Who really cares?

[mudwhistle]

The United States maintains numerous embassies and consulates around the world, many of which are in war-torn countries or other dangerous areas.

Attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How many were attacked and it was blamed on a disgusting video.

 

[kaz]

No.

The discussion is that fans of the old goal keeper get upset when the new goal keeper's records are compared to the old goal keeper's records.

The old goal keeper had 52 attacks; the fans didn't care.
The new goal keeper has fewer attacks; the fans start 500 threads on just one of them.

Do the math.

Winston Churchill. I can explain it to you, I cannot comprehend it for you.

You're a blond, have a good one.

Wow, that was the strangest surrender ever. Work on your technique.

The only thing I conceded was that you will not grasp or address the discussion. You've written post after post and I am admitting defeat, you don't get it and you won't. There will be no discussion because you will not grasp the question. When you write duh, duh, duh in post after post, there is a point I have to concede that your subsequent posts are going to continue to say duh, duh, duh...

 

[kaz]

Giving the poor money doesn't elevate them from poverty, it ensures that most of them stay there. For most it seems without pain there is no DRIVE & AMBITION to do better.

Give them a job and their potential increases dramatically.
A safety net is a must but democrats have turned it into a hammock.

If the CEO of Walmart can rise from the ranks of a minimum wage position or an ex-convict can create a successful business you got no excuses.

You're dead on this one Gramps. Poor is not a bank account balance, it's a mindframe. The way to change it is to have their earn their way out, you cannot buy their way out.

Throwing money at the problem is the classic liberal solution to any problem, and when it invariably doesn't work, the only thing they can come up with is we didn't throw enough money at the problem.

 

[mudwhistle]

The Republican outrage for the 52 attacks was nowhere to be found.
We have something like 500 threads on Ben-gotcha alone on this message board. If you guys are that interested in us being attacked, there should have been thousands about the Bush attacks.

Regardless, Ben-gotcha will not be a factor in 2016.

A) NOT ONE of the 52 attacks were blamed on a video!
B) NOT ONE of the attacks had any attempts to be whitewashed BEFORE an election!
C) NOT ONE USA Ambassador was killed while the CIC was playing cards while watching the attack on TV!

Are you saying no Americans died in the attacks?

The point isn't that people died. The point is Obama used a false claim that he was winning the war against al Qaeda during the 2012 election. Then when one of our consulates came under attack he tried to cover it up. Even made up some phony story to provide cover.

We all know that Obama was full of shit when he made the claims, and he continues to not allow investigations on what was going on in Benghazi, which means he is guilty of obstruction of justice, if not criminal neglect, risking national security purely for political purposes, the list goes on. We are less safe thanks to this corrupt president. He refuses to face up to reality and continues to flaunt his lawlessness in every move he makes as president. We are this close to a dictatorship ourselves because it appears that the Constitution didn't take into account a president that didn't have the nations' best interests in mind. Nobody seems to be able to deal with this guy. I think that the powers of the president will be something of a major concern if we ever conduct a Constitutional convention and change things.

 

[mudwhistle]

Well, when a new goalie comes in to the soccer match, her stats are most often compared to the goalie she replaced. It's no different with Presidents. Who should we compare Obama's record/the GOP intellectual dishonesty to?

Liberals thinking you are intelligent cracks me up. Whisshhhh, another point missed.

What you said it true, but irrelevant. The discussion is the new goalie keeps blaming the old goalie for the fact that the new goalie sucks.

No.

The discussion is that fans of the old goal keeper get upset when the new goal keeper's records are compared to the old goal keeper's records.

The old goal keeper had 52 attacks; the fans didn't care.
The new goal keeper has fewer attacks; the fans start 500 threads on just one of them.

Do the math.

Post a link before we try to do the math.

 

[mudwhistle]

1) Bush had 52 Attacks, where is your thread on that?

Here is the biggest lie of all from the far left and yet the far left believes it without question of hesitation.

Are you denying that there were 52 attacks on diplomatic facilities on Bush's watch?

Not to mention the thousands of soldiers who died in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Do you ever have anything substantive to add to a debate?

We had at least 10 attacks in 7 months on the U.S. Embassy compound in Somalia while I was there in 93'. One soldier was killed by a mortar round.

52 attacks worldwide over 8 years doesn't sound like all that much, especially if they didn't overrun the embassies in question. This was not the case in Benghazi.

 

[Amelia]

By the way.. I'm guessing about Obama watching the attack on TV while playing cards because WE have NO clue where he was after his 5:00 pm meeting with his minions preparing how to keep this from costing votes in the November re-election!

If Obama were doing something remotely worth defending, we would know. So apparently whatever he was doing wasn't even spinnable by the most creative spinners and leakers the Chicago political machine could buy.

 

[mudwhistle]

By the way.. I'm guessing about Obama watching the attack on TV while playing cards because WE have NO clue where he was after his 5:00 pm meeting with his minions preparing how to keep this from costing votes in the November re-election!

Obama was playing Spades while the UBL raid was going on. Nobody will say where he was during Benghazi.

The Stunning Thing Obama?s Former Bodyman Claims the President Did During Day of Bin Laden Raid | Video | TheBlaze.com

 

[NYcarbineer]

Giving the poor money doesn't elevate them from poverty, it ensures that most of them stay there. For most it seems without pain there is no DRIVE & AMBITION to do better.

Give them a job and their potential increases dramatically.
A safety net is a must but democrats have turned it into a hammock.

If the CEO of Walmart can rise from the ranks of a minimum wage position or an ex-convict can create a successful business you got no excuses.

Most Medicaid recipients are either children, disabled, or elderly.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well, when a new goalie comes in to the soccer match, her stats are most often compared to the goalie she replaced. It's no different with Presidents. Who should we compare Obama's record/the GOP intellectual dishonesty to?

A President is not a dyke goalie. Sorry, Ming.

Coming from a dyke poster, I'll agree with you. It's called an analogy but since "way too many people" are in college, I'll have to assume you didn't know that.

OK so you admit it was a stupid analogy and totally off topic. Sort of like most of your posts.

 

[Vox]

Wow. Do you REALLY think you know me well enough to judge me? Really?

Do you LOVE voting republican, or do you too wish for better choices?

I'm asking, 'cause I don't know enough about what makes you tick to judge you, and I'll freely admit it.

I've voted for more R's than D's in my adult life and, if the republicans ever renounce Trickle-Down Economics, I'll take another look at the party. In the meantime I'll be looking at how much I can trust individual candidates who profess a desire for fair and simple taxes and a balanced budget to see if one with an R might warrant my vote that way.

Until then, I will continue to pull a reluctant lever for the democrats and push for tax reform and a balanced budget as I discuss politics.

It is not a question of knowing somebody. It is simple logic. If you HATE voting democrat - you won't vote. There is an option of NOT VOTING - if you do not like either of the candidates.

But you still do it. Then you can not HATE it.

But you state you hate it, which is clearly NOT the truth.

Do you really find it easier to judge me than it is to defend the republican adherence to Trickle-Down theory?

That's telling...

`​

I judge the choice of your words. And find it that either you are not being truthful with your choice of labeling your emotions while voting dimocrap or you vote dimocrap because you WANT to and therefore your naming it" hate" is lying.

trickle down economics is perfectly fine, btw. much better than redistribution fascist crap we have for the last 5 years.
but you seem to like the latter - otherwise you won't vote for it.

 

[Vox]

giving the poor money doesn't elevate them from poverty, it ensures that most of them stay there. For most it seems without pain there is no drive & ambition to do better.

Give them a job and their potential increases dramatically.
A safety net is a must but democrats have turned it into a hammock.

If the ceo of walmart can rise from the ranks of a minimum wage position or an ex-convict can create a successful business you got no excuses.

most medicaid recipients are either children, disabled, or elderly.

not true.

 

[Dot Com]

By the way.. I'm guessing about Obama watching the attack on TV while playing cards because WE have NO clue where he was after his 5:00 pm meeting with his minions preparing how to keep this from costing votes in the November re-election!

Obama was playing Spades while the UBL raid was going on. Nobody will say where he was during Benghazi.

The Stunning Thing Obama?s Former Bodyman Claims the President Did During Day of Bin Laden Raid | Video | TheBlaze.com

so you're a vet & STILL don't know the diff between strategic & tactical? The CINC gives the order and the individual units take it from there. I realize that its nearly impossible for you to do but stop being a partisan hack.

 

[candycorn]

A) NOT ONE of the 52 attacks were blamed on a video!
B) NOT ONE of the attacks had any attempts to be whitewashed BEFORE an election!
C) NOT ONE USA Ambassador was killed while the CIC was playing cards while watching the attack on TV!

Are you saying no Americans died in the attacks?

The point isn't that people died.

For Healthmyths it was so I asked him... okay?

 

[candycorn]

Liberals thinking you are intelligent cracks me up. Whisshhhh, another point missed.

What you said it true, but irrelevant. The discussion is the new goalie keeps blaming the old goalie for the fact that the new goalie sucks.

No.

The discussion is that fans of the old goal keeper get upset when the new goal keeper's records are compared to the old goal keeper's records.

The old goal keeper had 52 attacks; the fans didn't care.
The new goal keeper has fewer attacks; the fans start 500 threads on just one of them.

Do the math.

Post a link before we try to do the math.

52 attacks worldwide over 8 years doesn't sound like all that much, especially if they didn't overrun the embassies in question. This was not the case in Benghazi.

You said 52 attacks although, not surprisingly, you were wrong on details; Benghazi didn't have an embassy.

As for 500 threads

The actual search for Benghazi in the title of threads on USMB is 441
Easily there are 60 more where you guys didn't put the term "benghazi" in the title during this pointless witch hunt.

 

[NYcarbineer]

giving the poor money doesn't elevate them from poverty, it ensures that most of them stay there. For most it seems without pain there is no drive & ambition to do better.

Give them a job and their potential increases dramatically.
A safety net is a must but democrats have turned it into a hammock.

If the ceo of walmart can rise from the ranks of a minimum wage position or an ex-convict can create a successful business you got no excuses.

most medicaid recipients are either children, disabled, or elderly.

not true.

You lose.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Giving the poor money doesn't elevate them from poverty, it ensures that most of them stay there. For most it seems without pain there is no DRIVE & AMBITION to do better.

Give them a job and their potential increases dramatically.
A safety net is a must but democrats have turned it into a hammock.

If the CEO of Walmart can rise from the ranks of a minimum wage position or an ex-convict can create a successful business you got no excuses.

Most Medicaid recipients are either children, disabled, or elderly.

What the **** does that have to do with my post?

Not a damn thing

 

[AVG-JOE]

It is not a question of knowing somebody. It is simple logic. If you HATE voting democrat - you won't vote. There is an option of NOT VOTING - if you do not like either of the candidates.

But you still do it. Then you can not HATE it.

But you state you hate it, which is clearly NOT the truth.

Do you really find it easier to judge me than it is to defend the republican adherence to Trickle-Down theory?

That's telling...

`​

I judge the choice of your words. And find it that either you are not being truthful with your choice of labeling your emotions while voting dimocrap or you vote dimocrap because you WANT to and therefore your naming it" hate" is lying.

trickle down economics is perfectly fine, btw. much better than redistribution fascist crap we have for the last 5 years.
but you seem to like the latter - otherwise you won't vote for it.

Read my lips: I didn't vote FOR anything. I voted AGAINST Trickle-Down Economic Theory. That shit was tried in earnest and it failed miserably.

As I said, I hate voting democrat, but the republican reluctance to jettison Trickle-Down leaves me no choice.

WYGD? ​

 

[Plasmaball]

Liberals keep making this statement and I get crickets when I point out the issue is not that the embassy was attacked, it was that they asked for help and didn't get it then the White House covered it up.

Your statement there were "52" attacks under W is meaningless because that isn't anyone's issue. The question is, which of those attack(s) are you comparing to what the Obama administration did to Benghazi specifically, and why?

People were killed...

I like lemonade.

So what about addressing the point?

i did, Americans were killed!

 

[jasonnfree]

1) Bush had 52 Attacks, where is your thread on that?

Liberals keep making this statement and I get crickets when I point out the issue is not that the embassy was attacked, it was that they asked for help and didn't get it then the White House covered it up.

Your statement there were "52" attacks under W is meaningless because that isn't anyone's issue. The question is, which of those attack(s) are you comparing to what the Obama administration did to Benghazi specifically, and why?

What's the big deal about 4 lives? I'm trying to figure out conservative mindsets because we have 44 thousand people a year dying from lack of health insurance and conservatives don't think that those people are worth saving.