Benghazi: where Obama was arming AQ and ISIS
With his time machine?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Benghazi: where Obama was arming AQ and ISIS
Benghazi: where Obama was arming AQ and ISIS
With his time machine?
Do you have somethign to contribute here? You know Stevens was gay, right? Why arent you outraged that the administration wouldn't give equal protection to gay ambassadors?Benghazi: where Obama was arming AQ and ISIS
With his time machine?
You knew he had one, right? That's how he got his birth announcement in that Hawaiian paper.
He changed his story, so he did lie. At first he said it was a protest started from a movie, then 10 days later he admitted it was a pre planned terrorist attack.Why don't you show us a link that proves Obama was not lying.
Obama doesn't have to prove that he is not lying, you need to prove that he is.
Oh wait, he must have shreaded the evidence; in that case, please offer up proof that he shreaded evidence.
And we know that he knew, or should have known, that it was not a spontaneuous attack based on a video. That makes it a lie.He changed his story, so he did lie. At first he said it was a protest started from a movie, then 10 days later he admitted it was a pre planned terrorist attack.Why don't you show us a link that proves Obama was not lying.
Obama doesn't have to prove that he is not lying, you need to prove that he is.
Oh wait, he must have shreaded the evidence; in that case, please offer up proof that he shreaded evidence.
I knew it was a terrorist attack from the beginning.And we know that he knew, or should have known, that it was not a spontaneuous attack based on a video. That makes it a lie.He changed his story, so he did lie. At first he said it was a protest started from a movie, then 10 days later he admitted it was a pre planned terrorist attack.Why don't you show us a link that proves Obama was not lying.
Obama doesn't have to prove that he is not lying, you need to prove that he is.
Oh wait, he must have shreaded the evidence; in that case, please offer up proof that he shreaded evidence.
I dont know that he's commonly called that. I never saw a newspaper refer to him that way.Why do you think he is commonly called the Lying Cocksucker in Chief?
Because, he is a lying cocksucker.
The question is whether Obama and Hillary did. From the video it appears the answer is yes.I knew it was a terrorist attack from the beginning.And we know that he knew, or should have known, that it was not a spontaneuous attack based on a video. That makes it a lie.He changed his story, so he did lie. At first he said it was a protest started from a movie, then 10 days later he admitted it was a pre planned terrorist attack.Why don't you show us a link that proves Obama was not lying.
Obama doesn't have to prove that he is not lying, you need to prove that he is.
Oh wait, he must have shreaded the evidence; in that case, please offer up proof that he shreaded evidence.
More proof the left doesnt really give a shit about lying or cover ups as long as theyre the ones doing them.More proof that the RWnuts have no interest in governing.
You know Stevens was gay, right? Why arent you outraged that the administration wouldn't give equal protection to gay ambassadors?
I did. And I want my 10 minutes back.Benghazi: where Obama was arming AQ and ISIS
... and Cherokees.
Didn't watch the video did ya?
I did. And I want my 10 minutes back.Benghazi: where Obama was arming AQ and ISIS
... and Cherokees.
Didn't watch the video did ya?
See what I mean Tex?
Just like Fox Noise feeds people what they want to hear, so runs this forum -- people post what they already believe. If they actually do have a point to make or some unknown information to impart, they'll write it out in the body of the post or the title, usually both, because that's rhetorical gold. When that's absent and you get nothing but "here, watch what this guy says", there's no point in even staying in the thread. The only reason I did was that I saw a straight line for a joke. Because one joke begets another -- as I said, shouldn't be a total loss.
Times, Dates, Places, who said what and when:
Times, Dates, Places, who said what and when:
Does the video tell us what time Obama was watching the four Americans being killed through the eyes of a drone?
More proof the left doesnt really give a shit about lying or cover ups as long as theyre the ones doing them.More proof that the RWnuts have no interest in governing.
I did. And I want my 10 minutes back.Benghazi: where Obama was arming AQ and ISIS
... and Cherokees.
Didn't watch the video did ya?
See what I mean Tex?
Just like Fox Noise feeds people what they want to hear, so runs this forum -- people post what they already believe. If they actually do have a point to make or some unknown information to impart, they'll write it out in the body of the post or the title, usually both, because that's rhetorical gold. When that's absent and you get nothing but "here, watch what this guy says", there's no point in even staying in the thread. The only reason I did was that I saw a straight line for a joke. Because one joke begets another -- as I said, shouldn't be a total loss.
So the answer to my questions is a resounding, "No."Times, Dates, Places, who said what and when:
Does the video tell us what time Obama was watching the four Americans being killed through the eyes of a drone?
Does the video tell us what time the "stand down order" was given? ...
The Video also does not re-animate the four Dead US Citizens, neither does it heal the wounds of the dozens of other US Citizens that obama and Hillary murdered through their failure to bear the responsibilities intrinsic to the trust the public put into them, which stands as the source of the power they wielded in concealing their guilt for the numerous high-crimes they committed.
I did. And I want my 10 minutes back.Benghazi: where Obama was arming AQ and ISIS
... and Cherokees.
Didn't watch the video did ya?
See what I mean Tex?
Just like Fox Noise feeds people what they want to hear, so runs this forum -- people post what they already believe. If they actually do have a point to make or some unknown information to impart, they'll write it out in the body of the post or the title, usually both, because that's rhetorical gold. When that's absent and you get nothing but "here, watch what this guy says", there's no point in even staying in the thread. The only reason I did was that I saw a straight line for a joke. Because one joke begets another -- as I said, shouldn't be a total loss.
So you're ignorant about the topic of discussion and you take the word of one individual to validate your ignorance, but refuse to take the word of others that viewing the video is worthwhile. Got it.