Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Another example of what Progressives here DO NOT WANT TO DISCUSS THE COVER-UP OF RESCUE TO BENGHAZI.

+5
Wordslinger
2seaoat
ZVUGKTUBM
Floridatexan
Markle
9 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 2]

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Markle wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:
Markle wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:
Markle wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:
Markle wrote:Just like I forecast.

The Progressives here have NOTHING and prove it AGAIN by posting NOTHING relevant to the FACTS POSTED.

Still they have nothing and they continue childishly grasping at straws.

Keep up the good work my friends.  Y'all really are a hoot!

What it boils down to Semi Sane Markle, is whether or not you believe the President of the United States and his Secretary of State would purposefully deny sending aid to one of their ambassadors in a life threatening situation, just to protect a political image of the moment.

Of course you would leap on even the remotest possibility that such a deed could be conspired to harm America's first black president, and Hillary Clinton.  

Fortunately, none of the 7,653 tax-paid investigations aimed at pillorying Clinton or Obama on the Benghazi affair, have produced a single charge that can be taken to court.

By the way, I'm glad to see you're not laughing at the folks who died inside the Benghazi consulate.  Maybe there is hope for you to become a genuine human being.  But the odds, I think, are very low on that.

As you know, the FBI is again expanding their investigation to others around Hillary Clinton.

You know I have never laughed at anyone who has died while you have celebrated every officer who has been killed or has killed someone else MOST of whom acted properly.  You don't even wait for facts, you want to be the first with a post trashing the police.  Exactly as semi-retired President Obama did, not long after taking office.  NOT KNOWING THE FACTS, President Obama jumped on his Bully Pulpit and cried out that the POLICE ACTED STUPIDLY.  From that night he has never stepped back, only intentionally made matters worse.

Pardon me for assuming you get a kick out of others' misfortunes.  How could I think otherwise, when you tell about how you were at a stoplight on your Harley, and another rider on a sportbike came up and couldn't get his foot down in time and dropped his bike -- with a female passenger on back -- and instead of going to their aid (as any decent motorcyclist would do) -- you "could hardly stop laughing as you rode off."  In fact, as I recall, you referred to the unfortunate motorcyclist as "some clown on a crotch rocket."  Face it Markle, you're a guy who laughs at others' misfortune.  Reality.

He put his foot down, he wasn't strong enough to hold up the bike with his lady.  Yeah, I laughed at him.  When folks,  like you, do stupid things, yes, I'll laugh at them.  Had he been riding a Harley, I would have helped him, they can be 700-800 pounds.

Nice to see you know when you've been beaten and then you drift back to old, non-issues.

I do so love you allowing me to live rent free in your mind!  Thank you so much.

You don't know anything about riding a Harley do you?

Had the kid been in distress, I'd have helped him.  He was just stupid and inexperienced.

You're right, I know very little about riding a Harley.  What I do know about them is they are a 1940 design that's been tweaked and tweaked and tweaked.  And my friends who own them continually have to pick up parts that fall off, and are continually having them worked on.  I've owned state of the art bikes since I started riding -- Honda, Yamaha, Suzuki, Kawasaki Meanstreak and BMW.  What I do know about assholes like you who love Harleys, is you ride to be seen.  I ride to drive the bike hard.  And no matter how you phrase it, a fellow motorcyclist dropped his bike with a passenger on board and you rode off laughing.  Your attitude and actions speak volumes about your absence of character![/b]

You are so totally ignorant about Harley's.  And that's okay, I know your childish attack is intentionally geared...to get under my skin.  But you see, you can't do it.

The street is where idiots "drive a bike hard".  Not the time or the place.

Your list includes all of the usual Wannabe's.  There's a camaraderie among Harley riders that simply does not exist among the others.

I've owned all the bike brands you name except BMW.  All were dirt bikes and all were very good.  I also owned a Carabella, Husqvarna, KTM, Sachs and several Penton's.

Move on up to a real bike some day and you'll know what I mean.

"There's a camaraderie among Harley riders that simply does not exist among the others," says Semi-sane Markle. You can see it when one Harley rider, dressed in his favorite fringed gloves, black leather vest, cowboy boots, head wrap and a coffee cup holder on his handlebar, gets together with another Harley rider to discuss which muffler on the market is loudest.

What is instantly apparent, is that these guys aren't interested in raw acceleration or superb handling characteristics. They want to drool over each others' after-market fringed grips. Insecure, they NEED to travel in big groups of good ole' boys. They're not into testing their driving skills pushing hard on a twisty uphill or downhill mountain road. They're happy to be seen in a group of similar minded yokels, pretending to be tough and independent, while riding along -- usually slowly -- on a straight freeway. They stop at every Harley dealer as though it was some sort of shrine. They kick tires, and make the same comments at this shop as they did at the last one. Despite their jackets, vests, headwraps and fringed gloves, these guys aren't the least independent or daring. Markle is absolutely correct about what these guys are really after with their shaky, loud, slow and bad handling machines -- it's not biking. It's the "comaraderie." These are the kind of guys who will leap off their machines to help another Harley rider pick-up his dropped bike on a roadway, but can't stop laughing as they roar off when a rider on anything but a Harley drops his machine.

I've been on long trips with a half-dozen Harley riders. What a bore!

boards of FL

boards of FL

boards of FL wrote:
Markle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:Ole Man Markle appears to be losing his memory.  This email is old news and was discussed here last month. The forces mentioned in the email were in fact deployed immediately.  We know this because an unredacted version of the email is now available and the forces mentioned corroborate Panettas testimony during Benghazi hearings.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/262756-new-email-splits-benghazi-committee

The Democrats released their email a day after conservative legal group Judicial Watch released a slightly redacted version, which it had won access to under the Freedom of Information Act. At the time, conservative outlets such as Fox News said that the email was a “smoking gun” that undermined testimony from former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

But the unredacted version of the email makes clear that the forces under discussion to move to Benghazi were the same ones that previous investigations had claimed were on the move: a Marine Fleet Antiterrorism Security Teams (FAST) and a special operations force out of Croatia.

You really need to wean yourself off your far left Socialist sites and branch out.  This email was just released with this latest flurry being released weekly.  Try to keep up.


The Hill is a far left socialist site?  OK.   Fair enough.  I'll just give you the evidence and we'll see if you can connect the dots on your own.  

First, we have the unredacted email:

http://democrats-benghazi.house.gov/sites/democrats.benghazi.house.gov/files/documents/2015_12_09_unredacted_DOD_email.pdf

Another example of what Progressives here DO NOT WANT TO DISCUSS THE COVER-UP OF RESCUE TO BENGHAZI. - Page 2 IBaiNP3


Note the forces that were being offered.  Got that?  OK.  Next, lets look at the republican house's report on Benghazi, in their own words.  From page 16 of the report:

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=C4E16543-8F99-430C-BEBA-0045A6433426

Another example of what Progressives here DO NOT WANT TO DISCUSS THE COVER-UP OF RESCUE TO BENGHAZI. - Page 2 XiU02cn



Here you are, Ole' Man Markle.  Here you are.

Another example of what Progressives here DO NOT WANT TO DISCUSS THE COVER-UP OF RESCUE TO BENGHAZI. - Page 2 Bonbon-dbfbe36b2ab7e3e46f8bdbc19fcc3ada



Another example of what Progressives here DO NOT WANT TO DISCUSS THE COVER-UP OF RESCUE TO BENGHAZI. - Page 2 Giphy




Look, everyone!  Ole' Man Markle is running away from his own thread that declares that it is actually "progressives" who are running away from this issue!

Has anyone else seen an old man run that fast?



Another example of what Progressives here DO NOT WANT TO DISCUSS THE COVER-UP OF RESCUE TO BENGHAZI. - Page 2 Tumblr_md8gjjmEo71r4c2noo1_500




Another example of what Progressives here DO NOT WANT TO DISCUSS THE COVER-UP OF RESCUE TO BENGHAZI. - Page 2 Giphy


_________________
I approve this message.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


http://tarpley.net/house-benghazi-committee-hearing-with-hillary-clinton-a-cruel-hoax/

House Benghazi Committee Hearing with Hillary Clinton a Cruel Hoax; Investigation Has Completely Failed to Find the Truth; CIA Assets Kill U.S. Envoy While CIA Team Is Ordered to Stand Down by Petraeus; Ham and Other CIA Assets Fail to Intervene; Stevens’ Mission Was to Transfer Fighters from Libya to Syria



Over the year we at the TWSP have exhaustively analyzed what happened in Benghazi. Today’s hearing of the House Benghazi committee has totally missed the main features of what actually happened. One important fact was that this was an October surprise in September designed to advance the fortunes of Mitt Romney in the upcoming elections. The following is a compendium of our analyses over the intervening three years.

The Benghazi consulate was prevalently a CIA post, with significant military capabilities. Ambassador Stevens had strong CIA connections and served as a liaison with the Al Qaeda-linked terrorists of the Benghazi-Derna-Tobruk corridor, whom the CIA is using for the attack on Syria. His last conversation with a Turkish diplomat was evidently a discussion on this topic. Stevens and others thought they had nothing to fear because their relations with the Islamist fighters were so cordial. The attack that killed Stevens was carried out by forces under the control of Sufiyan Qumu (also Kumu or Gumu), who had been held in Guantánamo for several years and released as a CIA asset for the overthrow of Qaddafi. A significant group of CIA paramilitaries stationed nearby was ordered to stand down by the CIA command structure. Another CIA asset, the February 17 Martyrs Brigade, which had in the summer of 2011 assassinated General Younes in order to help the CIA operative General Hifter to take control of the rebel army, had contracted to provide additional security, but also did not intervene. General Petraeus went to the movies that night. On September 14, Petraeus told the House Intelligence committee that the Benghazi incident had been spontaneous, a demonstration gone violent. This is the line which Susan Rice mouthed on television in mid-September. (She should be fired for other reasons.) The Obama administration was in any case eager to hide the fact that it had turned Libya over to Al Qaeda. The goal of Benghazi was an early October surprise to Carterize Obama, and the CIA was commanded by Petraeus.

Petraeus arrived at the CIA on September 6, 2011. Within a month, a new provocation was launched against Iran in the form of absurd accusations that members of the Quds Force were plotting to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington, DC. Intelligence community conduit David Ignatius wrote at the time that a big reason the implausible plot story gained credibility was the “fact the CIA [meaning Petraeus] and other intelligence agencies gathered information corroborating the informants’ juicy allegations” implicating the Quds Force and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. In reality, the patsies involved came from the Drug Enforcement Administration and/or the Mujaheddin E-Khalq (MEK), an anti-Iranian terrorist force maintained by the US in Iraq. The MEK has now been rewarded by being removed from the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations. (David Ignatius, “Those Keystone Iranians: Why Such a Crude Assassination Plot?”, Washington Post, October 12, 2011) The goal of the operation was to abort possible diplomatic solutions to tensions between NATO and Iran.

In Washington, the neocon Petraeus was always considered as General Betray-US, Bush’s warlord and the key frontman for the Iraq surge. He was the darling of the civilian chickenhawk neocons, who saw in him a presidential vehicle to return to power after the debacles in Afghanistan and Iraq. Petraeus’ neocon sherpas were Frederick Kagan and Max Boot, who also helped him to refurbish his image concerning Israel. Obama was always afraid that Petraeus would run for president, and when Romney took the nomination, feared that Petraeus might be a candidate for vice president.

Like General George Marshall on the evening of December 6, 1941 — who stayed conveniently out of the loop under various pretexts because he wanted the Pearl Harbor attack to occur as a means of damaging President Roosevelt – Petraeus was at the movies during the Benghazi attack, attending a private screening at the Canadian Embassy of the movie Argo with Ben Affleck, which deals with a 1979 covert CIA operation in Tehran.



An October Surprise in the Era of Early Voting

The Benghazi incident of September 11, 2012 was an October surprise which arrived a few weeks early. Its goal was to help defeat Obama, and to install Romney in the White House. (Interestingly, the name of Romney was never mentioned during the entire five-hour length of the Issa committee hearings.) There are tell-tale signs that the Benghazi incident was deliberately orchestrated by a cabal of generals and admirals favorable to Romney. Many of these flag officers have been removed from their posts over the past several months, but their ouster has generally been attributed to financial or sexual misdeeds. Even though Obama was primarily the target of the Benghazi incident, partisan Republicans are attempting anyway to blame him, betting Obama is too cowardly to go public with charges of what amounts to an attempted military coup in 2012. This is folly, since Obama’s inaction leaves much of the rogue military network intact and capable of striking again.

The so-called US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya was in fact a CIA station with more than 50 personnel on hand to maintain liaison with the Al Qaeda death squads deployed by NATO intelligence in 2010 and 2011 for the purpose of overthrowing the Libyan government of Colonel Muammar Qaddafi. Hillary Clinton was interested in building up the US presence in Benghazi in order to handle the growing workload generated by the airlift and sealift involved in this operation. By September, 2012 NATO was in the process of transferring large numbers of these terrorist fighters, along with weaponry plundered from the arms depots of Colonel Qaddafi, into Syria — with the goal of stoking a civil war against the Assad government. This transfer was being accomplished by way of southern Turkey, which explains why Ambassador Stevens’ last official meeting was with a Turkish diplomat.

The Obama administration showed reckless disregard for probable political retribution when it embarked on a policy of systematically using Al Qaeda terrorists in the form of secret armies to destabilize and overthrow several regimes in the Arab world. Awareness of this colossal vulnerability may also explain why the Obama White House has been so reticent to provide basic information about the Benghazi incident.

Benghazi Mission Was Moving Terrorists from Libya to Syria

Security was lax at the Benghazi facility because Ambassador Stevens and his State Department and CIA colleagues had been working closely with the Libyan jihadis for many months on redeploying these fanatical fighters to the Syrian front. As I reported in 2011, the Benghazi-Derna-Tobruk corridor had been identified by the United States Army some years earlier as the world’s most productive breeding ground for suicide bombers destined for the conflict in Iraq. The US intelligence community had decided to mobilize those fighters for the overthrow first of Qaddafi, and then of Assad.

By all accounts, Ambassador Stevens was assassinated by the organization known as Ansar al Islam, controlled by the infamous Sufian bin Qumu. Qumu, previously a member of the Al Qaeda affiliate calling itself Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, had been held up by the United States in the Guantánamo Bay concentration camp for several years until his release in 2007. Qumu had returned to Libya and set up al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), a key part of the effort to overthrow Qaddafi. Qumu’s career points up the widely misunderstood role of Guantánamo, which is not just a prison, but is also a training center for terrorists destined to be recycled back into the field in the service of the CIA. Another example of the same pattern is the late Said Ali ah-Shihri, who was held in Guantánamo for six years and then sent to Yemen to help found Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). Shihri then zealously carried out his assignment of destabilizing Yemen. As a rule, the only way to get out of Guantánamo alive is to become a double agent in the service of the CIA. When reactionary Republicans are confronted with this phenomenon, they whine that the terrorists have duped the CIA to obtain their freedom. In reality, the CIA is deliberately sending the Guantánamo alumni into the field for terror operations against targets the US wants to hit.

Thus, the headline for the murder of Ambassador Stevens might well read: “Top CIA Asset Kills US Ambassador.” The main question thus becomes why Qumu surprised the entire US mission by killing a man who might well have been his case officer and controller until the day before?

At any point in the Benghazi story where malfeasance or nonfeasance by CIA personnel or local assets occurs, the scrutiny of investigators must be directed towards General David Petraeus, who was allegedly attending a screening of the pro-war movie Argo at the time of the Benghazi attacks. This obvious connection was totally ignored in the Issa hearings, including by the Democratic Party minority.

Another possible source of assistance for Ambassador Stevens and his beleaguered associates would have been a small but capable team of US special forces stationed in the Libyan capital of Tripoli, some 400 miles to the west of Benghazi. According to testimony at the Issa hearings, this Tripoli team was under the command of a certain Lt. Col. Gibson. According to the sworn testimony, Lt. Col. Gibson and his team were about to board a Libyan Hercules C-130 transport aircraft for the flight to Benghazi when he received an order to stand down, do nothing, and remain in Tripoli. The hearings featured a melodramatic invocation of how bitterly disappointed Lt. Col. Gibson was when he received this order.

One of the partisan pro-Republican witnesses at the Issa hearing was State Department official Gregory Hicks, who had served as Deputy Chief of Mission under Ambassador Stevens. Hicks tried to argue that the order moving Lt. Col. Gibson and his team from Tripoli to Benghazi needed to come from the Deputies’ Committee contained in the National Security Council structure at the White House. But, since Lt. Col. Gibson and his team were already in country, it is clear that they had full autonomy to proceed to Benghazi. By all indications, Lt. Col. Gibson and his team were under the command of US General Carter Ham, the boss of the United States African Command (US AFRICOM), located in Stuttgart, Germany. General Ham, who had directed US military operations against Libya in 2011, was removed from this command in the aftermath of Benghazi on October 18, 2012, when Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced Obama’s intention of replacing him with General David Rodriguez. General Ham, like General Petraeus, would therefore have to be thoroughly interrogated on his role in the Benghazi incident, and also in the context of the Seven Days in May scenario which hangs over the run-up to the November 2012 presidential election.

There was also the question of the ability of the United States military to deploy air assets over Benghazi in useful time. Pentagon officials have generally stated that US attack aircraft were too far away from Benghazi to make a difference, and that the two waves of the Benghazi attack would have been over long before these planes could have arrived. They also claimed that there were no tankers available for the necessary in-flight refueling. The acceptance of these fictitious arguments by Issa’s self-styled truth seekers testifies to the extremely primitive and ill-informed level of the Issa hearings.

Another example of what Progressives here DO NOT WANT TO DISCUSS THE COVER-UP OF RESCUE TO BENGHAZI. - Page 2 Screen%20Shot%202015-10-23%20at%201.35.14%20PM


Sigonella air base represented by number 7.

A layman listening to the Issa hearings would have come away convinced that the closest US military airbase to Benghazi was Aviano in northeast Italy, not far from the border with Slovenia. This is absurd. The closest US military airfield was that at Sigonella on the east coast of Sicily, in the shadow of Mount Etna, about 875 miles south of Aviano. The bombing of Libya in 2011 was largely conducted from Sigonella.

The distance from Sigonella to Benghazi is about 420 miles, which a modern fighter jet can cover in one to two hours. Tankers are unquestionably available at Sigonella. Could air assets from Sigonella have arrived in time to strafe Qumu’s forces, or intimidate them into a retreat? Here is a real question which the Issa committee was too poorly informed to even pose.

And who was in command of the US Naval Air Station at Sigonella on September 11, 2012? The answer seems to be General Carter Ham once again. Sigonella was also the home of Special-Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force 12.2, with 120 Marines ready to provide support to Marine Forces Africa and US Africa Command missions. Congressman Issa needs to question General Carter Ham about why forces from Tripoli and from Sigonella never intervened in Benghazi. Otherwise, the credibility of this investigation will be zero.

Naval assets in the Mediterranean might also have been brought to bear by either General Carter Ham or Admiral James Stavridis, the Supreme Commander of NATO and also of the US European command. Stavridis had been considered a candidate to become the top officer of the United States Navy, but his hopes were frustrated by accusations of relatively minor financial irregularities. Stavridis was then ousted from his NATO command in early 2013. Just before retiring, Stavridis told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he was eager for the United States to increase its meddling in Syria. He demanded the arming of the terrorist death squads with modern weapons, noting that this would be “helpful in breaking the deadlock and bringing down the Assad regime.” (AP, March 19, 2013) Many disgruntled generals and admirals regard Obama as insufficiently aggressive.

Part of the Republican mantra has been to ridicule the suggestion that a scurrilous anti-Islamic film made in Southern California had any role in preparing the Benghazi incident. One of the film’s major backers, the Egyptian Copt Joseph Nasrallah, was part of the so-called Islamophobia Network of pro-Israeli publicists, academics, retired military, and former government officials. The dominant personality and most famous participant in this Islamophobia Network (which had tried in 2011 to block the construction of a mosque in lower Manhattan) was none other than neocon former State Department official John Bolton, in September 2012 a close adviser to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who might have been considering him as a future secretary of state. Whatever the connection of this anti-Islamic film to events in Libya, there is no doubt that it played an important role in more than two dozen protests and riots around the world, including one that was going on that same day in Cairo, Egypt. In that instance, rioters had broken through the security perimeter and breached the wall of the US Embassy. It is understandable that the Republicans wish to minimize attention to this film, since it was to all intents and purposes produced by a branch of the Romney presidential campaign, quite plausibly with the goal of creating incidents that could be used to embarrass Obama.

However, even before the now legendary appearances of US ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice on a series of Sunday morning political programs, it was none other than CIA boss Petraeus who told a secret session of the House Intelligence committee that Benghazi incidents had been triggered by the anti-Islamic film.

**************

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Oh, and I LOVED how Faux-News and other right wing media outlets seized on Hillary Clinton's "What Difference Does It Make" video clip and edited it so the context appeared 100% opposite the intended comment. That was a really cheap shot; but not unexpected from the most ardent of the wingnuts....

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Markle

Markle

Wordslinger wrote:
Markle wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:
Markle wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:
Markle wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:
Markle wrote:Just like I forecast.

The Progressives here have NOTHING and prove it AGAIN by posting NOTHING relevant to the FACTS POSTED.

Still they have nothing and they continue childishly grasping at straws.

Keep up the good work my friends.  Y'all really are a hoot!

What it boils down to Semi Sane Markle, is whether or not you believe the President of the United States and his Secretary of State would purposefully deny sending aid to one of their ambassadors in a life threatening situation, just to protect a political image of the moment.

Of course you would leap on even the remotest possibility that such a deed could be conspired to harm America's first black president, and Hillary Clinton.  

Fortunately, none of the 7,653 tax-paid investigations aimed at pillorying Clinton or Obama on the Benghazi affair, have produced a single charge that can be taken to court.

By the way, I'm glad to see you're not laughing at the folks who died inside the Benghazi consulate.  Maybe there is hope for you to become a genuine human being.  But the odds, I think, are very low on that.

As you know, the FBI is again expanding their investigation to others around Hillary Clinton.

You know I have never laughed at anyone who has died while you have celebrated every officer who has been killed or has killed someone else MOST of whom acted properly.  You don't even wait for facts, you want to be the first with a post trashing the police.  Exactly as semi-retired President Obama did, not long after taking office.  NOT KNOWING THE FACTS, President Obama jumped on his Bully Pulpit and cried out that the POLICE ACTED STUPIDLY.  From that night he has never stepped back, only intentionally made matters worse.

Pardon me for assuming you get a kick out of others' misfortunes.  How could I think otherwise, when you tell about how you were at a stoplight on your Harley, and another rider on a sportbike came up and couldn't get his foot down in time and dropped his bike -- with a female passenger on back -- and instead of going to their aid (as any decent motorcyclist would do) -- you "could hardly stop laughing as you rode off."  In fact, as I recall, you referred to the unfortunate motorcyclist as "some clown on a crotch rocket."  Face it Markle, you're a guy who laughs at others' misfortune.  Reality.

He put his foot down, he wasn't strong enough to hold up the bike with his lady.  Yeah, I laughed at him.  When folks,  like you, do stupid things, yes, I'll laugh at them.  Had he been riding a Harley, I would have helped him, they can be 700-800 pounds.

Nice to see you know when you've been beaten and then you drift back to old, non-issues.

I do so love you allowing me to live rent free in your mind!  Thank you so much.

You don't know anything about riding a Harley do you?

Had the kid been in distress, I'd have helped him.  He was just stupid and inexperienced.

You're right, I know very little about riding a Harley.  What I do know about them is they are a 1940 design that's been tweaked and tweaked and tweaked.  And my friends who own them continually have to pick up parts that fall off, and are continually having them worked on.  I've owned state of the art bikes since I started riding -- Honda, Yamaha, Suzuki, Kawasaki Meanstreak and BMW.  What I do know about assholes like you who love Harleys, is you ride to be seen.  I ride to drive the bike hard.  And no matter how you phrase it, a fellow motorcyclist dropped his bike with a passenger on board and you rode off laughing.  Your attitude and actions speak volumes about your absence of character![/b]

You are so totally ignorant about Harley's.  And that's okay, I know your childish attack is intentionally geared...to get under my skin.  But you see, you can't do it.

The street is where idiots "drive a bike hard".  Not the time or the place.

Your list includes all of the usual Wannabe's.  There's a camaraderie among Harley riders that simply does not exist among the others.

I've owned all the bike brands you name except BMW.  All were dirt bikes and all were very good.  I also owned a Carabella, Husqvarna, KTM, Sachs and several Penton's.

Move on up to a real bike some day and you'll know what I mean.

"There's a camaraderie among Harley riders that simply does not exist among the others," says Semi-sane Markle.  You can see it when one Harley rider, dressed in his favorite fringed gloves, black leather vest, cowboy boots, head wrap and a coffee cup holder on his handlebar, gets together with another Harley rider to discuss which muffler on the market is loudest.

What is instantly apparent, is that these guys aren't interested in raw acceleration or superb handling characteristics.  They want to drool over each others' after-market fringed grips.  Insecure, they NEED to travel in big groups of good ole' boys.  They're not into testing their driving skills pushing hard on a twisty uphill or downhill mountain road.  They're happy to be seen in a group of similar minded yokels, pretending to be tough and independent, while riding along -- usually slowly -- on a straight freeway.  They stop at every Harley dealer as though it was some sort of shrine.  They kick tires, and make the same comments at this shop as they did at the last one.  Despite their jackets, vests, headwraps and fringed gloves, these guys aren't the least independent or daring.  Markle is absolutely correct about what these guys are really after with their shaky, loud, slow and bad handling machines -- it's not biking.  It's the "comaraderie." These are the kind of guys who will leap off their machines to help another Harley rider pick-up his dropped bike on a roadway, but can't stop laughing as they roar off when a rider on anything but a Harley drops his machine.

I've been on long trips with a half-dozen Harley riders.  What a bore!  

Another example of what Progressives here DO NOT WANT TO DISCUSS THE COVER-UP OF RESCUE TO BENGHAZI. - Page 2 LOL_zpsrc5py0ql

Markle

Markle

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Oh, and I LOVED how Faux-News and other right wing media outlets seized on Hillary Clinton's "What Difference Does It Make" video clip and edited it so the context appeared 100% opposite the intended comment. That was a really cheap shot; but not unexpected from the most ardent of the wingnuts....

Here is the complete segment. How is what Hillary Clinton says in the clip you revile, NOT accurate to what she said in full. She lost her temper. She most certainly lied and lied repeatedly. EVEN YOU have to admit the administration intentionally misled and lied to Americans.

Why is it that you so hate to deal with the FACTS?

Guest


Guest

It mattered enough right before an election to lie about it... and it matters enough now to obstruct the truth.

Unless you're a useful idiot that doesn't mind being lied to and mislead by YOUR dear leaders... Yea team..!!

Markle

Markle

Salinsky wrote:
Markle wrote:
Salinsky wrote:Judicial Watch just keeps on punking Ol' Man Markle.

What a rube.

Let's see who is the rube.

Show us all where Judicial Watch made changes in the email I posted.

If you refuse or run, then we know who is and who is not the rube.  Right?

The content is exactly the same as the email posted by Judicial Watch a month ago.

The forces discussed were deployed.

Panetta confirmed that in his testimony.

And once again, you're the rube, Ol' Man Markle.

If you're so sure, please show us a copy of the email to which you refer along with the source and link.

If you refuse, I guess that proves you again lied.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Markle wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:
Markle wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:
Markle wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:
Markle wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:
Markle wrote:Just like I forecast.

The Progressives here have NOTHING and prove it AGAIN by posting NOTHING relevant to the FACTS POSTED.

Still they have nothing and they continue childishly grasping at straws.

Keep up the good work my friends.  Y'all really are a hoot!

What it boils down to Semi Sane Markle, is whether or not you believe the President of the United States and his Secretary of State would purposefully deny sending aid to one of their ambassadors in a life threatening situation, just to protect a political image of the moment.

Of course you would leap on even the remotest possibility that such a deed could be conspired to harm America's first black president, and Hillary Clinton.  

Fortunately, none of the 7,653 tax-paid investigations aimed at pillorying Clinton or Obama on the Benghazi affair, have produced a single charge that can be taken to court.

By the way, I'm glad to see you're not laughing at the folks who died inside the Benghazi consulate.  Maybe there is hope for you to become a genuine human being.  But the odds, I think, are very low on that.

As you know, the FBI is again expanding their investigation to others around Hillary Clinton.

You know I have never laughed at anyone who has died while you have celebrated every officer who has been killed or has killed someone else MOST of whom acted properly.  You don't even wait for facts, you want to be the first with a post trashing the police.  Exactly as semi-retired President Obama did, not long after taking office.  NOT KNOWING THE FACTS, President Obama jumped on his Bully Pulpit and cried out that the POLICE ACTED STUPIDLY.  From that night he has never stepped back, only intentionally made matters worse.

Pardon me for assuming you get a kick out of others' misfortunes.  How could I think otherwise, when you tell about how you were at a stoplight on your Harley, and another rider on a sportbike came up and couldn't get his foot down in time and dropped his bike -- with a female passenger on back -- and instead of going to their aid (as any decent motorcyclist would do) -- you "could hardly stop laughing as you rode off."  In fact, as I recall, you referred to the unfortunate motorcyclist as "some clown on a crotch rocket."  Face it Markle, you're a guy who laughs at others' misfortune.  Reality.

He put his foot down, he wasn't strong enough to hold up the bike with his lady.  Yeah, I laughed at him.  When folks,  like you, do stupid things, yes, I'll laugh at them.  Had he been riding a Harley, I would have helped him, they can be 700-800 pounds.

Nice to see you know when you've been beaten and then you drift back to old, non-issues.

I do so love you allowing me to live rent free in your mind!  Thank you so much.

You don't know anything about riding a Harley do you?

Had the kid been in distress, I'd have helped him.  He was just stupid and inexperienced.

You're right, I know very little about riding a Harley.  What I do know about them is they are a 1940 design that's been tweaked and tweaked and tweaked.  And my friends who own them continually have to pick up parts that fall off, and are continually having them worked on.  I've owned state of the art bikes since I started riding -- Honda, Yamaha, Suzuki, Kawasaki Meanstreak and BMW.  What I do know about assholes like you who love Harleys, is you ride to be seen.  I ride to drive the bike hard.  And no matter how you phrase it, a fellow motorcyclist dropped his bike with a passenger on board and you rode off laughing.  Your attitude and actions speak volumes about your absence of character![/b]

You are so totally ignorant about Harley's.  And that's okay, I know your childish attack is intentionally geared...to get under my skin.  But you see, you can't do it.

The street is where idiots "drive a bike hard".  Not the time or the place.

Your list includes all of the usual Wannabe's.  There's a camaraderie among Harley riders that simply does not exist among the others.

I've owned all the bike brands you name except BMW.  All were dirt bikes and all were very good.  I also owned a Carabella, Husqvarna, KTM, Sachs and several Penton's.

Move on up to a real bike some day and you'll know what I mean.

"There's a camaraderie among Harley riders that simply does not exist among the others," says Semi-sane Markle.  You can see it when one Harley rider, dressed in his favorite fringed gloves, black leather vest, cowboy boots, head wrap and a coffee cup holder on his handlebar, gets together with another Harley rider to discuss which muffler on the market is loudest.

What is instantly apparent, is that these guys aren't interested in raw acceleration or superb handling characteristics.  They want to drool over each others' after-market fringed grips.  Insecure, they NEED to travel in big groups of good ole' boys.  They're not into testing their driving skills pushing hard on a twisty uphill or downhill mountain road.  They're happy to be seen in a group of similar minded yokels, pretending to be tough and independent, while riding along -- usually slowly -- on a straight freeway.  They stop at every Harley dealer as though it was some sort of shrine.  They kick tires, and make the same comments at this shop as they did at the last one.  Despite their jackets, vests, headwraps and fringed gloves, these guys aren't the least independent or daring.  Markle is absolutely correct about what these guys are really after with their shaky, loud, slow and bad handling machines -- it's not biking.  It's the "comaraderie." These are the kind of guys who will leap off their machines to help another Harley rider pick-up his dropped bike on a roadway, but can't stop laughing as they roar off when a rider on anything but a Harley drops his machine.

I've been on long trips with a half-dozen Harley riders.  What a bore!  

Another example of what Progressives here DO NOT WANT TO DISCUSS THE COVER-UP OF RESCUE TO BENGHAZI. - Page 2 LOL_zpsrc5py0ql

Thanks, I accept your desperation ... your inability to respond except with one of your meaningless cliches ..., LOL

boards of FL

boards of FL

boards of FL wrote:
Markle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:Ole Man Markle appears to be losing his memory.  This email is old news and was discussed here last month. The forces mentioned in the email were in fact deployed immediately.  We know this because an unredacted version of the email is now available and the forces mentioned corroborate Panettas testimony during Benghazi hearings.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/262756-new-email-splits-benghazi-committee

The Democrats released their email a day after conservative legal group Judicial Watch released a slightly redacted version, which it had won access to under the Freedom of Information Act. At the time, conservative outlets such as Fox News said that the email was a “smoking gun” that undermined testimony from former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

But the unredacted version of the email makes clear that the forces under discussion to move to Benghazi were the same ones that previous investigations had claimed were on the move: a Marine Fleet Antiterrorism Security Teams (FAST) and a special operations force out of Croatia.

You really need to wean yourself off your far left Socialist sites and branch out.  This email was just released with this latest flurry being released weekly.  Try to keep up.


The Hill is a far left socialist site?  OK.   Fair enough.  I'll just give you the evidence and we'll see if you can connect the dots on your own.  

First, we have the unredacted email:

http://democrats-benghazi.house.gov/sites/democrats.benghazi.house.gov/files/documents/2015_12_09_unredacted_DOD_email.pdf

Another example of what Progressives here DO NOT WANT TO DISCUSS THE COVER-UP OF RESCUE TO BENGHAZI. - Page 2 IBaiNP3


Note the forces that were being offered.  Got that?  OK.  Next, lets look at the republican house's report on Benghazi, in their own words.  From page 16 of the report:

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=C4E16543-8F99-430C-BEBA-0045A6433426

Another example of what Progressives here DO NOT WANT TO DISCUSS THE COVER-UP OF RESCUE TO BENGHAZI. - Page 2 XiU02cn



Here you are, Ole' Man Markle.  Here you are.

Another example of what Progressives here DO NOT WANT TO DISCUSS THE COVER-UP OF RESCUE TO BENGHAZI. - Page 2 Bonbon-dbfbe36b2ab7e3e46f8bdbc19fcc3ada



Another example of what Progressives here DO NOT WANT TO DISCUSS THE COVER-UP OF RESCUE TO BENGHAZI. - Page 2 Giphy



Look, everyone.  Markle is still pretending that he can't see this post.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Run, Ole' Man Markle! Run!


_________________
I approve this message.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Where is Markle? What? Do republicans not want to discuss this issue? What gives?


_________________
I approve this message.

Markle

Markle

boards of FL wrote:Where is Markle?  What?  Do republicans not want to discuss this issue?  What gives?

I'm still waiting for you to post the exact same email I posted and where it was disclosed a month ago.

You're what gives, you've given up trying to find the none existent email.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Markle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:Where is Markle?  What?  Do republicans not want to discuss this issue?  What gives?

I'm still waiting for you to post the exact same email I posted and where it was disclosed a month ago.

You're what gives, you've given up trying to find the none existent email.



Here is the email - for the 4th time:

http://democrats-benghazi.house.gov/sites/democrats.benghazi.house.gov/files/documents/2015_12_09_unredacted_DOD_email.pdf

Another example of what Progressives here DO NOT WANT TO DISCUSS THE COVER-UP OF RESCUE TO BENGHAZI. - Page 2 IBaiNP3


See where they say "They include a SOF element that was in Croatia (which can fly to Suda Bay, Crete), and a Marine FAST team out of Roda, Spain."?   Do you see that part, Markle?  Do you understand the forces that were being offered now?  These are the forces that your JW article claims were denied.   Are we on the same page now?   OK.


Here is the republican house's report on Benghazi with respect to the forces that were deployed - for the 4th time:

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=C4E16543-8F99-430C-BEBA-0045A6433426

Another example of what Progressives here DO NOT WANT TO DISCUSS THE COVER-UP OF RESCUE TO BENGHAZI. - Page 2 XiU02cn


See where they say "First, two Marine FAST platoons in Rota, Spain were ordered to prepare to deploy;.......Second, a special operations unit assigned to the European Command, known as a Commander's In-Extremis Force (CIF), which was training in Croatia was ordered to move to a U.S. Naval Air Station in Sigonella, Italy..."?  Can you see that, Ole' Man Markle?

Putting all of this together for you, this means that the very forces mentioned in the email were in fact deployed.  This is per the very report produced by house republicans.

Dumbing this down even further, this means that your Judicial Watch article is absolute bullshit.  Even given your senility, I'm somewhat surprised that you can't connect these dots on your own.

Now, Ole' Man Markle, do you have a response there?  Would you like to concede that the narrative of your article and this very thread is entirely bullshit?  Here I am, a progressive, happily ready to discuss this issue and it is you who is actually running away, isn't it?

Let's hear it, Markle.


_________________
I approve this message.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Markle?  Gosh, it almost seems as if this is..."Another example of what REPUBLICANS here DO NOT WANT TO DISCUSS", doesn't it?


Oh, and here are two threads from last month that deal with this exact same email - one even cites your exact same bullshit JW article.  Note that in each of these threads I provide the unredacted email the irrefutably shows that JW is completely full of shit; hence, we have been through this before.  

I wonder why Ole' Man Markle can't remember what happened last month...or read?

https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t22980-dod-offered-dos-forces-for-benghazi

https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t23016-confirmed-fox-news-lied-about-benghazi-to-hurt-hillary


_________________
I approve this message.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

boards of FL wrote:Markle?  Gosh, it almost seems as if this is..."Another example of what REPUBLICANS here DO NOT WANT TO DISCUSS", doesn't it?


Oh, and here are two threads from last month that deal with this exact same email - one even cites your exact same bullshit JW article.  Note that in each of these threads I provide the unredacted email the irrefutably shows that JW is completely full of shit; hence, we have been through this before.  

I wonder why Ole' Man Markle can't remember what happened last month...or read?

https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t22980-dod-offered-dos-forces-for-benghazi

https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t23016-confirmed-fox-news-lied-about-benghazi-to-hurt-hillary

Markle only values information that he can use in his sophomoric propaganda. It does not matter if it is complete bullshit; if he thinks it is useful, he will use it.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

boards of FL

boards of FL

Pinning for Markle.


_________________
I approve this message.

Markle

Markle

boards of FL wrote:
Markle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:Where is Markle?  What?  Do republicans not want to discuss this issue?  What gives?

I'm still waiting for you to post the exact same email I posted and where it was disclosed a month ago.

You're what gives, you've given up trying to find the none existent email.


Here is the email - for the 4th time:

http://democrats-benghazi.house.gov/sites/democrats.benghazi.house.gov/files/documents/2015_12_09_unredacted_DOD_email.pdf

Another example of what Progressives here DO NOT WANT TO DISCUSS THE COVER-UP OF RESCUE TO BENGHAZI. - Page 2 IBaiNP3


See where they say "They include a SOF element that was in Croatia (which can fly to Suda Bay, Crete), and a Marine FAST team out of Roda, Spain."?   Do you see that part, Markle?  Do you understand the forces that were being offered now?  These are the forces that your JW article claims were denied.   Are we on the same page now?   OK.


Here is the republican house's report on Benghazi with respect to the forces that were deployed - for the 4th time:

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=C4E16543-8F99-430C-BEBA-0045A6433426

Another example of what Progressives here DO NOT WANT TO DISCUSS THE COVER-UP OF RESCUE TO BENGHAZI. - Page 2 XiU02cn


See where they say "First, two Marine FAST platoons in Rota, Spain were ordered to prepare to deploy;.......Second, a special operations unit assigned to the European Command, known as a Commander's In-Extremis Force (CIF), which was training in Croatia was ordered to move to a U.S. Naval Air Station in Sigonella, Italy..."?  Can you see that, Ole' Man Markle?

Putting all of this together for you, this means that the very forces mentioned in the email were in fact deployed.  This is per the very report produced by house republicans.

Dumbing this down even further, this means that your Judicial Watch article is absolute bullshit.  Even given your senility, I'm somewhat surprised that you can't connect these dots on your own.

Now, Ole' Man Markle, do you have a response there?  Would you like to concede that the narrative of your article and this very thread is entirely bullshit?  Here I am, a progressive, happily ready to discuss this issue and it is you who is actually running away, isn't it?

Let's hear it, Markle.

By posting the same link I did, dated December 9, 2015 you do not prove that you posted it or that it was posted at any other time.

Cute try though!

By the way, your "report" is dated 2014. How can you suggest that it included an email released in December of 2015?



Last edited by Markle on 1/15/2016, 6:21 pm; edited 1 time in total

boards of FL

boards of FL

Markle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
Markle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:Where is Markle?  What?  Do republicans not want to discuss this issue?  What gives?

I'm still waiting for you to post the exact same email I posted and where it was disclosed a month ago.

You're what gives, you've given up trying to find the none existent email.



Here is the email - for the 4th time:

http://democrats-benghazi.house.gov/sites/democrats.benghazi.house.gov/files/documents/2015_12_09_unredacted_DOD_email.pdf

Another example of what Progressives here DO NOT WANT TO DISCUSS THE COVER-UP OF RESCUE TO BENGHAZI. - Page 2 IBaiNP3


See where they say "They include a SOF element that was in Croatia (which can fly to Suda Bay, Crete), and a Marine FAST team out of Roda, Spain."?   Do you see that part, Markle?  Do you understand the forces that were being offered now?  These are the forces that your JW article claims were denied.   Are we on the same page now?   OK.


Here is the republican house's report on Benghazi with respect to the forces that were deployed - for the 4th time:

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=C4E16543-8F99-430C-BEBA-0045A6433426

Another example of what Progressives here DO NOT WANT TO DISCUSS THE COVER-UP OF RESCUE TO BENGHAZI. - Page 2 XiU02cn


See where they say "First, two Marine FAST platoons in Rota, Spain were ordered to prepare to deploy;.......Second, a special operations unit assigned to the European Command, known as a Commander's In-Extremis Force (CIF), which was training in Croatia was ordered to move to a U.S. Naval Air Station in Sigonella, Italy..."?  Can you see that, Ole' Man Markle?

Putting all of this together for you, this means that the very forces mentioned in the email were in fact deployed.  This is per the very report produced by house republicans.

Dumbing this down even further, this means that your Judicial Watch article is absolute bullshit.  Even given your senility, I'm somewhat surprised that you can't connect these dots on your own.

Now, Ole' Man Markle, do you have a response there?  Would you like to concede that the narrative of your article and this very thread is entirely bullshit?  Here I am, a progressive, happily ready to discuss this issue and it is you who is actually running away, isn't it?

Let's hear it, Markle.

By posting the same link I did, dated December 15, 2015 you do not prove that you posted it or that it was posted at any other time.

Cute try though!


So you're going to completely ignore my post that deals with the very subject matter of this thread, and you're instead going to only focus on my comment where I said that this very same story has been discussed before?  OK.

Markle, here are the two threads where this very same story was discussed before.  This is the second time I have given you these...today.

https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t22980-dod-offered-dos-forces-for-benghazi

https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t23016-confirmed-fox-news-lied-about-benghazi-to-hurt-hillary


Now that we have cleared that up and now that I have shown you that we are in fact discussing old news that has been hashed on out this forum last month, can we return to the underlying subject matter so that you can stand corrected?  

Markle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:Where is Markle?  What?  Do republicans not want to discuss this issue?  What gives?

I'm still waiting for you to post the exact same email I posted and where it was disclosed a month ago.

You're what gives, you've given up trying to find the none existent email.



Here is the email - for the 5th time:

http://democrats-benghazi.house.gov/sites/democrats.benghazi.house.gov/files/documents/2015_12_09_unredacted_DOD_email.pdf

Another example of what Progressives here DO NOT WANT TO DISCUSS THE COVER-UP OF RESCUE TO BENGHAZI. - Page 2 IBaiNP3


See where they say "They include a SOF element that was in Croatia (which can fly to Suda Bay, Crete), and a Marine FAST team out of Roda, Spain."?   Do you see that part, Markle?  Do you understand the forces that were being offered now?  These are the forces that your JW article claims were denied.   Are we on the same page now?   OK.


Here is the republican house's report on Benghazi with respect to the forces that were deployed - for the 5th time:

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=C4E16543-8F99-430C-BEBA-0045A6433426

Another example of what Progressives here DO NOT WANT TO DISCUSS THE COVER-UP OF RESCUE TO BENGHAZI. - Page 2 XiU02cn


See where they say "First, two Marine FAST platoons in Rota, Spain were ordered to prepare to deploy;.......Second, a special operations unit assigned to the European Command, known as a Commander's In-Extremis Force (CIF), which was training in Croatia was ordered to move to a U.S. Naval Air Station in Sigonella, Italy..."?  Can you see that, Ole' Man Markle?

Putting all of this together for you, this means that the very forces mentioned in the email were in fact deployed.  This is per the very report produced by house republicans.

Dumbing this down even further, this means that your Judicial Watch article is absolute bullshit.  Even given your senility, I'm somewhat surprised that you can't connect these dots on your own.

Now, Ole' Man Markle, do you have a response there?  Would you like to concede that the narrative of your article and this very thread is entirely bullshit?  Here I am, a progressive, happily ready to discuss this issue and it is you who is actually running away, isn't it?

Let's hear it, Markle.


_________________
I approve this message.

Markle

Markle

boards of FL wrote:Markle, would you like to stand corrected?

That's all you had to do was post where the email had been posted before.

But it is coming up again and proves that there were forces in the area staged and ready to counter attack.

The State Department found thousands more...AGAIN.

You can't connect the dots. Hillary Clinton is guilty of covering up whoever issued the stand down order.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Markle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:Markle, would you like to stand corrected?

That's all you had to do was post where the email had been posted before.

But it is coming up again and proves that there were forces in the area staged and ready to counter attack. 


No, it is not coming up again.  It is a dead issue.  You just created a third thread about a subject that had already been discussed on this forum last month, twice.    

And beyond that, you still don't seem to grasp the point.  Yes, there were forces in the area staged and ready to counter attack.  You are exactly right.  And guess what?  Those forces were in fact deployed.  Let me walk you through this for a sixth time.


Here is the email that states that there were forces in the area staged and ready to go.  This is the sixth time I have given you this:


http://democrats-benghazi.house.gov/sites/democrats.benghazi.house.gov/files/documents/2015_12_09_unredacted_DOD_email.pdf

Another example of what Progressives here DO NOT WANT TO DISCUSS THE COVER-UP OF RESCUE TO BENGHAZI. - Page 2 IBaiNP3



Got that?  Do you see the "forces in the area staged and ready to go"?   I haven't lost you have I?  Are we clear on that?  Good.


Next, here is the Benghazi report, penned by house republicans, detailing the forces that were in fact deployed.  Again, this is the sixth time I have given you this:

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=C4E16543-8F99-430C-BEBA-0045A6433426

Another example of what Progressives here DO NOT WANT TO DISCUSS THE COVER-UP OF RESCUE TO BENGHAZI. - Page 2 XiU02cn



Got that, Markle?  Can you see the forces that house republicans have identified were in fact deployed?  These are the same forces that Panetta testified were deployed.  They're also the same forces that General Dempsey testified were deployed.  

And the email clearly corroborates 1) the house report 2) Panetta's testimony and 3) Dempsey's testimony.

Got that, Ole' Man Markle?

Now, would you like to stand corrected and concede that your JW article is entirely bullshit, as well as is your thread title?  Would you like to stand corrected,  Markle? You can simply reply with "Yes" and we'll be good.

How about it?


_________________
I approve this message.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

It's clear that Hillary is carrying a lot of baggage and is starting to lose critical political support at this stage of the presidential campaign.

Fact: Bernie Sanders had absolutely nothing to do with Monica Lewinsky, Hillary's cellphone usage, or any decisions on Libya or Benghazi, etc.

Fact: Bernie's political support is accelerating and he's already ahead of Hillary in New Hampshire and Iowa.

Considering all that, our resident hardcore Christian fundamentalist, war-mongering, white racist Semi-sane "I know NOSSING! Markle continues to hammer Hillary every day, with the same vigor with which he attacks our first black president (who will be out of thew White House in a year).  Can you say IRRELEVANT?

I absolutely love the idea that an elderly New York Socialist -Jew will soon be in the driver's seat! I get a tingle in my leg from just thinking about it ... LOL  

Guest


Guest

Wordslinger wrote:It's clear that Hillary is carrying a lot of baggage and is starting to lose critical political support at this stage of the presidential campaign.

Fact: Bernie Sanders had absolutely nothing to do with Monica Lewinsky, Hillary's cellphone usage, or any decisions on Libya or Benghazi, etc.  

Fact:  Bernie's political support is accelerating and he's already ahead of Hillary in New Hampshire and Iowa.

Considering all that, our resident hardcore Christian fundamentalist, war-mongering, white racist Semi-sane "I know NOSSING! Markle continues to hammer Hillary every day, with the same vigor with which he attacks our first black president (who will be out of thew White House in a year).  Can you say IRRELEVANT?

I absolutely love the idea that an elderly New York Socialist -Jew will soon be in the driver's seat!  I get a tingle in my leg from just thinking about it ... LOL  

Bernie will not make it.  We'll be stuck with Hillary or one of the poor excuses on the Republican side and America loses.  There is no winner in this election.  Both sides have the minds of their constituents wrapped - mostly because they listen and follow like sheep.  No thought of their own - only what is repeated to them over and over.  So, with that, Bernie will not win.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

SheWrites wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:It's clear that Hillary is carrying a lot of baggage and is starting to lose critical political support at this stage of the presidential campaign.

Fact: Bernie Sanders had absolutely nothing to do with Monica Lewinsky, Hillary's cellphone usage, or any decisions on Libya or Benghazi, etc.  

Fact:  Bernie's political support is accelerating and he's already ahead of Hillary in New Hampshire and Iowa.

Considering all that, our resident hardcore Christian fundamentalist, war-mongering, white racist Semi-sane "I know NOSSING! Markle continues to hammer Hillary every day, with the same vigor with which he attacks our first black president (who will be out of thew White House in a year).  Can you say IRRELEVANT?

I absolutely love the idea that an elderly New York Socialist -Jew will soon be in the driver's seat!  I get a tingle in my leg from just thinking about it ... LOL  

Bernie will not make it.  We'll be stuck with Hillary or one of the poor excuses on the Republican side and America loses.  There is no winner in this election.  Both sides have the minds of their constituents wrapped - mostly because they listen and follow like sheep.  No thought of their own - only what is repeated to them over and over.  So, with that, Bernie will not win.

Wrong...both sides are not wrapped in some Orwellian nightmare. On the GOP side, Fox, Limbaugh and the other right-wing nut jobs are promoting Reaganomics and some seriously un-Christian principles masquerading as Christianity. You can speak for yourself on the subject of who grasps the policies of the various candidates, but you sure don't speak for me.

Guest


Guest

Floridatexan wrote:
SheWrites wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:It's clear that Hillary is carrying a lot of baggage and is starting to lose critical political support at this stage of the presidential campaign.

Fact: Bernie Sanders had absolutely nothing to do with Monica Lewinsky, Hillary's cellphone usage, or any decisions on Libya or Benghazi, etc.  

Fact:  Bernie's political support is accelerating and he's already ahead of Hillary in New Hampshire and Iowa.

Considering all that, our resident hardcore Christian fundamentalist, war-mongering, white racist Semi-sane "I know NOSSING! Markle continues to hammer Hillary every day, with the same vigor with which he attacks our first black president (who will be out of thew White House in a year).  Can you say IRRELEVANT?

I absolutely love the idea that an elderly New York Socialist -Jew will soon be in the driver's seat!  I get a tingle in my leg from just thinking about it ... LOL  

Bernie will not make it.  We'll be stuck with Hillary or one of the poor excuses on the Republican side and America loses.  There is no winner in this election.  Both sides have the minds of their constituents wrapped - mostly because they listen and follow like sheep.  No thought of their own - only what is repeated to them over and over.  So, with that, Bernie will not win.

Wrong...both sides are not wrapped in some Orwellian nightmare.  On the GOP side, Fox, Limbaugh and the other right-wing nut jobs are promoting Reaganomics and some seriously un-Christian principles masquerading as Christianity.  You can speak for yourself on the subject of who grasps the policies of the various candidates, but you sure don't speak for me.

I only give broad perspective. I'm not naming names. If the shoe fits most won't wear it anyway. Just an observation, overall, of both sides.

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

Another example of what Progressives here DO NOT WANT TO DISCUSS THE COVER-UP OF RESCUE TO BENGHAZI. - Page 2 ?u=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F736x%2Fc5%2Fd4%2F2c%2Fc5d42ca22c4a490a89529e495332dc2f

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 2]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum