Benghazi fire still burning, Presiden...
Local

Lucerne, CA

#144 May 17, 2014
MRH99 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have worked in medicine for 20 years and the "timing" of Mrs Clintons medical "issues" leaves cause for concern. Obviously, I have not reviewed her medical records (duh), but the fact that her "illness" occurred right after Benghazi made me question it's validity. The "illness" gave/allowed Mrs Clinton the "time" she needed to wait, watch, plan and sell her story (Benghazi was not her fault or Obama's) to the American people (possibly to save her from political suicide so she could run in 2016). The facts regarding Benghazi are still coming to light (not everything was released immediately possibly due to Obama's re-election campaign). When Mrs Clinton was "medically able" to answer questions her reaction was "telling" and certainly disturbing especially her statement of "what difference does it make" (regarding the death of four Americans). These "so-called" deaths (i say it this way because this expresses her same "disregard" for their lives) could have been avoided if Mrs Clinton would have taken terrorist threats seriously (especially on September 11) and done her job.
Well said.....and of course you are correct. Bill Clinton is a master politician who got away with banging an intern in the oval office. Skirt the truth with legalese that has a smidgeon of reality and hang the hat squarely on the smidgeon. Obama uses similar strategy all of the time.
I call it outright lying, but in a court of law? who knows.
That is why Rove said what he said. Only a naive child or a ditto head liberal beleives that Hillary-ous had a REAL problem. Rove called her bluff to bring attention to the charades because Rove is a master politician as well.
What it all boils down to is that our potus and Sec. state(Hillary-ous) intentionally hoodwinked the public about the Bhengazi terror murders for political expediency.
In other words, lies were told intentionally in order to protect obama's reelection AND to protect Hillary-ous from scrutiny of competence in her capacity as Sec. of State.
Ditto head liberal arse kissers do not care if either one of them intentionally lied, so they dismiss the terror murders of Americans and avoid the subject......and they also didn't care that Bubba got caught getting his dicsucked in the oval office.
A very sad state of affairs in America in this.......THE OBAMA ERA.
Tea Party Solution

Paradise, CA

#145 May 17, 2014
The so-called Benghazi scandal is a political hoax, tailor-made by fox news to secure the mindless, knuckle dragging, repub base.

What did Fox or Limbaugh, or Drudge, say about the 13 Bush Benghazi's? Nothing.

Here's the list:

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/12/13-benghazi...

1) January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

2) June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al-Qaida attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

3) October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of “Bali Bombings.” No fatalities.

4) February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

5) May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al-Qaida terrorists storm the diplomatic compound killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

6) July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.
Tea Party Solution

Paradise, CA

#146 May 17, 2014
And the rest of Bush's Benghazi's:

7) December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaida terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

8) March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers.(I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name “David Foy.” This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what’s considered American soil.)

9) September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four gunmen shouting “Allahu akbar” storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

10) January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

11) March 18, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaida-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

12) July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

13) September 17, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

Where was all the republican outrage over these attacks?
Tea Party Solution

Paradise, CA

#147 May 17, 2014
And let's not forget the biggest attack, and it was on American soil-- the attacks of 9/11, which killed 3000.

If all of these deaths and attacks had been on Obama's watch, he would have been impeached by the repubs a dozen times by now.

The repub hypocrisy is so outrageous that anyone with an IQ above 90 can see it.
The right is wrong

Lincoln, CA

#148 May 17, 2014
Tea Party Solution wrote:
And let's not forget the biggest attack, and it was on American soil-- the attacks of 9/11, which killed 3000.
If all of these deaths and attacks had been on Obama's watch, he would have been impeached by the repubs a dozen times by now.
The repub hypocrisy is so outrageous that anyone with an IQ above 90 can see it.
Haven't you learned that only Democrats are accountable for incidents that occur on their watch, like Benghazi where the house had turned down a request for additional funding to ramp up security.
Anonymous

Salem, OR

#149 May 17, 2014
The right is wrong wrote:
As has been chronicled for several years now, the demographics of the workforce are changing . Starting several years ago the number of people reaching retirement age has eclipsed the number of people eligible to enter the work force.
In short, if you're retired your not unemployed.
In speaking to the unemployment numbers I am NOT speaking about those who are retiring. These numbers are higher that the 6% being quoted! Not because of Americans "choosing" to retire, but because American have "not been able to find work" and the Americans who "are unable to find work" drops off. I have pulled a very small portion of reading out there to substantiate my view.
Taken from Forbes "But the “official” unemployment rate doesn’t count men and women like G.— discouraged workers who have settled for part-time jobs or have given up looking altogether".
This quote come from Economic Policy Institute:
"In today’s labor market, the unemployment rate drastically understates the weakness of job opportunities. This is due to the existence of a large pool of “missing workers”—potential workers who, because of weak job opportunities, are neither employed nor actively seeking a job. In other words, these are people who would be either working or looking for work if job opportunities were significantly stronger. Because jobless workers are only counted as unemployed if they are actively seeking work, these “missing workers” are not reflected in the unemployment rate." Today, 5.7 million fewer Americans are working or looking for work. This drop accounts for virtually the entire reduction of the unemployment rate since 2009—those not looking for work do not count as unemployed.
This is quoted from The Heritage Foundation: "Demographic changes explain approximately one-quarter of the drop in labor force participation. The baby boomers are aging and thus more likely to retire, dropping out of the labor force. The remaining drop in participation primarily comes from millions more people going on disability insurance or attending school. While those enrolled in school will probably return to the labor force, those going on the disability rolls will not. They will remain permanently outside the labor force".
As you can see quoting that the unemployment numbers are getting better is not really true plus all one has to do is look at the GDP to see unemployment is still a major problem. Here is a summary of Okun's Law:
We know that when there is unemployment, the economy is not producing at full output since there are people who are not working. But, what exactly is the relationship between unemployment and national output or GDP? How much would we expect the GDP to increase if unemployment fell 1%? These are useful and important questions to ask when trying to understand the costs of unemployment.
An economist named Arthur Okun looked at the relationship between unemployment and national output over the past 50 years. He noticed a general pattern and stated an equation to explain it. His equation, Okun's Law, relates the percentage change in real GDP to changes in the unemployment rate. In particular, the equation states:

% change in real GDP = 3%- 2 x (change in unemployment rate)

This equation basically says that real GDP grows at about 3% per year when unemployment is normal. For every point above normal that unemployment moves, GDP growth falls by 2%. Similarly, for every point below normal that unemployment moves, GDP growth rises by 2%. This equation, while not exact, provides a good estimate of the effects of unemployment upon output.
Current Numbers:
1st quarter 2014: 0.1 percent
4th quarter 2013: 2.6 percent
Next release: May 29, 2014
We need to see what the GDP numbers are on May 29 2014 to evaluate the state of our economy.
Anonymous

Salem, OR

#150 May 17, 2014
Local wrote:
<quoted text>
Well said.....and of course you are correct. Bill Clinton is a master politician who got away with banging an intern in the oval office. Skirt the truth with legalese that has a smidgeon of reality and hang the hat squarely on the smidgeon. Obama uses similar strategy all of the time.
I call it outright lying, but in a court of law? who knows.
That is why Rove said what he said. Only a naive child or a ditto head liberal beleives that Hillary-ous had a REAL problem. Rove called her bluff to bring attention to the charades because Rove is a master politician as well.
What it all boils down to is that our potus and Sec. state(Hillary-ous) intentionally hoodwinked the public about the Bhengazi terror murders for political expediency.
In other words, lies were told intentionally in order to protect obama's reelection AND to protect Hillary-ous from scrutiny of competence in her capacity as Sec. of State.
Ditto head liberal arse kissers do not care if either one of them intentionally lied, so they dismiss the terror murders of Americans and avoid the subject......and they also didn't care that Bubba got caught getting his dicsucked in the oval office.
A very sad state of affairs in America in this.......THE OBAMA ERA.
Thank you!
Anonymous

Salem, OR

#151 May 17, 2014
HaagenHut how wrote:
Well said. Kudos to MRH99!
Thank you....
Anonymous

Salem, OR

#152 May 17, 2014
Get Right or Get Left wrote:
<quoted text>
Since 1980 there have been at least 1,335,133,500 babies murdered in the womb, in the USA alone! That's how this so called eclipse happened!
Ain't abortion just great???
That number is a travesty! I am not pro choice or anti abortion (due to rape, etc) and do not believe that I have the right to make that decision for someone else. That being said for one of my rotations I decided to do some research. I went to 20 abortion clinics in Arizona, sat in the waiting rooms or outside and spoke with women getting abortions. My interview statistics showed the following: 78% of my sample were there to get their 3rd or more abortion, 16% were there for their 2nd, the remaining 6% were there for their first. I did ask about rape and not one subject was there for rape however several subjects admitted to being a victim of rape. I thought these numbers were worth sharing in light of your posting.
Tea Party Solution

Paradise, CA

#153 May 18, 2014
MRH99 wrote:
<quoted text>
Taken from Forbes "But the “official” unemployment rate doesn’t count men and women like G.— discouraged workers who have settled for part-time jobs or have given up looking altogether".
.
I think that all of us feel that the economy is still suffering from the Great Recession. But what have the repubs done to improve it? Absolutely nothing. In fact, they block any bill, such as Obama's infrastructure spending bill, that would have provided millions of new jobs for fixing our crumbling infrastructure. With rates close to zero percent, THIS is a perfect time to fix our roads, bridges, ports, and energy grids.

We'd be renovating things that HAVE to be fixed eventually. At the same time we'd be adding millions of jobs for the private companies performing the work, and those new working people would add many millions of more jobs-- the ripple effect of an improving economy. We'd save money because there's be millions less people depending on our safety nets, and they'd be paying taxes, helping to pay down our debt.

But the repubs have blocked the infrastructure bill, and anything else that would help our economy. Because they want Obama and the dems to fail, no matter how much it hurts all of us. Then they will blame it all on Obama. It's all political, and has nothing to do with actually solving problems.
Tea Party Solution

Paradise, CA

#154 May 18, 2014
Repub president Eisenhower inherited a huge national debt after WWII.

But he and Congress did NOT take the austerity route of cutting jobs and spending.

In fact, they actually spent more. The GI bill paid for higher education for the vets, and subsidies to allow them to get mortgage loans.

Eisenhower built the interstate freeway system, which provided many new jobs and gave us the needed roads to improve our commerce.

The president and Congress even funded the Marshall Plan, which paid for re-building war torn Europe.

And by the late 1950's we were becoming a very prosperous nation-- for all of us. AND we were paying down our war debt.
GRANDPA NICOLAI

Chico, CA

#155 May 18, 2014
Tea Party Solution wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that all of us feel that the economy is still suffering from the Great Recession. But what have the repubs done to improve it? Absolutely nothing. In fact, they block any bill, such as Obama's infrastructure spending bill, that would have provided millions of new jobs for fixing our crumbling infrastructure. With rates close to zero percent, THIS is a perfect time to fix our roads, bridges, ports, and energy grids.
We'd be renovating things that HAVE to be fixed eventually. At the same time we'd be adding millions of jobs for the private companies performing the work, and those new working people would add many millions of more jobs-- the ripple effect of an improving economy. We'd save money because there's be millions less people depending on our safety nets, and they'd be paying taxes, helping to pay down our debt.
But the repubs have blocked the infrastructure bill, and anything else that would help our economy. Because they want Obama and the dems to fail, no matter how much it hurts all of us. Then they will blame it all on Obama. It's all political, and has nothing to do with actually solving problems.
>
>
Absolutely correct and I am certain that most of the intelligent casual readers agree with your post.

BTW, beware that LOCO has been posting his nonsense under your moniker, what a loser!!!
HaagenHut how

Paradise, CA

#156 May 18, 2014
GRANDPA NICOLAI wrote:
<quoted text>
>
>
Absolutely correct and I am certain that most of the intelligent casual readers agree with your post.
BTW, beware that LOCO has been posting his nonsense under your moniker, what a loser!!!
You ought to know what a loser looks like since you are a member of that club!!
Tea Party Solution

Lucerne, CA

#157 May 18, 2014
The right is wrong wrote:
<quoted text>
Haven't you learned that only Democrats are accountable for incidents that occur on their watch, like Benghazi where the house had turned down a request for additional funding to ramp up security.
Not that it matters, but the house has no say on state dept. security matters.
Hillary Clinton was in charge of the state dept.(the Bhengazi embassy where ambassador stevens repeated requested additional securiy).
Mrs. Clinton should have granted the request and only she knows why it was rejected and Ambassador Stevens(and three others) were murdered by Al Qaeda.
She will not say where she was during the 10 hour terror attack, and she will not answer questions about her failure to provide security at Bhengazi.
A Very disturbing situation.
Four Americans were murdered without anyone having to explain why it was allowed to happen. The Brits closed their Bhengazi embassy because the City was getting too dangerous. I guess Hillary didn't care about the danger because SHE wasn't in danger.........Ambassador Stevens was in danger.

What's worse is that she and the O-Boy probably lied about what caused the entire terror attack.
loco

Lincoln, CA

#158 May 18, 2014
Tea Party Solution wrote:
<quoted text>
Not that it matters, but the house has no say on state dept. security matters.
Hillary Clinton was in charge of the state dept.(the Bhengazi embassy where ambassador stevens repeated requested additional securiy).
Mrs. Clinton should have granted the request and only she knows why it was rejected and Ambassador Stevens(and three others) were murdered by Al Qaeda.
She will not say where she was during the 10 hour terror attack, and she will not answer questions about her failure to provide security at Bhengazi.
A Very disturbing situation.
Four Americans were murdered without anyone having to explain why it was allowed to happen. The Brits closed their Bhengazi embassy because the City was getting too dangerous. I guess Hillary didn't care about the danger because SHE wasn't in danger.........Ambassador Stevens was in danger.
What's worse is that she and the O-Boy probably lied about what caused the entire terror attack.
Hi, I'm loco and I'm here to tell you all that I'm loco and not the real Tea Party Solution. I'm just a fake like most tea -bagging repubicans who post on topix.
HaagenHut how

Paradise, CA

#159 May 18, 2014
Tea Party Solution wrote:
<quoted text>
Not that it matters, but the house has no say on state dept. security matters.
Hillary Clinton was in charge of the state dept.(the Bhengazi embassy where ambassador stevens repeated requested additional securiy).
Mrs. Clinton should have granted the request and only she knows why it was rejected and Ambassador Stevens(and three others) were murdered by Al Qaeda.
She will not say where she was during the 10 hour terror attack, and she will not answer questions about her failure to provide security at Bhengazi.
A Very disturbing situation.
Four Americans were murdered without anyone having to explain why it was allowed to happen. The Brits closed their Bhengazi embassy because the City was getting too dangerous. I guess Hillary didn't care about the danger because SHE wasn't in danger.........Ambassador Stevens was in danger.
What's worse is that she and the O-Boy probably lied about what caused the entire terror attack.
I am glad that you finally see the light. Congratulations on the awakening to a time of reason!
Anonymous

Salem, OR

#160 May 18, 2014
Tea Party Solution wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that all of us feel that the economy is still suffering from the Great Recession. But what have the repubs done to improve it? Absolutely nothing. In fact, they block any bill, such as Obama's infrastructure spending bill, that would have provided millions of new jobs for fixing our crumbling infrastructure. With rates close to zero percent, THIS is a perfect time to fix our roads, bridges, ports, and energy grids.
We'd be renovating things that HAVE to be fixed eventually. At the same time we'd be adding millions of jobs for the private companies performing the work, and those new working people would add many millions of more jobs-- the ripple effect of an improving economy. We'd save money because there's be millions less people depending on our safety nets, and they'd be paying taxes, helping to pay down our debt.
But the repubs have blocked the infrastructure bill, and anything else that would help our economy. Because they want Obama and the dems to fail, no matter how much it hurts all of us. Then they will blame it all on Obama. It's all political, and has nothing to do with actually solving problems.
Something does need to be done about the US infrastructure and hopefully soon because 45% of the states federal budget accounts for these projects. There has not been a fuel tax increase since 2007. Some argue that raising taxes on fuel would be a solution. Others argue that a tax on miles driven would be a solution. I believe congress has offered "shovel ready jobs" such as the keystone pipeline, however Obama will not approve this. I recall an Obama quote saying "I guess shovel ready jobs were not as shovel ready as they should have been" so this could be why the republicans are not inclined to agree to another one of his "shovel ready" proposals. I do not blame the republicans for not acting and moving forward. They feel the debt is too high and there are too many unknowns (how much is Obamacare going to cost, how many jobs will be lost from Obamacare). I know that in the business world, many are "on hold" in expansion, adding new employees, because they are unable to predict what their true costs will end up being. If it was as simple as pass a bill to fix infrastructure and all will be fixed with the economy Obama would have passed it the same way he passed Obamacare. I think he has more fun "blaming others" because he sure spends a lot of time doing it.
The right is wrong

Sacramento, CA

#161 May 19, 2014
Tea Party Solution wrote:
<quoted text>
Not that it matters, but the house has no say on state dept. security matters.
Hillary Clinton was in charge of the state dept.(the Bhengazi embassy where ambassador stevens repeated requested additional securiy).
Mrs. Clinton should have granted the request and only she knows why it was rejected and Ambassador Stevens(and three others) were murdered by Al Qaeda.
She will not say where she was during the 10 hour terror attack, and she will not answer questions about her failure to provide security at Bhengazi.
A Very disturbing situation.
Four Americans were murdered without anyone having to explain why it was allowed to happen. The Brits closed their Bhengazi embassy because the City was getting too dangerous. I guess Hillary didn't care about the danger because SHE wasn't in danger.........Ambassador Stevens was in danger.
What's worse is that she and the O-Boy probably lied about what caused the entire terror attack.
Hey loco, thanks for showing us all again how stupid you are. Now pay attention moron: The house has the final say about all federal spending. They hold the checkbook.

I guess the house didn't shut down the fed by withholding funding bills. Gawd you're stupid.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/01/us/politics...

And embassador Stevens turned down offers of short term security enhancement several times prior to his and the three CIA gun -runners demise.

Gawd you're stupid!
Tea Party Solution

Lucerne, CA

#162 May 19, 2014
The right is wrong wrote:
<quoted text> Hey loco, thanks for showing us all again how stupid you are. Now pay attention moron: The house has the final say about all federal spending. They hold the checkbook.
I guess the house didn't shut down the fed by withholding funding bills. Gawd you're stupid.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/01/us/politics...
And embassador Stevens turned down offers of short term security enhancement several times prior to his and the three CIA gun -runners demise.
Gawd you're stupid!
atta boy.......you actually addressed the topic...for once.
Nonsense. Important Personnel Security matters are NEVER a matter of budget.
and btw, you do realize that it is the FAMILY of murdered Ambassador Stevens and his four comrades who are pushing for a valid explanation for why these folks were allowed to be murdered.
Y0u are a callous nasty liberal who is simply protecting obama/Hillary for their incompetence.at the cost of four grieving families and friends.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself........but you are not...becuase you are a brain dead dttohead liberal.

How would you feel if one of the folks murdered by the terrorists was a good friend or family member?
TBagger PatrioTerrorist

United States

#163 May 19, 2014
Anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you!
Ronald Reagan got away with Bringing us the TRUE 1984 REALITY!

God I wish he were banging Nancy instead of being President! Of course he would be considered a LIBERAL by the TEA BAGGER REPUBLICAN PatrioTerorists today. He was a Democrat once after all.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Richvale Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Roundup All Illegal Aliens Now 2 hr Why One 26
Too Many People 3 hr Winnie 1
Horsehoe Lake 5 hr Tree Frog 5
Liberal Reporter Pulls A Grandpa Turd 8 hr Grandpa eats the ... 37
Pocahontas Elisabeth Warren 9 hr blue 7
chico doctors 10 hr John 111
Old Freaky sanders Supporters 19 hr ANONYMOUS 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Richvale Mortgages