Dems want to pack the USSC

[AzogtheDefiler]

Made up nonsense. That isn't what investigators said.

What did they say? I quoted what the committee said.

Which one are you quoting. As you know there were at least 8 different committee investigations of Benghazi.

Republicans' $7 Million Benghazi Report Is Another Dud ...

After a more than two-year investigation, encompassing 33 hearings held in congressional investigations and four public hearings,

Ending one of the longest, costliest and most bitterly partisan congressional investigations in history, the Select Committee on Benghazi issued its report.

You said 14 and now eight. Which is it, leftist? The committee I said was the bipartisan one led by Gowdy.

LOL

You mean this "bipartisan" investigation, ShortBus?

"Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee. A select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known that any of that had happened had we not fought to make that happen." - Kevin McCarthy​

I said bipartisan agreement that there was deficiency. Learn to read you OCD ridden fat fuck.

I posted the exact quote if you bothered to read. Are you even to a fat waste of fucking life?

LOL

Poor, demented ShortBus. Even when shown Republicans have admitted it was a witch hunt designed to damage Hillary's credibility, he shoves his head even deeper up his own ass.

... what a pity.

1. The State Department failed to protect U.S. diplomats in Libya: Clinton and the administration should have realized and addressed risks. (The Democrats' version of the report acknowledges "security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate").

This is all I said YOU OCD RIDDEN FAT FUCK.

LOL

No, ShortBus, that is not all you said. You're actually too stupid to know what you say. What you actually did was reference an investigation that a Republican admitted was a witch hunt to defeat Hillary in an upcoming election. If you weren't such a retard, you never would have quoted anything from that sham of an "investigation." But sadly, you really just don't know any better.

Nope all I said was what you see above. Otherwise re-post what I said you lying leftist OCD ridden fat fuck. You made the accusation now post it or STFU. Get a job yet? 64-year old loser.

LOL

You're beyond demented, ShortBus. Sad, but amusing to watch.

You made the claim, OCD ridden fat fuck and now you deflect. That is the OCD Ridden Fat Fuck Faun MO. LOL.

Run along now, loser.
View attachment 509424

LOL

Poor, demented ShortBus. What a shame. I already explained it, ya dumbfuck. Everything else is just you expressing your delusions on the Internet.

Nope. You said I posted more than what I said above so either show that or STFU you OCD Ridden Fat Fuck Faun.

View attachment 509427

Poor, demented ShortBus. What a shame. I already explained it, ya dumbfuck. Everything else is just you expressing your delusions on the Internet.

All I posted was this:

• The State Department failed to protect U.S. diplomats in Libya: Clinton and the administration should have realized and addressed risks. (The Democrats' version of the report acknowledges "security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate").

Poor OCD ridden fat fuck faun. So, you cannot dispute above so you lie. Excellent.

Carry on.
View attachment 509429

LOLOLOL

Dayum, you're a fucking retard, eh, ShortBus? No, that is not all you posted. First of all, you didn't quote the report, you moronically quoted wikipedia...

United States House Select Committee on Benghazi - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Secondly, the entire quote from the actual report reads...

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/06/27/report_of_the_benghazi_select_committee_democratic_members-honoring_cour....pdf

​

The State Department’s security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate as a result of decisions made by officials in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, but Secretary Clinton never personally denied any requests for additional security in Benghazi.​

​

[emphasis added to highlight the portions you left out]​

Thirdly, you referred to the committee that released the report as "bipartisan" when they clearly weren't, as evidenced by two independent reports coming out of that committee; one by Democrats and one by Republicans.

And lastly, and the point already addressed ... that entire investigation was built on the foundation of attacking Clinton, not searching for facts about Benghazi, as expressed by Kevin McCarthy. YOU revealed that when you admitted you got if from the Trey Gowdy shamvestigation.

Savvy now, ShortBus?

Nope..I posted this:

• The State Department failed to protect U.S. diplomats in Libya: Clinton and the administration should have realized and addressed risks. (The Democrats' version of the report acknowledges "security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate").

What above is incorrect? Looks bi-partisan to me.

You're one stupid OCD ridden fat fuck faun.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Made up nonsense. That isn't what investigators said.

What did they say? I quoted what the committee said.

Which one are you quoting. As you know there were at least 8 different committee investigations of Benghazi.

Republicans' $7 Million Benghazi Report Is Another Dud ...

After a more than two-year investigation, encompassing 33 hearings held in congressional investigations and four public hearings,

Ending one of the longest, costliest and most bitterly partisan congressional investigations in history, the Select Committee on Benghazi issued its report.

You said 14 and now eight. Which is it, leftist? The committee I said was the bipartisan one led by Gowdy.

LOL

You mean this "bipartisan" investigation, ShortBus?

"Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee. A select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known that any of that had happened had we not fought to make that happen." - Kevin McCarthy​

I said bipartisan agreement that there was deficiency. Learn to read you OCD ridden fat fuck.

I posted the exact quote if you bothered to read. Are you even to a fat waste of fucking life?

LOL

Poor, demented ShortBus. Even when shown Republicans have admitted it was a witch hunt designed to damage Hillary's credibility, he shoves his head even deeper up his own ass.

... what a pity.

1. The State Department failed to protect U.S. diplomats in Libya: Clinton and the administration should have realized and addressed risks. (The Democrats' version of the report acknowledges "security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate").

This is all I said YOU OCD RIDDEN FAT FUCK.

LOL

No, ShortBus, that is not all you said. You're actually too stupid to know what you say. What you actually did was reference an investigation that a Republican admitted was a witch hunt to defeat Hillary in an upcoming election. If you weren't such a retard, you never would have quoted anything from that sham of an "investigation." But sadly, you really just don't know any better.

Nope all I said was what you see above. Otherwise re-post what I said you lying leftist OCD ridden fat fuck. You made the accusation now post it or STFU. Get a job yet? 64-year old loser.

LOL

You're beyond demented, ShortBus. Sad, but amusing to watch.

You made the claim, OCD ridden fat fuck and now you deflect. That is the OCD Ridden Fat Fuck Faun MO. LOL.

Run along now, loser.
View attachment 509424

LOL

Poor, demented ShortBus. What a shame. I already explained it, ya dumbfuck. Everything else is just you expressing your delusions on the Internet.

Nope. You said I posted more than what I said above so either show that or STFU you OCD Ridden Fat Fuck Faun.

View attachment 509427

Poor, demented ShortBus. What a shame. I already explained it, ya dumbfuck. Everything else is just you expressing your delusions on the Internet.

All I posted was this:

• The State Department failed to protect U.S. diplomats in Libya: Clinton and the administration should have realized and addressed risks. (The Democrats' version of the report acknowledges "security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate").

Poor OCD ridden fat fuck faun. So, you cannot dispute above so you lie. Excellent.

Carry on.
View attachment 509429

LOLOLOL

Dayum, you're a fucking retard, eh, ShortBus? No, that is not all you posted. First of all, you didn't quote the report, you moronically quoted wikipedia...

United States House Select Committee on Benghazi - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Secondly, the entire quote from the actual report reads...

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/06/27/report_of_the_benghazi_select_committee_democratic_members-honoring_cour....pdf

​

The State Department’s security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate as a result of decisions made by officials in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, but Secretary Clinton never personally denied any requests for additional security in Benghazi.​

​

[emphasis added to highlight the portions you left out]​

Thirdly, you referred to the committee that released the report as "bipartisan" when they clearly weren't, as evidenced by two independent reports coming out of that committee; one by Democrats and one by Republicans.

And lastly, and the point already addressed ... that entire investigation was built on the foundation of attacking Clinton, not searching for facts about Benghazi, as expressed by Kevin McCarthy. YOU revealed that when you admitted you got if from the Trey Gowdy shamvestigation.

Savvy now, ShortBus?

But even House Democrats' version of their report acknowledges that "security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate," pointing the finger at the security and law enforcement arm of the State Department rather than Clinton. Ambassador Stevens was at the diplomatic compound in Benghazi with only two official bodyguards even after other Western diplomats had left the country.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/28/the-5-most-serious-accusations-from-republicans-benghazi-report/

 

[my2¢]

I wouldn't be losing any sleep over the Democrats packing the court considering they haven't even done away with the filibuster.

 

[Faun]

Made up nonsense. That isn't what investigators said.

What did they say? I quoted what the committee said.

Which one are you quoting. As you know there were at least 8 different committee investigations of Benghazi.

Republicans' $7 Million Benghazi Report Is Another Dud ...

After a more than two-year investigation, encompassing 33 hearings held in congressional investigations and four public hearings,

Ending one of the longest, costliest and most bitterly partisan congressional investigations in history, the Select Committee on Benghazi issued its report.

You said 14 and now eight. Which is it, leftist? The committee I said was the bipartisan one led by Gowdy.

LOL

You mean this "bipartisan" investigation, ShortBus?

"Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee. A select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known that any of that had happened had we not fought to make that happen." - Kevin McCarthy​

I said bipartisan agreement that there was deficiency. Learn to read you OCD ridden fat fuck.

I posted the exact quote if you bothered to read. Are you even to a fat waste of fucking life?

LOL

Poor, demented ShortBus. Even when shown Republicans have admitted it was a witch hunt designed to damage Hillary's credibility, he shoves his head even deeper up his own ass.

... what a pity.

1. The State Department failed to protect U.S. diplomats in Libya: Clinton and the administration should have realized and addressed risks. (The Democrats' version of the report acknowledges "security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate").

This is all I said YOU OCD RIDDEN FAT FUCK.

LOL

No, ShortBus, that is not all you said. You're actually too stupid to know what you say. What you actually did was reference an investigation that a Republican admitted was a witch hunt to defeat Hillary in an upcoming election. If you weren't such a retard, you never would have quoted anything from that sham of an "investigation." But sadly, you really just don't know any better.

Nope all I said was what you see above. Otherwise re-post what I said you lying leftist OCD ridden fat fuck. You made the accusation now post it or STFU. Get a job yet? 64-year old loser.

LOL

You're beyond demented, ShortBus. Sad, but amusing to watch.

You made the claim, OCD ridden fat fuck and now you deflect. That is the OCD Ridden Fat Fuck Faun MO. LOL.

Run along now, loser.
View attachment 509424

LOL

Poor, demented ShortBus. What a shame. I already explained it, ya dumbfuck. Everything else is just you expressing your delusions on the Internet.

Nope. You said I posted more than what I said above so either show that or STFU you OCD Ridden Fat Fuck Faun.

View attachment 509427

Poor, demented ShortBus. What a shame. I already explained it, ya dumbfuck. Everything else is just you expressing your delusions on the Internet.

All I posted was this:

• The State Department failed to protect U.S. diplomats in Libya: Clinton and the administration should have realized and addressed risks. (The Democrats' version of the report acknowledges "security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate").

Poor OCD ridden fat fuck faun. So, you cannot dispute above so you lie. Excellent.

Carry on.
View attachment 509429

LOLOLOL

Dayum, you're a fucking retard, eh, ShortBus? No, that is not all you posted. First of all, you didn't quote the report, you moronically quoted wikipedia...

United States House Select Committee on Benghazi - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Secondly, the entire quote from the actual report reads...

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/06/27/report_of_the_benghazi_select_committee_democratic_members-honoring_cour....pdf

​

The State Department’s security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate as a result of decisions made by officials in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, but Secretary Clinton never personally denied any requests for additional security in Benghazi.​

​

[emphasis added to highlight the portions you left out]​

Thirdly, you referred to the committee that released the report as "bipartisan" when they clearly weren't, as evidenced by two independent reports coming out of that committee; one by Democrats and one by Republicans.

And lastly, and the point already addressed ... that entire investigation was built on the foundation of attacking Clinton, not searching for facts about Benghazi, as expressed by Kevin McCarthy. YOU revealed that when you admitted you got if from the Trey Gowdy shamvestigation.

Savvy now, ShortBus?

Nope..I posted this:

• The State Department failed to protect U.S. diplomats in Libya: Clinton and the administration should have realized and addressed risks. (The Democrats' version of the report acknowledges "security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate").

What above is incorrect? Looks bi-partisan to me.

You're one stupid OCD ridden fat fuck faun.

LOL

Seriously, ShortBus, the forum didn't really need you to repeat again what a moron you are.

That looks bipartisan to you? Great, name the Republicans who participated in that report...

I've more than adequately explained the flaws in your posts. That you still can't understand them is on you. In a nutshell, which I'll copy since I know I will be pasting it again.... you didn't quote the report, you quoted wikipedia which misquoted a partisan report from a shamvestigation.

Time and time again you remind the forum why I call you "ShortBus."

 

[meaner gene]

• The State Department failed to protect U.S. diplomats in Libya: Clinton and the administration should have realized and addressed risks. (The Democrats' version of the report acknowledges "security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate").

What above is incorrect? Looks bi-partisan to me.

You're one stupid OCD ridden fat fuck faun.

You left out democrats also called the republican cuts to state department embassy security funding (25%) made funding security woefully inadequate.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Made up nonsense. That isn't what investigators said.

What did they say? I quoted what the committee said.

Which one are you quoting. As you know there were at least 8 different committee investigations of Benghazi.

Republicans' $7 Million Benghazi Report Is Another Dud ...

After a more than two-year investigation, encompassing 33 hearings held in congressional investigations and four public hearings,

Ending one of the longest, costliest and most bitterly partisan congressional investigations in history, the Select Committee on Benghazi issued its report.

You said 14 and now eight. Which is it, leftist? The committee I said was the bipartisan one led by Gowdy.

LOL

You mean this "bipartisan" investigation, ShortBus?

"Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee. A select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known that any of that had happened had we not fought to make that happen." - Kevin McCarthy​

I said bipartisan agreement that there was deficiency. Learn to read you OCD ridden fat fuck.

I posted the exact quote if you bothered to read. Are you even to a fat waste of fucking life?

LOL

Poor, demented ShortBus. Even when shown Republicans have admitted it was a witch hunt designed to damage Hillary's credibility, he shoves his head even deeper up his own ass.

... what a pity.

1. The State Department failed to protect U.S. diplomats in Libya: Clinton and the administration should have realized and addressed risks. (The Democrats' version of the report acknowledges "security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate").

This is all I said YOU OCD RIDDEN FAT FUCK.

LOL

No, ShortBus, that is not all you said. You're actually too stupid to know what you say. What you actually did was reference an investigation that a Republican admitted was a witch hunt to defeat Hillary in an upcoming election. If you weren't such a retard, you never would have quoted anything from that sham of an "investigation." But sadly, you really just don't know any better.

Nope all I said was what you see above. Otherwise re-post what I said you lying leftist OCD ridden fat fuck. You made the accusation now post it or STFU. Get a job yet? 64-year old loser.

LOL

You're beyond demented, ShortBus. Sad, but amusing to watch.

You made the claim, OCD ridden fat fuck and now you deflect. That is the OCD Ridden Fat Fuck Faun MO. LOL.

Run along now, loser.
View attachment 509424

LOL

Poor, demented ShortBus. What a shame. I already explained it, ya dumbfuck. Everything else is just you expressing your delusions on the Internet.

Nope. You said I posted more than what I said above so either show that or STFU you OCD Ridden Fat Fuck Faun.

View attachment 509427

Poor, demented ShortBus. What a shame. I already explained it, ya dumbfuck. Everything else is just you expressing your delusions on the Internet.

All I posted was this:

• The State Department failed to protect U.S. diplomats in Libya: Clinton and the administration should have realized and addressed risks. (The Democrats' version of the report acknowledges "security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate").

Poor OCD ridden fat fuck faun. So, you cannot dispute above so you lie. Excellent.

Carry on.
View attachment 509429

LOLOLOL

Dayum, you're a fucking retard, eh, ShortBus? No, that is not all you posted. First of all, you didn't quote the report, you moronically quoted wikipedia...

United States House Select Committee on Benghazi - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Secondly, the entire quote from the actual report reads...

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/06/27/report_of_the_benghazi_select_committee_democratic_members-honoring_cour....pdf

​

The State Department’s security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate as a result of decisions made by officials in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, but Secretary Clinton never personally denied any requests for additional security in Benghazi.​

​

[emphasis added to highlight the portions you left out]​

Thirdly, you referred to the committee that released the report as "bipartisan" when they clearly weren't, as evidenced by two independent reports coming out of that committee; one by Democrats and one by Republicans.

And lastly, and the point already addressed ... that entire investigation was built on the foundation of attacking Clinton, not searching for facts about Benghazi, as expressed by Kevin McCarthy. YOU revealed that when you admitted you got if from the Trey Gowdy shamvestigation.

Savvy now, ShortBus?

Nope..I posted this:

• The State Department failed to protect U.S. diplomats in Libya: Clinton and the administration should have realized and addressed risks. (The Democrats' version of the report acknowledges "security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate").

What above is incorrect? Looks bi-partisan to me.

You're one stupid OCD ridden fat fuck faun.

LOL

Seriously, ShortBus, the forum didn't really need you to repeat again what a moron you are.

That looks bipartisan to you? Great, name the Republicans who participated in that report...

I've more than adequately explained the flaws in your posts. That you still can't understand them is on you. In a nutshell, which I'll copy since I know I will be pasting it again.... you didn't quote the report, you quoted wikipedia which misquoted a partisan report from a shamvestigation.

Time and time again you remind the forum why I call you "ShortBus."

OCD Ridden Fat Fuck Faun. I said it was bi-partisan that they agreed that security measures were deficient and hopefully future embassies and missions and such learn from this. That was all. Then you jumped all over it like the OCD ridden loser that you are.

you're 64 and unemployed. Pretty sad.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

• The State Department failed to protect U.S. diplomats in Libya: Clinton and the administration should have realized and addressed risks. (The Democrats' version of the report acknowledges "security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate").

What above is incorrect? Looks bi-partisan to me.

You're one stupid OCD ridden fat fuck faun.

You left out democrats also called the republican cuts to state department embassy security funding (25%) made funding security woefully inadequate.

So the 25% is what led to him only having 2 security personnel? All I said was we all should learn from Benghazi and do better going forward. If you cannot agree there then you are entitled to your own opinion, leftist.

 

[meaner gene]

Seriously, ShortBus, the forum didn't really need you to repeat again what a moron you are.

That looks bipartisan to you? Great, name the Republicans who participated in that report...

There were 7 republicans to 5 democrats.

Trey Gowdy,
Chairman (SC-04)

 

[sartre play]

Prefer a more balanced court, believe that would serve us best. Some people like winning for their team more than what's best for all of us.

 

[meaner gene]

You left out democrats also called the republican cuts to state department embassy security funding (25%) made funding security woefully inadequate.

So the 25% is what led to him only having 2 security personnel?

The cuts prevented them from increasing security in Benghazi, and why they had to use contracted security around the exterior.

 

[Faun]

Made up nonsense. That isn't what investigators said.

What did they say? I quoted what the committee said.

Which one are you quoting. As you know there were at least 8 different committee investigations of Benghazi.

Republicans' $7 Million Benghazi Report Is Another Dud ...

After a more than two-year investigation, encompassing 33 hearings held in congressional investigations and four public hearings,

Ending one of the longest, costliest and most bitterly partisan congressional investigations in history, the Select Committee on Benghazi issued its report.

You said 14 and now eight. Which is it, leftist? The committee I said was the bipartisan one led by Gowdy.

LOL

You mean this "bipartisan" investigation, ShortBus?

"Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee. A select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known that any of that had happened had we not fought to make that happen." - Kevin McCarthy​

I said bipartisan agreement that there was deficiency. Learn to read you OCD ridden fat fuck.

I posted the exact quote if you bothered to read. Are you even to a fat waste of fucking life?

LOL

Poor, demented ShortBus. Even when shown Republicans have admitted it was a witch hunt designed to damage Hillary's credibility, he shoves his head even deeper up his own ass.

... what a pity.

1. The State Department failed to protect U.S. diplomats in Libya: Clinton and the administration should have realized and addressed risks. (The Democrats' version of the report acknowledges "security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate").

This is all I said YOU OCD RIDDEN FAT FUCK.

LOL

No, ShortBus, that is not all you said. You're actually too stupid to know what you say. What you actually did was reference an investigation that a Republican admitted was a witch hunt to defeat Hillary in an upcoming election. If you weren't such a retard, you never would have quoted anything from that sham of an "investigation." But sadly, you really just don't know any better.

Nope all I said was what you see above. Otherwise re-post what I said you lying leftist OCD ridden fat fuck. You made the accusation now post it or STFU. Get a job yet? 64-year old loser.

LOL

You're beyond demented, ShortBus. Sad, but amusing to watch.

You made the claim, OCD ridden fat fuck and now you deflect. That is the OCD Ridden Fat Fuck Faun MO. LOL.

Run along now, loser.
View attachment 509424

LOL

Poor, demented ShortBus. What a shame. I already explained it, ya dumbfuck. Everything else is just you expressing your delusions on the Internet.

Nope. You said I posted more than what I said above so either show that or STFU you OCD Ridden Fat Fuck Faun.

View attachment 509427

Poor, demented ShortBus. What a shame. I already explained it, ya dumbfuck. Everything else is just you expressing your delusions on the Internet.

All I posted was this:

• The State Department failed to protect U.S. diplomats in Libya: Clinton and the administration should have realized and addressed risks. (The Democrats' version of the report acknowledges "security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate").

Poor OCD ridden fat fuck faun. So, you cannot dispute above so you lie. Excellent.

Carry on.
View attachment 509429

LOLOLOL

Dayum, you're a fucking retard, eh, ShortBus? No, that is not all you posted. First of all, you didn't quote the report, you moronically quoted wikipedia...

United States House Select Committee on Benghazi - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Secondly, the entire quote from the actual report reads...

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/06/27/report_of_the_benghazi_select_committee_democratic_members-honoring_cour....pdf

​

The State Department’s security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate as a result of decisions made by officials in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, but Secretary Clinton never personally denied any requests for additional security in Benghazi.​

​

[emphasis added to highlight the portions you left out]​

Thirdly, you referred to the committee that released the report as "bipartisan" when they clearly weren't, as evidenced by two independent reports coming out of that committee; one by Democrats and one by Republicans.

And lastly, and the point already addressed ... that entire investigation was built on the foundation of attacking Clinton, not searching for facts about Benghazi, as expressed by Kevin McCarthy. YOU revealed that when you admitted you got if from the Trey Gowdy shamvestigation.

Savvy now, ShortBus?

Nope..I posted this:

• The State Department failed to protect U.S. diplomats in Libya: Clinton and the administration should have realized and addressed risks. (The Democrats' version of the report acknowledges "security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate").

What above is incorrect? Looks bi-partisan to me.

You're one stupid OCD ridden fat fuck faun.

LOL

Seriously, ShortBus, the forum didn't really need you to repeat again what a moron you are.

That looks bipartisan to you? Great, name the Republicans who participated in that report...

I've more than adequately explained the flaws in your posts. That you still can't understand them is on you. In a nutshell, which I'll copy since I know I will be pasting it again.... you didn't quote the report, you quoted wikipedia which misquoted a partisan report from a shamvestigation.

Time and time again you remind the forum why I call you "ShortBus."

OCD Ridden Fat Fuck Faun. I said it was bi-partisan that they agreed that security measures were deficient and hopefully future embassies and missions and such learn from this. That was all. Then you jumped all over it like the OCD ridden loser that you are.

you're 64 and unemployed. Pretty sad.

LOL

You're so fucking deranged, ShortBus. There was nothing bipartisan about that report as evidenced by your inability to name a single Republican who signed onto the Democrats' report. Even worse for you, you flat out lied. You claimed...

I merely posted what the committee concluded and point one was bipartisan. Benghazi cost Clinton the election IMO.​

That's a lie. Point one in the Democrats' report was there was inadequate security due to decisions by officials in the DS, not Hillary.

 

[Faun]

Seriously, ShortBus, the forum didn't really need you to repeat again what a moron you are.

That looks bipartisan to you? Great, name the Republicans who participated in that report...

There were 7 republicans to 5 democrats.

Trey Gowdy,
Chairman (SC-04)

And there were zero Republicans on the report he's talking about. Yet to that retard, that's bipartisan.

 

[meaner gene]

Prefer a more balanced court, believe that would serve us best. Some people like winning for their team more than what's best for all of us.

That's the problem. Democrats nominated people based on their judicial skills first, and ideology second. While republicans put ideology first, and judicial skills second.

This resulted in a lean toward the more qualified justices. The republicans overcame this obstacle by pure numbers, resulting in ideological opinions, rather than judicial opinions being in the majority

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You left out democrats also called the republican cuts to state department embassy security funding (25%) made funding security woefully inadequate.

So the 25% is what led to him only having 2 security personnel?

The cuts prevented them from increasing security in Benghazi, and why they had to use contracted security around the exterior.

Link....thanks

So private security made up for it. Why didn't they deploy the fighter jets, that were readily available?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Prefer a more balanced court, believe that would serve us best. Some people like winning for their team more than what's best for all of us.

That's the problem. Democrats nominated people based on their judicial skills first, and ideology second. While republicans put ideology first, and judicial skills second.

This resulted in a lean toward the more qualified justices. The republicans overcame this obstacle by pure numbers, resulting in ideological opinions, rather than judicial opinions being in the majority

Kavanaugh and ACB didn't have judicial skills? First I am hearing of this.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Made up nonsense. That isn't what investigators said.

What did they say? I quoted what the committee said.

Which one are you quoting. As you know there were at least 8 different committee investigations of Benghazi.

Republicans' $7 Million Benghazi Report Is Another Dud ...

After a more than two-year investigation, encompassing 33 hearings held in congressional investigations and four public hearings,

Ending one of the longest, costliest and most bitterly partisan congressional investigations in history, the Select Committee on Benghazi issued its report.

You said 14 and now eight. Which is it, leftist? The committee I said was the bipartisan one led by Gowdy.

LOL

You mean this "bipartisan" investigation, ShortBus?

"Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee. A select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known that any of that had happened had we not fought to make that happen." - Kevin McCarthy​

I said bipartisan agreement that there was deficiency. Learn to read you OCD ridden fat fuck.

I posted the exact quote if you bothered to read. Are you even to a fat waste of fucking life?

LOL

Poor, demented ShortBus. Even when shown Republicans have admitted it was a witch hunt designed to damage Hillary's credibility, he shoves his head even deeper up his own ass.

... what a pity.

1. The State Department failed to protect U.S. diplomats in Libya: Clinton and the administration should have realized and addressed risks. (The Democrats' version of the report acknowledges "security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate").

This is all I said YOU OCD RIDDEN FAT FUCK.

LOL

No, ShortBus, that is not all you said. You're actually too stupid to know what you say. What you actually did was reference an investigation that a Republican admitted was a witch hunt to defeat Hillary in an upcoming election. If you weren't such a retard, you never would have quoted anything from that sham of an "investigation." But sadly, you really just don't know any better.

Nope all I said was what you see above. Otherwise re-post what I said you lying leftist OCD ridden fat fuck. You made the accusation now post it or STFU. Get a job yet? 64-year old loser.

LOL

You're beyond demented, ShortBus. Sad, but amusing to watch.

You made the claim, OCD ridden fat fuck and now you deflect. That is the OCD Ridden Fat Fuck Faun MO. LOL.

Run along now, loser.
View attachment 509424

LOL

Poor, demented ShortBus. What a shame. I already explained it, ya dumbfuck. Everything else is just you expressing your delusions on the Internet.

Nope. You said I posted more than what I said above so either show that or STFU you OCD Ridden Fat Fuck Faun.

View attachment 509427

Poor, demented ShortBus. What a shame. I already explained it, ya dumbfuck. Everything else is just you expressing your delusions on the Internet.

All I posted was this:

• The State Department failed to protect U.S. diplomats in Libya: Clinton and the administration should have realized and addressed risks. (The Democrats' version of the report acknowledges "security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate").

Poor OCD ridden fat fuck faun. So, you cannot dispute above so you lie. Excellent.

Carry on.
View attachment 509429

LOLOLOL

Dayum, you're a fucking retard, eh, ShortBus? No, that is not all you posted. First of all, you didn't quote the report, you moronically quoted wikipedia...

United States House Select Committee on Benghazi - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Secondly, the entire quote from the actual report reads...

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/06/27/report_of_the_benghazi_select_committee_democratic_members-honoring_cour....pdf

​

The State Department’s security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate as a result of decisions made by officials in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, but Secretary Clinton never personally denied any requests for additional security in Benghazi.​

​

[emphasis added to highlight the portions you left out]​

Thirdly, you referred to the committee that released the report as "bipartisan" when they clearly weren't, as evidenced by two independent reports coming out of that committee; one by Democrats and one by Republicans.

And lastly, and the point already addressed ... that entire investigation was built on the foundation of attacking Clinton, not searching for facts about Benghazi, as expressed by Kevin McCarthy. YOU revealed that when you admitted you got if from the Trey Gowdy shamvestigation.

Savvy now, ShortBus?

Nope..I posted this:

• The State Department failed to protect U.S. diplomats in Libya: Clinton and the administration should have realized and addressed risks. (The Democrats' version of the report acknowledges "security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate").

What above is incorrect? Looks bi-partisan to me.

You're one stupid OCD ridden fat fuck faun.

LOL

Seriously, ShortBus, the forum didn't really need you to repeat again what a moron you are.

That looks bipartisan to you? Great, name the Republicans who participated in that report...

I've more than adequately explained the flaws in your posts. That you still can't understand them is on you. In a nutshell, which I'll copy since I know I will be pasting it again.... you didn't quote the report, you quoted wikipedia which misquoted a partisan report from a shamvestigation.

Time and time again you remind the forum why I call you "ShortBus."

OCD Ridden Fat Fuck Faun. I said it was bi-partisan that they agreed that security measures were deficient and hopefully future embassies and missions and such learn from this. That was all. Then you jumped all over it like the OCD ridden loser that you are.

you're 64 and unemployed. Pretty sad.

LOL

You're so fucking deranged, ShortBus. There was nothing bipartisan about that report as evidenced by your inability to name a single Republican who signed onto the Democrats' report. Even worse for you, you flat out lied. You claimed...

I merely posted what the committee concluded and point one was bipartisan. Benghazi cost Clinton the election IMO.​

That's a lie. Point one in the Democrats' report was there was inadequate security due to decisions by officials in the DS, not Hillary.

Never said report. I said they agreed the security was deficient. OCD ridden fat fuck faun.

 

[Faun]

You left out democrats also called the republican cuts to state department embassy security funding (25%) made funding security woefully inadequate.

So the 25% is what led to him only having 2 security personnel?

The cuts prevented them from increasing security in Benghazi, and why they had to use contracted security around the exterior.

So private security made up for it. Why didn't they deploy the fighter jets, that were readily available?

The report addresses that. You should read it if you really want to know the reason.

 

[meaner gene]

Yet to that retard, that's bipartisan.

That's like how supreme court justices have been chosen in the last decade or two.
I can point out how both sides picked imminently qualified justices, not just for the USSC but for all the federal courts.
But that changed. The repubicans went for ideology over judicial competence.

I remember the famous hearing where a Trump nominee for the district court was asked by John Kennedy (republican) some fundamental questions, and the nominee said he had never even handled a federal case by himself, and he was unfamiliar with federal motion practice, since he hadn't dealt with it since lawschool.

And he was up for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench. There are people still in lawschool who were better qualified. But this is pure ideology.

 

[Papageorgio]

On Thursday, the justices voted 6-3 to uphold Arizona’s voting law, which banned ballot harvesting — the practice of allowing third parties to collect absentee ballots and drop them off for counting — and invalidating votes cast in the incorrect precinct. Democrats argued that both provisions had a disparate impact on racial minorities in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

“Today’s ruling is another blow to voting rights,” tweeted Sen. Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat. “We must abolish the filibuster and pass the For the People Act and John Lewis Voting Rights Act. And we must expand the Supreme Court.”

“Can we finally stop pretending it’s radical to expand the Supreme Court, abolish the Electoral College, and end the filibuster?” asked Robert Reich, a liberal activist and former secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. “We do these things, or we let democracy die. It’s really that simple.”

“EXPAND THE COURT OR YOU GET NOTHING,” tweeted the Nation’s Elie Mystal

Supreme Court rulings invite new court-packing chatter on the Left, but Senate votes are lacking - Washington Examiner

A pair of recent Supreme Court rulings has revived left-wing activist chatter about court-packing, but no obvious path toward getting legislation to do so through a closely divided Senate.The situation creates a Catch-22 for the Left: they do not have the votes to pass their most sweeping...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

The Democrat Party is at war against our democracy*.
If they can't win, they change the rules.
The Supreme Court ruled correctly that States have the right to protect their citizen's Right to Vote from the corrupt Democrat Party's election rigging crimes.
So now the Democrats want to pack the court with far left radical and racist Democrat Judges.
The Supreme Court is supposed to protect the citizens, not the corrupt Democrat Party's voter fraud crimes.
If they can get away with packing the court they will be able to get away with anything.

Don't need to pack it, just need to remove the one or two illegitimate appointees and have Joe fill the spots.

You are just being stupid.

 

[meaner gene]

Why didn't they deploy the fighter jets, that were readily available?

The fighter jets were available out of southern Italy. The problem is that there were no airborn tanker assets available in the region. The range of the fighters was just inside the distance to Benghazi, which means they would have zero loiter time, and it would be a one way mission without enough fuel to reach a friendly airbase.