conducted by an Administrative Review Board (ARB) led by former State Department official Tom Pickering. Five months after he was told to clean out his desk and leave the building, Maxwell remains in professional and legal limbo, having been associated publicly with the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other American for reasons that remain unclear.

Maxwell, who served as deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs from August 2011 until his removal last December, following tours in Iraq and Syria, spoke publicly for the first time in an exclusive interview with The Daily Beast.

“The overall goal is to restore my honor,” said Maxwell, who has now filed grievances regarding his treatment with the State Department’s human resources bureau and the American Foreign Service Association, which represents the interests of foreign-service officers. The other three officials placed on leave were in the diplomatic security bureau, leaving Maxwell as the only official in the bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA), which had responsibility for Libya, to lose his job.

“I had no involvement to any degree with decisions on security and the funding of security at our diplomatic mission in Benghazi,” he said.

“Radical Islam! Radical Islam! ”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#63 May 22, 2013
Former Democratic National committee chairman Howard Dean considers the controversy over Benghazi a “joke” and “silly.”

“Benghazi is a laughable joke,” Dean proclaimed twice last week in a discussion with Republican National Committee communications chairman Sean Spicer.

“With all due respect, governor, when four Americans die serving this country, that’s not a joke, sir,” Spicer responded.

“Oh, stop it,” Dean said.

The former Democratic presidential candidate also said that there were “no serious questions being asked about Benghazi” and brushed off the controversy over the administration’s response to the terrorist attack as an effort by Republicans to score political points.”It’s very clear what happened with Benghazi, this is ridiculous,” he said.

STUPID ELITIST PRICK
1961 Alumni Rolla MO

Rolla, MO

#64 May 23, 2013
guest wrote:
<quoted text>No you need to pull your head out of your ass. That reference, obviously you did not read, is a CIA report on the subject and it says yes dumbass there were WMD in Iraq. I served also, 20 years to be exact. I was in both Desert Sheild and Desert Storm. Yes I know exactly what I am talking about. If you were there then you know personally that there were chemical weapons of mass destruction found in several locations while we were on the ground there. Read the report. Maybe it will refresh your memory. That is if you were actually there. So you are the one who simply bends over and lets the government cram some more right up the brain you sit on. So as I said, read the actual report on the subject and educate your ignorant ass. Thanks for your service. We were probably in over there facing their chemical weapons of mass destruction at the same time.
Guest (St Louis),
If you were old enough to have served in the Desert Storm war you are old enough to have a little more sense than you've been demonstrating on this forum for the last few years!

How many times have you called me an old bat s--- and every vile name & insult you could sling at me while claiming you're having to work to pay for my medication & Social Security?

You are a disgrace to this forum & should be banned from posting here until you can demonstrate a little more respect.

You are nothing but a brain-washed right-wing media buff who doesn't have enough common sense to come in out of the rain.

After all - anyone who doesn't have enough sense to think for themself (like you)- and must depend on the right-wing noise machine to tell you how & what to think IS SURELY NOT THE SHARPEST TACK IN THE TOOL BOX. So, why don't you try to SMARTEN UP A LITTLE BIT, TURN OFF THE RIGHT-WING NOISE MACHIN & JOIN THE WORLD OF REALITY...

You know as well as I do that this so-called Benghazi scandal is nothing but a desperate attempt by Republicans to discredit Obama & Hillary for pure POLICTICAL GAIN.

Oh, and as for you having to pay for my meds & Social Security - you need to stay off the computer & get back to work on YOUR JOB! Because I'm a high-maintaince old broad & I need your money.

What you don't seem to understand is - I'M OLD & I'VE PAID MY DUES!

NOW, IT'S TIME YOU GET OFF YOUR BUTT - GET OFF THE COMPUTER & GET BACK TO WORK & PAY YOUR DUES...
and with that said

Kabul, Afghanistan

#65 May 23, 2013
Buckwheat Rules wrote:
<quoted text>
This whole Benghazi thing is an attempt by Fox News to prevent Hilary from running for President. They know she will trample any Teabilly that runs against her.
Fox and the Teapubs better try harder because a overwhelming majority of Americans like and will vote for Mrs. Clinton.
Must be part of that black helicopter crowd
and with that said

Kabul, Afghanistan

#66 May 23, 2013
1961 Alumni Rolla MO wrote:
<quoted text>
Guest (St Louis),
If you were old enough to have served in the Desert Storm war you are old enough to have a little more sense than you've been demonstrating on this forum for the last few years!
How many times have you called me an old bat s--- and every vile name & insult you could sling at me while claiming you're having to work to pay for my medication & Social Security?
You are a disgrace to this forum & should be banned from posting here until you can demonstrate a little more respect.
You are nothing but a brain-washed right-wing media buff who doesn't have enough common sense to come in out of the rain.
After all - anyone who doesn't have enough sense to think for themself (like you)- and must depend on the right-wing noise machine to tell you how & what to think IS SURELY NOT THE SHARPEST TACK IN THE TOOL BOX. So, why don't you try to SMARTEN UP A LITTLE BIT, TURN OFF THE RIGHT-WING NOISE MACHIN & JOIN THE WORLD OF REALITY...
You know as well as I do that this so-called Benghazi scandal is nothing but a desperate attempt by Republicans to discredit Obama & Hillary for pure POLICTICAL GAIN.
Oh, and as for you having to pay for my meds & Social Security - you need to stay off the computer & get back to work on YOUR JOB! Because I'm a high-maintaince old broad & I need your money.
What you don't seem to understand is - I'M OLD & I'VE PAID MY DUES!
NOW, IT'S TIME YOU GET OFF YOUR BUTT - GET OFF THE COMPUTER & GET BACK TO WORK & PAY YOUR DUES...
If it's "so-called" scandal, then why is the White House trying to cover it up? Why isn't the administration more open about the whole thing if no wrongs were committed? Why is it that after the president of libya said that the attacks had al-qaeda ties that the administration pushed susan rice out there on all the sunday talk shows saying that the blame rested on some video that practically no one saw? Why was the military told to stand down during the attacks? So much to answer for but yet we haven't heard a peep from the administration. If this is just a political ploy and there is no substance to it, then why doesn't the administration squash it by coming clean?

Oh sure it's a republican attack on obama, but only because the democrat party is lock step behind this man....no matter what he has or hasn't done.
and with that said

Kabul, Afghanistan

#67 May 23, 2013
Question to supplement the reply to your request. How in the hell did anyone survive prior to the new deal? Social Security didn't exist prior to the great socialist icon FDR. And yet it's this program that no one can live without today. It's quite a shame that one has to rely on the government. Plus you are wanting us to "pay dues" to something that we (the makers paying into this sham) will ever see at the rate it's going now. Unfunded liablilities for these social programs are $90 trillion.....there isn't enough money on the planet to cover this.
1961 Alumni Rolla MO

Rolla, MO

#68 May 23, 2013
and with that said wrote:
Question to supplement the reply to your request. How in the hell did anyone survive prior to the new deal? Social Security didn't exist prior to the great socialist icon FDR. And yet it's this program that no one can live without today. It's quite a shame that one has to rely on the government. Plus you are wanting us to "pay dues" to something that we (the makers paying into this sham) will ever see at the rate it's going now. Unfunded liablilities for these social programs are $90 trillion.....there isn't enough money on the planet to cover this.
You are right when you say Social Security & Medicare won't be around when your generation is ready to retire - ONLY - IF REPUBLICANS GET FULL CONTROL OF SOCIAL SECURITY & MECICARE!

Republicans fought tooth & nail with FDR & LBJ to keep these programs from ever being enacted in the first place - and through the years, they've fought to change or dismantel these programs - just as they are doing now.

All this fear mongering about Social Security & Medicare bankrupting this country is just another ploy by Republicans to take from the poor & elderly & give to the rich & powerful - SORT OF LIKE ROBIN HOOD IN REVERSE.

But, Republicans have no qualms about sending our young people to wars (all over the world) & spending trillions of dollars fighting wars which never have been started - and then turning around and rebuilding these countries after destroying them. Yet our own country's infastructure is left crumbling.

If Republicans would get out of the way & keep their mouths shut - Democrats would stabilize Medicare so it would be around for decades & also see that Social Security is there when your generation is old enough to depend upon it.

And finally, in answer to your question about how people survived before the NEW DEAL is - that IT WASN'T EASY!

When people got too old to work & take care of themselves - their grown kids or family took them in and provided for them. It was not unusual for three or four generations to be living in the same household back then.

But, for old people who were not lucky enough to have family to take them in - many times they STARVED TO DEATH or DIED FROM VERY TREATABLE ILLNESSES BECAUSE OF HAVING NO ONE TO CARE FOR THEM.

DO YOU REPUBLICANS REALLY WANT TO GO BACK TO THE WAY THINGS WERE BEFORE SOCIAL SECURITY & MEDICARE???

“Radical Islam! Radical Islam! ”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#69 May 23, 2013
and with that said wrote:
Question to supplement the reply to your request. How in the hell did anyone survive prior to the new deal? Social Security didn't exist prior to the great socialist icon FDR. And yet it's this program that no one can live without today. It's quite a shame that one has to rely on the government. Plus you are wanting us to "pay dues" to something that we (the makers paying into this sham) will ever see at the rate it's going now. Unfunded liablilities for these social programs are $90 trillion.....there isn't enough money on the planet to cover this.
that's the best question asked on this forum in a long time...lol
Benghazi Bob

Caruthersville, MO

#70 May 26, 2013
ComradeWinston wrote:
<quoted text>that's the best question asked on this forum in a long time...lol
Oh yea Comrade? Who was behind the budget cuts for security at the consulate in Benghazi? The Republicans, thats who. U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens twice turned down offers of security assistance made by the senior U.S. military official in the region in response to concerns that Stevens had raised in a still secret memorandum.
So you go ahead and blame Clinton and Obama till your last breath. Live the rest of you life as the fool you are today.

“Radical Islam! Radical Islam! ”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#71 May 27, 2013
Benghazi Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yea Comrade? Who was behind the budget cuts for security at the consulate in Benghazi? The Republicans, thats who. U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens twice turned down offers of security assistance made by the senior U.S. military official in the region in response to concerns that Stevens had raised in a still secret memorandum.
So you go ahead and blame Clinton and Obama till your last breath. Live the rest of you life as the fool you are today.
Obama thinking liberal democrats were behind the security failures in Benghazi.

They wanted to “project” the false view that Obama had won the war against al Qaeda, and no extra security measures were needed to protect our embassy employees. Of course, that was all total bullshIt, but Obama had an election to win and the Alum61’s, Benghazi Bobs and genes of this country are stupid enough to fall for anything….
Wrong

Malden, MO

#72 May 27, 2013
guest wrote:
So what about those americans Obama killed in Benghazi. Those are the cold hard facts. LOL. To much for you to handle huh genie the racist.
At least Obama didn't STEAL the election two times. He was voted in by the majority, so get over it. It is taking a long time to get over the MESS, the THIEF made this country in.
We know you are pushing to turn the AMERICAN people to the REPUBS for the next election.
and with that said

Kabul, Afghanistan

#73 Jun 13, 2013
Obama not stealing the election is up for debate there....100% polls in swing states...a stretch. Not that there is anything that can be done about it now. Hey, if I told you I was an Obama supporter and told you I had ocean front property in Arizon...would you buy it? Just curious, you guys seem to buy anything else that gets spewed by these yahoos.
and with that said

Kabul, Afghanistan

#74 Jun 13, 2013
Bottom line Alumni....Social Security is an unconstitutional program...it's a sham. This falls under the commerce clause of the constitution. See at first it was an insurance policy. So that was challenged and then it was posed as a tax. And that is exactly what it is.....a tax. There is no lock box with my name on it. The money I am paying today is not going for my retirement. Now you have an administration who is vastly expanding the program. SSI disability is up, illegal aliens are eligible, etc. When I say $90 trillion dollars of unfunded liabilities, this is a number that is quoted by the Social Security actuaries. And these same folks say that unless it is addresses it can't sustain itself. You are quick to mention the repubicans as the problem, well they very much are....but your statists....that would be your democrats are just as much to blame if not more.
and with that said

Kabul, Afghanistan

#75 Jun 13, 2013
It's time to get back to a constitutional government. One that is limited in its powers. One that serves the people and not where the people serve the government.
1961 Alumni Rolla MO

Rolla, MO

#76 Jun 13, 2013
and with that said wrote:
Bottom line Alumni....Social Security is an unconstitutional program...it's a sham. This falls under the commerce clause of the constitution. See at first it was an insurance policy. So that was challenged and then it was posed as a tax. And that is exactly what it is.....a tax. There is no lock box with my name on it. The money I am paying today is not going for my retirement. Now you have an administration who is vastly expanding the program. SSI disability is up, illegal aliens are eligible, etc. When I say $90 trillion dollars of unfunded liabilities, this is a number that is quoted by the Social Security actuaries. And these same folks say that unless it is addresses it can't sustain itself. You are quick to mention the repubicans as the problem, well they very much are....but your statists....that would be your democrats are just as much to blame if not more.
And With That Said,
How many times do I have to say on this forum that Social Security is a "Pay as YOU Go Program". It always has been. The only way the Social Security Program would go broke is if people quit having kids!!!

This means - the Social Security payroll taxes you are paying today (if you are still working) go to pay for my monthly Social Security check & your parents Social Security checks.

When I & my husband were still working - our Social Security payroll taxes were going to pay our parents Social Security taxes.

When you get old enough to retire, your children's Social Security payroll taxes will go to pay your Social Security monthly checks.

Are you getting the picture???

This program will never end or go broke - UNLESS REPUBLICANS GET THEIR HANDS ON IT IT AND TRY TO PRIVITIZE OR DISMANTLE IT!

Yes, the Social Security program is sound for about 25-30 more years & will be able to pay 100% of promised benefits. After that time Social Security will still be able to pay out 75% of promised benefits.

However, in order for recipients to receive 100% of promised benefits after 25-30 year, the program will need to be tweeked a little bit (just as has been done several times in the past). Yes, social security payroll taxes will have to be raised just a little bit before 25-30 years rolls around.

If you don't beleive me - just go to any Federal Government website, and it will be clearly explained to - just as I have explained to you.

I would not suggest going to any CONSERVATIVE WEBSITE - BECAUSE THEY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH TELLING THE TRUTH & GETTING THE FACTS STRAIGHT.

“Radical Islam! Radical Islam! ”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#77 Jun 13, 2013
1961 Alumni Rolla MO wrote:
<quoted text>
And With That Said,
How many times do I have to say on this forum that Social Security is a "Pay as YOU Go Program". It always has been. The only way the Social Security Program would go broke is if people quit having kids!!!
This means - the Social Security payroll taxes you are paying today (if you are still working) go to pay for my monthly Social Security check & your parents Social Security checks.
When I & my husband were still working - our Social Security payroll taxes were going to pay our parents Social Security taxes.
When you get old enough to retire, your children's Social Security payroll taxes will go to pay your Social Security monthly checks.
Are you getting the picture???
This program will never end or go broke - UNLESS REPUBLICANS GET THEIR HANDS ON IT IT AND TRY TO PRIVITIZE OR DISMANTLE IT!
Yes, the Social Security program is sound for about 25-30 more years & will be able to pay 100% of promised benefits. After that time Social Security will still be able to pay out 75% of promised benefits.
However, in order for recipients to receive 100% of promised benefits after 25-30 year, the program will need to be tweeked a little bit (just as has been done several times in the past). Yes, social security payroll taxes will have to be raised just a little bit before 25-30 years rolls around.
If you don't beleive me - just go to any Federal Government website, and it will be clearly explained to - just as I have explained to you.
I would not suggest going to any CONSERVATIVE WEBSITE - BECAUSE THEY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH TELLING THE TRUTH & GETTING THE FACTS STRAIGHT.
What a stupid reply to an intelligent statement, based on facts.
and with that said

Kabul, Afghanistan

#78 Jun 13, 2013
Alumni I have to agree with ComradeWinston on this one. That was not how Social Security was supposed to work.

And when you enroll folks into the system who have not contributed one red penny to the program how is that supposed to sustain itself. And when I say enroll....it has been vastly expanded on who gets excepted on Social Security.

You can't refute the fact; a fact that comes from the Social Security actuaries, not some conservative website....$90 trillion unfunded liabilites. They have even raised serious concerns that Social Security will go broke in the very near future if serious reforms are not made.

So I think you need to get the facts straight.
and with that said

Kabul, Afghanistan

#79 Jun 13, 2013
And the way Social Security is going, I'm not counting on it being around when I retire. If I had my way, with my own money...and I would venture to say that there are a growing amount of people in this country who feel the same way...I would rather opt out of contributing to this black hole of a money pit and plan my own retirement.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Hayti Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
mountain home ar. 20 min ummmmmm 4
Military Convoys 16 hr Fu Ck Em 5
Fed bust in Steele 16 hr Guest 8
police 20 hr slowmo 12
Landlord Rick Brandon Sun Evan 2
mary Watson Pritchett Fri honestly 20
Patty Anns Fri Guest 11
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Hayti Mortgages