Democrats and Lies

[Rob37]

The DNC, and Hillary, have shown they can't be trusted. It's why I can't see them winning another election within the next several cycles.

They will definitely have to get new blood in the DNC if they are to have any chance. That new blood is not Keith Ellison and Perez either. Of course, I hope they never win another election.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Case Study No. 1: Our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, is attacked in a concerted effort by Islamic militants shortly after a multilateral effort to oust Ghadaffi as leader. This was a pet project of then Sec of State, Hillary Clinton. All personnel of our consulate were murdered. Our Ambassador was tortured, mutilated, and desecrated. The attack lasted for hours. The Obama administration then concocted a story that the bloody attack was not caused by Muslim militants, but rather by outrage over a self-funded and highly obscure video made by some unknown guy. The narrative is that this video, that nobody has seen, so enraged the natives that they went to the consulate to protest, then things got out of hand, and boom - all Americans are dead. The Obama admin concocted this false narrative and maintained it for days even though 1. It did not pass the smell test, and 2. It was patently clear that the attack was an organized attack by militant Jihadists. Even 2 weeks later the official line was that this was caused by the said obscure video. Btw, the maker of this video, an American citizen, has, to my knowledge, never been seen or heard from again.

Case Study No. 2: When it was discovered that Hillary Clinton was using a bootleg server under her personal control, off-site from gov property, to communicate classified info, she lied as hard as she could. The server was not secure and it was not owned by the Gov; it was hers. Putting any gov data on the server is illegal. The gov owns the data. Putting Gov data on her server is the same thing as her taking a Gov file home and leaving it on her kitchen table. On top of that, she was using her personal server to send and receive classified data. All of this is a crime. All of it was continually lied about in an attempt to save her ass and cover up her pay-to play scandal. It was not prosecuted for political reasons, clearly.

In both of these case studies there are lies... BIG LIES. Plus these are lies about criminal activity and about matters of life and death. These are Democrat lies about matters that put people in prison, or worse. Quite obviously, these Dem lies involve high crimes and misdemeanors.

Case Study No. 3: Hyper-partisan and anti-American Manchurian President, Hussein Obama, says terrible things about then candidate Trump. Obama, through security agencies under his control, is wiretapping at least one member of Trump's team, Gen. Flynn, a private citizen. Obama attempts to wiretap Trump Tower, the nerve center of Trump's presidential campaign. Two applications for wiretap warrants are made with the FISA court. The second application is granted. The media raises the serious issue of whether Obama, known anti-American leftist fiend, has been wiretapping the Republican nominee. The story sounds quite plausible given Obama's hostility toward American values and devious nature. Trump tweets that he thinks Obama was wiretapping Trump Tower.

Let's compare and contrast. In Cases 1 and 2 above, as mentioned, there are CLEAR lies being told with the intent to mislead the American People on matters that are LIFE AND DEATH and on matters of TREASON AND SEDITION. Both lie sets should have landed BOTH Hillary and Obama in containment in Guantanamo for the rest of their lives.

Concerning Case No. 3, involving a mere Tweet from Trump, this does not even constitute a lie, as there was no intent to deceive. In fact, the assertion that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower was quite reasonable when made given the circumstances. At the very worst, Trump misspoke. Does that mean he should apologize to Obama? Of course not because Obama was, in fact, intending to wiretap Trump Tower as evidenced by the warrant applications. **** Obama. He was America's most harmful mistake.

So, the first 2 case studies are Dem perpetrated Lies of such magnitude that one starts thinking of the gallows as the only just way to remedy such heinous and devious breaches of public trust. In Case Study 3 you have a man's innocent misstatement that has hurt nobody. In fact, it was totally believable.

Now, how do the Dems react to these "lies"? Well, in Cases 1 and 2 they deny there were lies, even though there clearly were. Concerning Case 3, they believe that Trump should be impeached even though there was not even a lie. Do you see the problem here? I am guessing that the Dems do not see a problem, while the rest of us see a big problem of credibility on the part of the Democrats.

Dems are hypocrites... HUGE HYPOCRITES. Both Hillary and Obama are also criminals. They both have NEVER been on the side of the American people. Yet, the Democrats rally behind and support these scum bags. The support these scum bags over us, The People.

Let's be clear here: we have an absolute right to Political free speech. However, at this point the Democrats are not really exercising ANY speech. Rather, they are spewing mindless propaganda designed to undermine a sitting president. The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact. We do not have to allow speech that tends to undermine our nation and our freedoms. The Dems are not exercising legitimate speech. They are trying to effect a coup.



Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Still stuck on Hillary? Go ahead and keep peddling your Benghazi lies, but remember, Trump ordered you to stop caring now that the election is over.

Yeah, you missed the point too, you stupid *****. The point is that Trump is the target of a quiet coup.

If he keeps this shit up, it's going to turn into a loud, ugly coup

 

[Pogo]

Case Study No. 1: Our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, is attacked in a concerted effort by Islamic militants shortly after a multilateral effort to oust Ghadaffi as leader. This was a pet project of then Sec of State, Hillary Clinton. All personnel of our consulate were murdered. Our Ambassador was tortured, mutilated, and desecrated. The attack lasted for hours. The Obama administration then concocted a story that the bloody attack was not caused by Muslim militants, but rather by outrage over a self-funded and highly obscure video made by some unknown guy. The narrative is that this video, that nobody has seen, so enraged the natives that they went to the consulate to protest, then things got out of hand, and boom - all Americans are dead. The Obama admin concocted this false narrative and maintained it for days even though 1. It did not pass the smell test, and 2. It was patently clear that the attack was an organized attack by militant Jihadists. Even 2 weeks later the official line was that this was caused by the said obscure video. Btw, the maker of this video, an American citizen, has, to my knowledge, never been seen or heard from again.

Case Study No. 2: When it was discovered that Hillary Clinton was using a bootleg server under her personal control, off-site from gov property, to communicate classified info, she lied as hard as she could. The server was not secure and it was not owned by the Gov; it was hers. Putting any gov data on the server is illegal. The gov owns the data. Putting Gov data on her server is the same thing as her taking a Gov file home and leaving it on her kitchen table. On top of that, she was using her personal server to send and receive classified data. All of this is a crime. All of it was continually lied about in an attempt to save her ass and cover up her pay-to play scandal. It was not prosecuted for political reasons, clearly.

In both of these case studies there are lies... BIG LIES. Plus these are lies about criminal activity and about matters of life and death. These are Democrat lies about matters that put people in prison, or worse. Quite obviously, these Dem lies involve high crimes and misdemeanors.

Case Study No. 3: Hyper-partisan and anti-American Manchurian President, Hussein Obama, says terrible things about then candidate Trump. Obama, through security agencies under his control, is wiretapping at least one member of Trump's team, Gen. Flynn, a private citizen. Obama attempts to wiretap Trump Tower, the nerve center of Trump's presidential campaign. Two applications for wiretap warrants are made with the FISA court. The second application is granted. The media raises the serious issue of whether Obama, known anti-American leftist fiend, has been wiretapping the Republican nominee. The story sounds quite plausible given Obama's hostility toward American values and devious nature. Trump tweets that he thinks Obama was wiretapping Trump Tower.

Let's compare and contrast. In Cases 1 and 2 above, as mentioned, there are CLEAR lies being told with the intent to mislead the American People on matters that are LIFE AND DEATH and on matters of TREASON AND SEDITION. Both lie sets should have landed BOTH Hillary and Obama in containment in Guantanamo for the rest of their lives.

Concerning Case No. 3, involving a mere Tweet from Trump, this does not even constitute a lie, as there was no intent to deceive. In fact, the assertion that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower was quite reasonable when made given the circumstances. At the very worst, Trump misspoke. Does that mean he should apologize to Obama? Of course not because Obama was, in fact, intending to wiretap Trump Tower as evidenced by the warrant applications. **** Obama. He was America's most harmful mistake.

So, the first 2 case studies are Dem perpetrated Lies of such magnitude that one starts thinking of the gallows as the only just way to remedy such heinous and devious breaches of public trust. In Case Study 3 you have a man's innocent misstatement that has hurt nobody. In fact, it was totally believable.

Now, how do the Dems react to these "lies"? Well, in Cases 1 and 2 they deny there were lies, even though there clearly were. Concerning Case 3, they believe that Trump should be impeached even though there was not even a lie. Do you see the problem here? I am guessing that the Dems do not see a problem, while the rest of us see a big problem of credibility on the part of the Democrats.

Dems are hypocrites... HUGE HYPOCRITES. Both Hillary and Obama are also criminals. They both have NEVER been on the side of the American people. Yet, the Democrats rally behind and support these scum bags. The support these scum bags over us, The People.

Let's be clear here: we have an absolute right to Political free speech. However, at this point the Democrats are not really exercising ANY speech. Rather, they are spewing mindless propaganda designed to undermine a sitting president. The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact. We do not have to allow speech that tends to undermine our nation and our freedoms. The Dems are not exercising legitimate speech. They are trying to effect a coup.



Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Here's your answer. Stop wasting readers' time with this crapola.

I make undeniable points of alarming Dem hypocrisy and leftist sleaze being pushed through the veins of our media. It is disgusting.

You overflatter yourself. What you make is undeniable overworked composition fallacies that can be smelled a mile away because you're too damned lazy to break a brain sweat and come up with a genuine argument.

Now flush that thing.

 

[Pogo]

Hillary lost. Trump is president. There seems to be no shortage of dirt from his administration to study.

Bullshit. It is all media-created bullshit. The media is batshit crazy over a tweet. It leads each segment of each news show, 24/7.

THAT TWEET ACCUSED THE PAST PRESIDENT OF WIRETAPPING HIS ******* PHONE!
He's lucky Obama didn't go nuclear on his old ass.
Honestly, Rob.

It was a tweet. Lighten up...Jesus Christ.

Obama cannot "go nuclear" because he is a *****. Plus, he does not want anybody digging up his dirt. I suspect it is vast.

When the other "team" does it it's endemic, part of the fabric and ubiquitously "disgusting".
When his own team does it it's "lighten up".

Having it both ways --- Priceless.

What an amacher.

 

[Rob37]

Case Study No. 1: Our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, is attacked in a concerted effort by Islamic militants shortly after a multilateral effort to oust Ghadaffi as leader. This was a pet project of then Sec of State, Hillary Clinton. All personnel of our consulate were murdered. Our Ambassador was tortured, mutilated, and desecrated. The attack lasted for hours. The Obama administration then concocted a story that the bloody attack was not caused by Muslim militants, but rather by outrage over a self-funded and highly obscure video made by some unknown guy. The narrative is that this video, that nobody has seen, so enraged the natives that they went to the consulate to protest, then things got out of hand, and boom - all Americans are dead. The Obama admin concocted this false narrative and maintained it for days even though 1. It did not pass the smell test, and 2. It was patently clear that the attack was an organized attack by militant Jihadists. Even 2 weeks later the official line was that this was caused by the said obscure video. Btw, the maker of this video, an American citizen, has, to my knowledge, never been seen or heard from again.

Case Study No. 2: When it was discovered that Hillary Clinton was using a bootleg server under her personal control, off-site from gov property, to communicate classified info, she lied as hard as she could. The server was not secure and it was not owned by the Gov; it was hers. Putting any gov data on the server is illegal. The gov owns the data. Putting Gov data on her server is the same thing as her taking a Gov file home and leaving it on her kitchen table. On top of that, she was using her personal server to send and receive classified data. All of this is a crime. All of it was continually lied about in an attempt to save her ass and cover up her pay-to play scandal. It was not prosecuted for political reasons, clearly.

In both of these case studies there are lies... BIG LIES. Plus these are lies about criminal activity and about matters of life and death. These are Democrat lies about matters that put people in prison, or worse. Quite obviously, these Dem lies involve high crimes and misdemeanors.

Case Study No. 3: Hyper-partisan and anti-American Manchurian President, Hussein Obama, says terrible things about then candidate Trump. Obama, through security agencies under his control, is wiretapping at least one member of Trump's team, Gen. Flynn, a private citizen. Obama attempts to wiretap Trump Tower, the nerve center of Trump's presidential campaign. Two applications for wiretap warrants are made with the FISA court. The second application is granted. The media raises the serious issue of whether Obama, known anti-American leftist fiend, has been wiretapping the Republican nominee. The story sounds quite plausible given Obama's hostility toward American values and devious nature. Trump tweets that he thinks Obama was wiretapping Trump Tower.

Let's compare and contrast. In Cases 1 and 2 above, as mentioned, there are CLEAR lies being told with the intent to mislead the American People on matters that are LIFE AND DEATH and on matters of TREASON AND SEDITION. Both lie sets should have landed BOTH Hillary and Obama in containment in Guantanamo for the rest of their lives.

Concerning Case No. 3, involving a mere Tweet from Trump, this does not even constitute a lie, as there was no intent to deceive. In fact, the assertion that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower was quite reasonable when made given the circumstances. At the very worst, Trump misspoke. Does that mean he should apologize to Obama? Of course not because Obama was, in fact, intending to wiretap Trump Tower as evidenced by the warrant applications. **** Obama. He was America's most harmful mistake.

So, the first 2 case studies are Dem perpetrated Lies of such magnitude that one starts thinking of the gallows as the only just way to remedy such heinous and devious breaches of public trust. In Case Study 3 you have a man's innocent misstatement that has hurt nobody. In fact, it was totally believable.

Now, how do the Dems react to these "lies"? Well, in Cases 1 and 2 they deny there were lies, even though there clearly were. Concerning Case 3, they believe that Trump should be impeached even though there was not even a lie. Do you see the problem here? I am guessing that the Dems do not see a problem, while the rest of us see a big problem of credibility on the part of the Democrats.

Dems are hypocrites... HUGE HYPOCRITES. Both Hillary and Obama are also criminals. They both have NEVER been on the side of the American people. Yet, the Democrats rally behind and support these scum bags. The support these scum bags over us, The People.

Let's be clear here: we have an absolute right to Political free speech. However, at this point the Democrats are not really exercising ANY speech. Rather, they are spewing mindless propaganda designed to undermine a sitting president. The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact. We do not have to allow speech that tends to undermine our nation and our freedoms. The Dems are not exercising legitimate speech. They are trying to effect a coup.



Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Here's your answer. Stop wasting readers' time with this crapola.

I make undeniable points of alarming Dem hypocrisy and leftist sleaze being pushed through the veins of our media. It is disgusting.

You overflatter yourself. What you make is undeniable overworked composition fallacies that can be smelled a mile away because you're too damned lazy to break a brain sweat and come up with a genuine argument.

Now flush that thing.

Lol! "Overworked composition fallacies"? Have you been hanging out with that Clayton guy?

 

[Rob37]

Hillary lost. Trump is president. There seems to be no shortage of dirt from his administration to study.

Bullshit. It is all media-created bullshit. The media is batshit crazy over a tweet. It leads each segment of each news show, 24/7.

THAT TWEET ACCUSED THE PAST PRESIDENT OF WIRETAPPING HIS ******* PHONE!
He's lucky Obama didn't go nuclear on his old ass.
Honestly, Rob.

It was a tweet. Lighten up...Jesus Christ.

Obama cannot "go nuclear" because he is a *****. Plus, he does not want anybody digging up his dirt. I suspect it is vast.

When the other "team" does it it's endemic, part of the fabric and ubiquitously "disgusting".
When his own team does it it's "lighten up".

Having it both ways --- Priceless.

What an amacher.

Pogo, you are clearly employing an over emoticon reply fallacy.

 

[OldLady]

Hillary lost. Trump is president. There seems to be no shortage of dirt from his administration to study.

Bullshit. It is all media-created bullshit. The media is batshit crazy over a tweet. It leads each segment of each news show, 24/7.

THAT TWEET ACCUSED THE PAST PRESIDENT OF WIRETAPPING HIS ******* PHONE!
He's lucky Obama didn't go nuclear on his old ass.
Honestly, Rob.

It was a tweet. Lighten up...Jesus Christ.

Obama cannot "go nuclear" because he is a *****. Plus, he does not want anybody digging up his dirt. I suspect it is vast.

I'm sick of hearing about it, too, but "Lighten up" is not the correct response. He is the President. He is quickly becoming known as a rambling old liar who the world is going to ignore. That is not what you or I want.