First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Apr 13

Hilliard, OH

#21 May 10, 2013
Kemosahbe wrote:
Why aren't all you Obama bashers outraged at the 12 attacks and 60 people killed under GWB?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_attack...
Because Bush and his people never deliberately left any of our people to die.

“Hereeeeee'ssss UR Pizza”

Since: May 13

Columbus, OH

#22 May 10, 2013
Kemosahbe wrote:
Why aren't all you Obama bashers outraged at the 12 attacks and 60 people killed under GWB?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_attack...
Oh let's see

Nobody lied about them to get re elected, and nobody gave a stand down order to rescue forces.

Simple huh?
yeah

Columbus, OH

#23 May 10, 2013
-Clayton Bigsby wrote:
<quoted text>They were damaged. Badly.
The dress and the cigars? Or the dress and her....

Since: Apr 13

Hilliard, OH

#24 May 10, 2013
Kemosahbe wrote:
Why aren't all you Obama bashers outraged at the 12 attacks and 60 people killed under GWB?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_attack...
There were five attacks and 224 dead under Clinton and we don't blame him either. He didn't deliberately leave people to die.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_attack...

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#25 May 10, 2013
Kemosahbe wrote:
Why aren't all you Obama bashers outraged at the 12 attacks and 60 people killed under GWB?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_attack...
Deflection. We're discussing the lie and media spin surrounding Benghazi. No one has argued or denied that terrorist attacks happened under Bush's watch. Pay attention. Details are important.
They cannot kill a Spook

Chicago, IL

#26 May 10, 2013
If I had the all seeing eye of God I bet that Obama was in contact with the muslim brotherhood as this was going down. Either that or where was Reggie Love, pitching or catching?
The Truth

Atascadero, CA

#27 May 11, 2013
Why is noone crying impeachment?

Since: Apr 13

Hilliard, OH

#28 May 11, 2013
The Truth wrote:
Why is noone crying impeachment?
Republican senator and liberal columnist hint at impeachment for Obama over Benghazi 'cover-up'

Sen. Jim Inhofe:'People may be starting to use the "I"-word before too long'
Daily Beast columnist Michael Tomasky: Benghazi 'a potential impeachment issue as long as the Republicans are in control of the House'
Fox News host and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee: Obama 'will not serve out his full term'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-23227...

Benghazi Hearings Could Impeach Obama, Prosecute Hillary Clinton?
http://www.inquisitr.com/653728/benghazi-hear...
Efrain Rios Montt

United States

#29 May 11, 2013
The Truth wrote:
Why is noone crying impeachment?
Because you can't impeach every President since most have some sort of scandal especially in their second term. If Reagan escaped Impeachment over the Iran arms scandal then any President can stay in office.

Since: Apr 13

Hilliard, OH

#30 May 11, 2013
Efrain Rios Montt wrote:
<quoted text>Because you can't impeach every President since most have some sort of scandal especially in their second term. If Reagan escaped Impeachment over the Iran arms scandal then any President can stay in office.
Bull. Reagan did what Obama refuses to do...he took responsibility. And no Americans were ever endangered in Iran-Contra. AND, the plan worked and freed Central America from the Communists. AND, the stuff we sold to Iran was useless junk.
Efrain Rios Montt

Dallas, TX

#31 May 11, 2013
-Clayton Bigsby wrote:
<quoted text>Bull. Reagan did what Obama refuses to do...he took responsibility. And no Americans were ever endangered in Iran-Contra. AND, the plan worked and freed Central America from the Communists. AND, the stuff we sold to Iran was useless junk.
How many Senior Reagan officials are taken down?

Since: Apr 13

Hilliard, OH

#32 May 11, 2013
Efrain Rios Montt wrote:
<quoted text>How many Senior Reagan officials are taken down?
Nobody went to jail, nor should they have.
The Boland Amendment was unconstitutional.

“Hi-Yo Silver! Away!”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#33 May 14, 2013
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
Deflection. We're discussing the lie and media spin surrounding Benghazi. No one has argued or denied that terrorist attacks happened under Bush's watch. Pay attention. Details are important.
Yeah, the details I get from these threads is that the wingnuts are mad that 4 people got killed under Obama, when previous to Obama there were many more.

Hillary has taken full responsibility.

Obama said it was terrorism the first day.

You people make no sense. Pay attention yourself, and quit making mountains out of molehills.

Since: Apr 13

Hilliard, OH

#34 May 14, 2013
Kemosahbe wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, the details I get from these threads is that the wingnuts are mad that 4 people got killed under Obama, when previous to Obama there were many more.
Hillary has taken full responsibility.
Obama said it was terrorism the first day.
You people make no sense. Pay attention yourself, and quit making mountains out of molehills.
Wrong:

The Pinocchio Test

During the campaign, the president could just get away with claiming he said “act of terror,” since he did use those words — though not in the way he often claimed. It seemed like a bit of after-the-fact spin, but those were his actual words — to the surprise of Mitt Romney in the debate.

But the president’s claim that he said “act of terrorism” is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack. He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now.

Indeed, the initial unedited talking points did not call it an act of terrorism. Instead of pretending the right words were uttered, it would be far better to acknowledge that he was echoing what the intelligence community believed at the time--and that the administration’s phrasing could have been clearer and more forthright from the start.

Four Pinocchios

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-chec...

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#35 May 14, 2013
-Clayton Bigsby wrote:
What was Secretary Clinton doing that was more important? What was the president doing? Aside, that is, from resting up for his big Vegas campaign event. A real government would be scrambling furiously to see what it could do to rescue its people. It’s easy, afterwards, to say that nothing would have made any difference. But, at the time Deputy Chief Hicks was calling 9-1-1 and getting executive-branch voicemail, nobody in Washington knew how long it would last.
Sure about that?

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#36 May 14, 2013
yeah wrote:
<quoted text>
DNA stains on her blue dress... cigars dipped in her...
t wat did you say?

“Hi-Yo Silver! Away!”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#37 May 15, 2013
-Clayton Bigsby wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong:
The Pinocchio Test
During the campaign, the president could just get away with claiming he said “act of terror,” since he did use those words — though not in the way he often claimed. It seemed like a bit of after-the-fact spin, but those were his actual words — to the surprise of Mitt Romney in the debate.
But the president’s claim that he said “act of terrorism” is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack. He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now.
Indeed, the initial unedited talking points did not call it an act of terrorism. Instead of pretending the right words were uttered, it would be far better to acknowledge that he was echoing what the intelligence community believed at the time--and that the administration’s phrasing could have been clearer and more forthright from the start.
Four Pinocchios
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-chec...
One thing I'm glad about all your blathering, it does give you new material to master bait to. Other than that it's not good for anything.

And you complain of others trolling.

Since: Apr 13

Hilliard, OH

#38 May 15, 2013
Kemosahbe wrote:
<quoted text>
One thing I'm glad about all your blathering, it does give you new material to master bait to. Other than that it's not good for anything.
And you complain of others trolling.
Hey, it's not my fault that your leftist media types are turning on your boy. We've been saying what a scumbag you guys have been championing for five years and finally, it's coming back to bite you. We intend to enjoy it to the full.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
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.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Is Barack Obama Doing a Good Job as President? (Aug '13) 2 hr d pantz 3,966
Snapchat 3 hr roughsex999 3
Autopsy, toxicology report on Michael Brown 7 hr They cannot kill ... 113
Columbus police officer to resign after pleadin... 8 hr Zoe Regen 3
Where has Rowdy been 8 hr Zoe Regen 2
Chevrolet Malibu Owners: Problems & Solutions (Jun '06) 10 hr Big Johnson 2,725
President Ebola 13 hr Black Rhino 695
Columbus Dating
Find my Match

Columbus Jobs

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Columbus News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Columbus

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]