Hillary....in Invisible Ink

[Spoonman]

You have the pride of a Narcissist, what that's worth I do not know. That you always speak the truth isn't clear, as was pointed out with probative evidence, for posting the ideas of others as your own wasn't your finest hour.

perhaps if you posted ideas of others on occasion, you would make sense

 

[PoliticalChic]

You have the pride of a Narcissist, what that's worth I do not know. That you always speak the truth isn't clear, as was pointed out with probative evidence, for posting the ideas of others as your own wasn't your finest hour.

"...as was pointed out with probative evidence, for posting the ideas of others as your own wasn't your finest hour."

What is definite is that you are lying scum....your charge is untrue, and represents your attempt to regain some degree of face as I have regularly eviscerated your posts.
And....will continue to do so....as I just have.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Benghazi won't be a factor in 2016.

Perhaps the public will get answers to questions such as the following.....


9. "What, to repeat, was Barack Obama doing on September 11, 2012, in the hours before he blithely hopped aboard Air Force One — not to be deterred from a Vegas fundraiser — while anti-American jihadists invaded our soil to war against our country?

While those jihadists murdered four American officials and severely wounded others?
And speaking of those others, why have they been kept under wraps by the Obama administration for the ensuing 15 months — with nary a peep from the press?
Why have they been prevented from speaking publicly about what happened in Benghazi that night?


a. .... did President Obama have personal or telephone contact with any top military brass or any members of his cabinet that night? Any engaged commander-in-chief would have been burning up the phone lines, but the White House initially represented to Congress that Obama made no calls.

That astounding version of events was soon contradicted by Secretary Clinton. In January 2013 congressional testimony, she claimed to have had a phone conversation with the president at around 10 P.M. Washington time. That was shortly after she had been fully briefed by Gregory Hicks,...


b. ...what are we to make of the fact that the purported 10 P.M. call — which would have occurred while Americans, including Doherty and Woods, were still fighting for their lives — happened only minutes before the State Department put out a statement from Secretary Clinton blaming the attack on the video?" Down the Times? Benghazi Rabbit Hole | National Review Online



Do you believe that the public need not know the answers to those questions?


Or...are they only valid if the administration is a Republican one?

 

[Edgetho]

We both win our bets:

1. Yours....you are stupid (a liar, a fool, a moron, a jerk, a commie or a Marxist.

2. Mine....we both know you read it.


Now act your age, not your IQ.

You must be so proud to have Redfish, an esteemed and educated and brilliant member of the USMB idiot fringe, support you. And for emulating you by posting only a personal attack without offering a defense/refutation on your character which I described with unerring accuracy.

One measure of a persons IQ is their use of language. I wonder, do you write down to those like Redfish, or is an outline the only way for you organize your thinking? IMO, which you value otherwise you wouldn't protest so much, the outline isn't the best form to bring to public notice a convincing expository argument (of course I speak from my experience at CAL; maybe it was acceptable at the Ivy League High School which you attended).

"a defense/refutation on your character which I described with unerring accuracy..."

At your age, it's dangerous to reach around like that to pat yourself on the back.

As far as accuracy.....let's hope your toilet habits are more accurate than what you posited.

Here....let me help you toward actual accuracy: ...I have a proprietary pride in veracity.

Not sure he was 'reaching around' to pat himself on the back...

 

[candycorn]

If a media organ of the Leftist/Democrat Party wanted to subtly endorse Hillary Clinton without seeming to do so...how to do so?




Well, if Benghazi is the thorn that much prick her candidacy...how about a 7500-word "mini-book-length, six-“chapter” revisionist history of the Benghazi massacre cooked up by David D. Kirkpatrick and the New York Times."
A bogus white-wash of this administration's culpability in the murders of four Americans...with a special 'treatment' of Hillary.






1. "The Times report is a labor of love in the service of President Obama and, in particular, the Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign ramp-up.

Former secretary of state Clinton, of course, was a key architect of Obama’s Libya policy. She was also chiefly responsible for the protection of American personnel in that country, including our murdered ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens, and the three other Americans killed by Muslim .... Still, theTimes is banking on your not noticing that in its laborious 7,500 words, Kirkpatrick’s account utters the word “Clinton” exactly . . . wait for it . . . zero times.





a. ... “Obama” comes in for a mere six mentions, four of which are impersonal references to the current administration. The other two are telling, though fleeting..... the president’s vow to exact “justice” against anyone found responsible for this “terrible act” of killing four Americans,...

2. In a despicable violation of constitutional free-speech principles, and a bow to sharia blasphemy rules that forbid criticism of Islam, Obama and Clinton publicly portrayed [Nakoula Basseley Nakoula] and his “film” as the Benghazi culprits — implicitly accepting the Islamic-supremacist premise that verbal insults, no matter how obscure and trifling, justify mass-murder attacks.

3. .... Obama and Clinton (a) conspired to defraud the nation into believing the trailer was the singular, proximate cause — then dispatched their minion, Ambassador Susan Rice, to do their dirty work on the Sunday shows;

(b) jointly appeared in a preening commercial aired on Islamic (but not American) television to stress that the U.S. government had no part in the video (translation: We elevate sharia blasphemy standards over the Bill of Rights guarantees the U.S. government exists to ensure);

(c) told family members of our Benghazi dead that they would get, not the terrorists, but the man responsible for the video; and

(d) then trumped up a prosecution against Nakoula: The Justice Department arrested him in the dead of night, imprisoning him on a bogus “violation of supervised release” that no experienced prosecutor would regard as meriting such severe treatment . . . but that could conveniently be portrayed to Muslim countries as the administration’s enforcement of sharia against Americans.





4. Obama’s reckless Libya policy, part of his broader appeasement of Islamic supremacists, is the heart of the matter.

5. Kirkpatrick’s account is absurd. Its two themes — namely, that the trailer really did have some causal connection to the massacre and that al-Qaeda really did not partake in the Benghazi attack — do not pass the laugh test. They have been ably refuted by Tom Joscelyn, Eli Lake, Steve Hayes, and theeditors of NATIONAL REVIEW, to cite four of the best rebuttals.

6. .... the objective of Kirkpatrick’s novella is not to persuade; it is to shrink the parameters of newsworthy inquiry to a punctilious debate over nonsense."
Down the Times? Benghazi Rabbit Hole | National Review Online






I understand former Federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy's anger, largely directed against the administration, which is responsible for the Benghazi cover-up.....

....but he is far too kind to the NYSlimes and to the so-called journalist, Kirkpatrick.

Kirkpatrick is a paid mouthpiece/stenographer for the forces intending to tear down this country.

I admit, I read not a line of the above. Willful ignorance? Nope, the author's familiar routine of character assassination and partisan extremism is well known and hackneyed.

Her entire body of work has been "Aint (Obama, the Clintons, Carter, FDR, Wilson, liberals, progressives, the left) awful (dishonest, wrongheaded, commies, Marxists, liars).

BTW, she will now call me stupid (a liar, a fool, a moron, a jerk, a commie or a Marxist.

Or use some sort of Howard Cunningham/Potsie humor to try to "insult" you.

 

[Edgetho]

If a media organ of the Leftist/Democrat Party wanted to subtly endorse Hillary Clinton without seeming to do so...how to do so?




Well, if Benghazi is the thorn that much prick her candidacy...how about a 7500-word "mini-book-length, six-“chapter” revisionist history of the Benghazi massacre cooked up by David D. Kirkpatrick and the New York Times."
A bogus white-wash of this administration's culpability in the murders of four Americans...with a special 'treatment' of Hillary.






1. "The Times report is a labor of love in the service of President Obama and, in particular, the Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign ramp-up.

Former secretary of state Clinton, of course, was a key architect of Obama’s Libya policy. She was also chiefly responsible for the protection of American personnel in that country, including our murdered ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens, and the three other Americans killed by Muslim .... Still, theTimes is banking on your not noticing that in its laborious 7,500 words, Kirkpatrick’s account utters the word “Clinton” exactly . . . wait for it . . . zero times.





a. ... “Obama” comes in for a mere six mentions, four of which are impersonal references to the current administration. The other two are telling, though fleeting..... the president’s vow to exact “justice” against anyone found responsible for this “terrible act” of killing four Americans,...

2. In a despicable violation of constitutional free-speech principles, and a bow to sharia blasphemy rules that forbid criticism of Islam, Obama and Clinton publicly portrayed [Nakoula Basseley Nakoula] and his “film” as the Benghazi culprits — implicitly accepting the Islamic-supremacist premise that verbal insults, no matter how obscure and trifling, justify mass-murder attacks.

3. .... Obama and Clinton (a) conspired to defraud the nation into believing the trailer was the singular, proximate cause — then dispatched their minion, Ambassador Susan Rice, to do their dirty work on the Sunday shows;

(b) jointly appeared in a preening commercial aired on Islamic (but not American) television to stress that the U.S. government had no part in the video (translation: We elevate sharia blasphemy standards over the Bill of Rights guarantees the U.S. government exists to ensure);

(c) told family members of our Benghazi dead that they would get, not the terrorists, but the man responsible for the video; and

(d) then trumped up a prosecution against Nakoula: The Justice Department arrested him in the dead of night, imprisoning him on a bogus “violation of supervised release” that no experienced prosecutor would regard as meriting such severe treatment . . . but that could conveniently be portrayed to Muslim countries as the administration’s enforcement of sharia against Americans.





4. Obama’s reckless Libya policy, part of his broader appeasement of Islamic supremacists, is the heart of the matter.

5. Kirkpatrick’s account is absurd. Its two themes — namely, that the trailer really did have some causal connection to the massacre and that al-Qaeda really did not partake in the Benghazi attack — do not pass the laugh test. They have been ably refuted by Tom Joscelyn, Eli Lake, Steve Hayes, and theeditors of NATIONAL REVIEW, to cite four of the best rebuttals.

6. .... the objective of Kirkpatrick’s novella is not to persuade; it is to shrink the parameters of newsworthy inquiry to a punctilious debate over nonsense."
Down the Times? Benghazi Rabbit Hole | National Review Online






I understand former Federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy's anger, largely directed against the administration, which is responsible for the Benghazi cover-up.....

....but he is far too kind to the NYSlimes and to the so-called journalist, Kirkpatrick.

Kirkpatrick is a paid mouthpiece/stenographer for the forces intending to tear down this country.

I admit, I read not a line of the above. Willful ignorance? Nope, the author's familiar routine of character assassination and partisan extremism is well known and hackneyed.

Her entire body of work has been "Aint (Obama, the Clintons, Carter, FDR, Wilson, liberals, progressives, the left) awful (dishonest, wrongheaded, commies, Marxists, liars).

BTW, she will now call me stupid (a liar, a fool, a moron, a jerk, a commie or a Marxist.

Or use some sort of Howard Cunningham/Potsie humor to try to "insult" you.

Showing your age, huh CC?

 

[The T]

Benghazi won't be a factor in 2016.

Tell THAT to the families that were killed...and The Hidebeast's attitude toward them when the plane landed with their bodies. Video indeed...

 

[Wry Catcher]

You have the pride of a Narcissist, what that's worth I do not know. That you always speak the truth isn't clear, as was pointed out with probative evidence, for posting the ideas of others as your own wasn't your finest hour.

"...as was pointed out with probative evidence, for posting the ideas of others as your own wasn't your finest hour."

What is definite is that you are lying scum....your charge is untrue, and represents your attempt to regain some degree of face as I have regularly eviscerated your posts.
And....will continue to do so....as I just have.

Ad hominem attacks and red herrings now qualify in the mind of a narcissist as eviscerations. That's quite funny PC, very funny indeed.

BTW, another of the bright and well educated members of the idiot fringe has come to your defense. You must be swelling with pride. Spoonman always has something insightful to say, at least as insightful as Redfish or Rabbi.

 

[candycorn]

Benghazi won't be a factor in 2016.

Tell THAT to the families that were killed...and The Hidebeast's attitude toward them when the plane landed with their bodies. Video indeed...

Benghazi won't be an issue in 2016. It wasn't an issue in 2012 so bringing it up 4 years later will do zilch.

 

[The T]

Benghazi won't be a factor in 2016.

Tell THAT to the families that were killed...and The Hidebeast's attitude toward them when the plane landed with their bodies. Video indeed...

Benghazi won't be an issue in 2016. It wasn't an issue in 2012 so bringing it up 4 years later will do zilch.

YES it will. Tell that to the families she dissed.

 

[candycorn]

Tell THAT to the families that were killed...and The Hidebeast's attitude toward them when the plane landed with their bodies. Video indeed...

Benghazi won't be an issue in 2016. It wasn't an issue in 2012 so bringing it up 4 years later will do zilch.

YES it will. Tell that to the families she dissed.

You poor pathetic soul...nobody cared in 2012...all of the sudden someone is going to care in 2016? I'd like to think you're kidding but we both know you're not...all to pity you more.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You have the pride of a Narcissist, what that's worth I do not know. That you always speak the truth isn't clear, as was pointed out with probative evidence, for posting the ideas of others as your own wasn't your finest hour.

"...as was pointed out with probative evidence, for posting the ideas of others as your own wasn't your finest hour."

What is definite is that you are lying scum....your charge is untrue, and represents your attempt to regain some degree of face as I have regularly eviscerated your posts.
And....will continue to do so....as I just have.

Ad hominem attacks and red herrings now qualify in the mind of a narcissist as eviscerations. That's quite funny PC, very funny indeed.

BTW, another of the bright and well educated members of the idiot fringe has come to your defense. You must be swelling with pride. Spoonman always has something insightful to say, at least as insightful as Redfish or Rabbi.

So....you're admitting that you are lying scum?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Benghazi won't be an issue in 2016. It wasn't an issue in 2012 so bringing it up 4 years later will do zilch.

YES it will. Tell that to the families she dissed.

You poor pathetic soul...nobody cared in 2012...all of the sudden someone is going to care in 2016? I'd like to think you're kidding but we both know you're not...all to pity you more.

"10. Why did the Obama administration, at the encouragement of the McCain faction of the GOP establishment, switch sides in Libya? Obama and McCain first told us that Qaddafi was a key American counter-terrorism ally — precisely because he was providing our intelligence services with information about Islamic supremacists in places like Benghazi who had flocked to Iraq to wage jihad against American troops.


Obama, with McCain’s support, even increased aid to Qaddafi before suddenly, disastrously, swinging in favor of the jihadists. It was that policy reversal that ousted Qaddafi, empowered jihadists throughout northern Africa, and — in tandem with Obama and Clinton’s shocking failures to provide security to our personnel — directly paved the way for the Benghazi massacre.


Why did Obama initiate an offensive war against a theretofore purported American ally without congressional authorization in the absence of any vital American interest, much less any threat to the United States?" Down the Times? Benghazi Rabbit Hole | National Review Online

 

[candycorn]

YES it will. Tell that to the families she dissed.

You poor pathetic soul...nobody cared in 2012...all of the sudden someone is going to care in 2016? I'd like to think you're kidding but we both know you're not...all to pity you more.

"10. Why did the Obama administration, at the encouragement of the McCain faction of the GOP establishment, switch sides in Libya? Obama and McCain first told us that Qaddafi was a key American counter-terrorism ally — precisely because he was providing our intelligence services with information about Islamic supremacists in places like Benghazi who had flocked to Iraq to wage jihad against American troops.


Obama, with McCain’s support, even increased aid to Qaddafi before suddenly, disastrously, swinging in favor of the jihadists. It was that policy reversal that ousted Qaddafi, empowered jihadists throughout northern Africa, and — in tandem with Obama and Clinton’s shocking failures to provide security to our personnel — directly paved the way for the Benghazi massacre.


Why did Obama initiate an offensive war against a theretofore purported American ally without congressional authorization in the absence of any vital American interest, much less any threat to the United States?" Down the Times? Benghazi Rabbit Hole | National Review Online

Benghazi won't be a factor in 2016. Good that you idiots are wasting so much energy on the topic though.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You poor pathetic soul...nobody cared in 2012...all of the sudden someone is going to care in 2016? I'd like to think you're kidding but we both know you're not...all to pity you more.

"10. Why did the Obama administration, at the encouragement of the McCain faction of the GOP establishment, switch sides in Libya? Obama and McCain first told us that Qaddafi was a key American counter-terrorism ally — precisely because he was providing our intelligence services with information about Islamic supremacists in places like Benghazi who had flocked to Iraq to wage jihad against American troops.


Obama, with McCain’s support, even increased aid to Qaddafi before suddenly, disastrously, swinging in favor of the jihadists. It was that policy reversal that ousted Qaddafi, empowered jihadists throughout northern Africa, and — in tandem with Obama and Clinton’s shocking failures to provide security to our personnel — directly paved the way for the Benghazi massacre.


Why did Obama initiate an offensive war against a theretofore purported American ally without congressional authorization in the absence of any vital American interest, much less any threat to the United States?" Down the Times? Benghazi Rabbit Hole | National Review Online

Benghazi won't be a factor in 2016. Good that you idiots are wasting so much energy on the topic though.

You may be correct...there may still be lots of folks who, as you do, wish to remain in the dark, and raised, as they say, like 'mushrooms.'

But there are also many who understand the difference between right and wrong, and would like to see rectitude invested.

It is to those individual that this thread is addressed.



"Clinton has tried to convince the American people that the Benghazi scandal is a false controversy. Susan Rice, the Obama administration spokesperson on the matter and current national security adviser, used that exact phrase to dismiss a Benghazi question during an interview last month. And Clinton herself
cried, “What difference, at this point, does it make?!” during questioning by a Senate committee last January.


Hewitt argued that it will make a difference come 2016. “To me, if you wanna be the Commander-in-Chief, and the one night that you’re in charge in an international crisis in Benghazi and you won’t answer questions about it, I’m gonna keep coming back to it,” he promised.

Read more: CNN's Jake Tapper: Hillary will have to answer for Benghazi | The Daily Caller

 

[candycorn]

"10. Why did the Obama administration, at the encouragement of the McCain faction of the GOP establishment, switch sides in Libya? Obama and McCain first told us that Qaddafi was a key American counter-terrorism ally — precisely because he was providing our intelligence services with information about Islamic supremacists in places like Benghazi who had flocked to Iraq to wage jihad against American troops.


Obama, with McCain’s support, even increased aid to Qaddafi before suddenly, disastrously, swinging in favor of the jihadists. It was that policy reversal that ousted Qaddafi, empowered jihadists throughout northern Africa, and — in tandem with Obama and Clinton’s shocking failures to provide security to our personnel — directly paved the way for the Benghazi massacre.


Why did Obama initiate an offensive war against a theretofore purported American ally without congressional authorization in the absence of any vital American interest, much less any threat to the United States?" Down the Times? Benghazi Rabbit Hole | National Review Online

Benghazi won't be a factor in 2016. Good that you idiots are wasting so much energy on the topic though.

You may be correct...there may still be lots of folks who, as you do, wish to remain in the dark, and raised, as they say, like 'mushrooms.'

But there are also many who understand the difference between right and wrong, and would like to see rectitude invested.

It is to those individual that this thread is addressed.
"Clinton has tried to convince the American people that the Benghazi scandal is a false controversy. Susan Rice, the Obama administration spokesperson on the matter and current national security adviser, used that exact phrase to dismiss a Benghazi question during an interview last month. And Clinton herself
cried, “What difference, at this point, does it make?!” during questioning by a Senate committee last January.
Hewitt argued that it will make a difference come 2016. “To me, if you wanna be the Commander-in-Chief, and the one night that you’re in charge in an international crisis in Benghazi and you won’t answer questions about it, I’m gonna keep coming back to it,” he promised.

Read more: CNN's Jake Tapper: Hillary will have to answer for Benghazi | The Daily Caller

Benghazi won't be a factor in 2016. Good that you idiots are wasting so much energy on the topic though.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Benghazi won't be a factor in 2016. Good that you idiots are wasting so much energy on the topic though.

You may be correct...there may still be lots of folks who, as you do, wish to remain in the dark, and raised, as they say, like 'mushrooms.'

But there are also many who understand the difference between right and wrong, and would like to see rectitude invested.

It is to those individual that this thread is addressed.
"Clinton has tried to convince the American people that the Benghazi scandal is a false controversy. Susan Rice, the Obama administration spokesperson on the matter and current national security adviser, used that exact phrase to dismiss a Benghazi question during an interview last month. And Clinton herself
cried, “What difference, at this point, does it make?!” during questioning by a Senate committee last January.
Hewitt argued that it will make a difference come 2016. “To me, if you wanna be the Commander-in-Chief, and the one night that you’re in charge in an international crisis in Benghazi and you won’t answer questions about it, I’m gonna keep coming back to it,” he promised.

Read more: CNN's Jake Tapper: Hillary will have to answer for Benghazi | The Daily Caller

Benghazi won't be a factor in 2016. Good that you idiots are wasting so much energy on the topic though.

You seem deathly afraid of having the investigation continue.

Is this the reason:


“He who does not punish evil commands it to be done.”
Leonardo da Vinci

 

[candycorn]

Benghazi won't be a factor in 2016. Good that you idiots are wasting so much energy on the topic though.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Benghazi won't be a factor in 2016. Good that you idiots are wasting so much energy on the topic though.

That's the third or fourth time you haven't been able to respond other than with the same sentence....

There are several possible explanations for perseveration....

1. Psychology
a. Uncontrollable repetition of a particular response, such as a word, phrase, or gesture, despite the absence or cessation of a stimulus, usually caused by brain injury or other organic disorder.
perseveration - definition of perseveration by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


2. perseveration
[pur′səvərā′shən]
Etymology: L, persevero, to persist
....The condition occurs primarily in patients with brain damage or organic mental disorders, although it may also appear in schizophrenia as an association disturbance. It is caused by a neurologic deficit.


3. Of course....it may simply be a lack of the intellectual ability to frame a new response.



I've seen you posts.....
...let's hope it's merely #3.

We can perform a simple test: do you still fax face up?

 

[candycorn]

Benghazi won't be a factor in 2016. Good that you idiots are wasting so much energy on the topic though.

Bump