SuzukiSavage.com /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Benghazi /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1476067250 Message started by Dagillespi on 10/09/16 at 19:40:50

Title: Benghazi Post by Dagillespi on 10/09/16 at 19:40:50 Trump finally brought up Benghazi, but still won't go in depth. I don't understand why it's not one of his haymakers to throw athe Clinton. Would anyone care to explain this to me?

Title: Re: Benghazi Post by WebsterMark on 10/09/16 at 19:45:55 I think it's because there are so many Hilary lies to hit on, somethings get lost. Sort of like looking at a hay stack and trying to select which pieces of straw to pull out.

Title: Re: Benghazi Post by Dagillespi on 10/09/16 at 19:57:17 I get that but people begging for help just to be ignored like their lives are nothing really gets me. But I guess it's just a personal hot button for me. I know it's off topic but it amazes me how blatantly bias the moderators at the debate are and no one seems to care. Much better debate though and I like and agree with Trump's compliment to Hillary at the end she sure won't give up.

Title: Re: Benghazi Post by WebsterMark on 10/09/16 at 20:03:37 Republicans always have two opponents to defeat.....

Title: Re: Benghazi Post by LostArtist on 10/09/16 at 22:18:01 because THERE HAS BEEN 9 CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS, REPUBLICAN LEAD INVESTIGATIONS INTO BENGHAZI ALREADY!!!!! know what they found??? NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING against Hillary, they tried, 9 DANG TIMES! NOTHING you aren't going to convince anyone who doesn't already have an opinion on this issue already so if you just LOVE hearing your own talking points convincing YOU and people who agree with YOU already, again and again, and again and again and again, well, go ahead, bring it up again, but you are SO wasting time

Title: Re: Benghazi Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/09/16 at 22:50:58 Once again, Show me why I'm supposed to believe that bubs would actually indict a dem? They have each others back. You're watching shadow boxing believing you're watching a prize fight. It's a SCAM. Ohh, Look, the Enemies investigated and found Nothing.. Sheesh.. they all work for someone, not you, not me.

Title: Re: Benghazi Post by Serowbot on 10/10/16 at 08:41:21 200,000 dead in Iraq?...  .....crickets... 4 dead in Libya?...           .....endless noise... As Lost said,... Pube's investigated the cr@p out of this for years... ...and,....   ....crickets.... :-/ Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Wolfy, Condi,... all should be in prison... 200,000 lives on their heads...

Title: Re: Benghazi Post by Paraquat on 10/10/16 at 08:58:31 2A3C2B362E3B362D590 wrote: Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Wolfy, Condi,... all should be in prison... 200,000 lives on their heads... Why didn't Obama investigate them? --Steve

Title: Re: Benghazi Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/10/16 at 09:43:04 Unless you Know the answer, and can prove it, asking the question is dangerous. We all Know that attack wasn't about a video. And we're all aware that a Spontaneous event is not something that would explain away the FACT that those alleged, spontaneously driven together, people, pissed off over a video, would also have with them IN that Spontaneous march and unified voice speaking out Against that video, RPGs and weaponry to attack and take over the building they just suddenly decided to protest in front of. That so many people would have swallowed what is so obviously a lie is embarrassing to me. I can't fathom being so servile and having given over my willingness to want truth before agenda that I would pretend that some VIDEO created the violence, and that Sidney Blumenthal had Direct  communications with Hillary, yet, the Ambassadors pleas for more security weren't ever SEEN by Hillary. I said and continue to say, the Ambassador knew that the weapons were for the Publicly STATED enemy and it was not something he was willing to be a part of, and would blow the whistle, so he had to die.

Title: Re: Benghazi Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/10/16 at 09:48:58 5B6A796A7A7E6A7F0B0 wrote: [quote author=2A3C2B362E3B362D590 link=1476067250/0#6 date=1476114081] Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Wolfy, Condi,... all should be in prison... 200,000 lives on their heads... Why didn't Obama investigate them? --Steve[/quote] Because they are all really on the same team. Compartmentalized, and a few mavericks interspersed among them, but IF there was Really a different Direction, a different basic foundation for the two Allegedly embattled and oppositional parties, they would counter each other. We would see real battles and bills repealed, different foreign policies when the power swapped from one party to the other. Show me that, then I will start to consider that the Voice of the People is being heard and heeded in D.C.

Title: Re: Benghazi Post by WebsterMark on 10/10/16 at 10:14:48 NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING against Hillary, they tried, 9 DANG TIMES! NOTHING that is simply not true. Those hearings brought us information about the emails for one. secondly, those hearings uncovered the lie about the video because she told her daughter the truth before she told the families the lie about the video.   those hearings lead to the FBI investigation which the FBI director decided not to determine the outcome of the election by and indicting her like any other FBI director would have.

Title: Re: Benghazi Post by WebsterMark on 10/10/16 at 10:18:00 and why isn't Hilary's lie about being gone when the infamous red line in the sand strategy was implemented not front page news?

Title: Re: Benghazi Post by WebsterMark on 10/10/16 at 10:23:20 6A7C6B766E7B766D190 wrote: 200,000 dead in Iraq?...  .....crickets... 4 dead in Libya?...           .....endless noise... As Lost said,... Pube's investigated the cr@p out of this for years... ...and,....   ....crickets.... :-/ Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Wolfy, Condi,... all should be in prison... 200,000 lives on their heads... Would you throw Hilary and every other senator who voted yes in jail too? You had a Democratic President and House for a while, how come you guys didn't do it then?

Title: Re: Benghazi Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/10/16 at 10:37:37 You had a Democratic President and House for a while, how come you guys didn't do it then? Coff, coff, sputter, GULP! Uhh, well, uhh, by then we couldn't change course,, Never mind that the real reason is We work for the power that the Historical Figures warned about. Not the People.

Title: Re: Benghazi Post by LostArtist on 10/10/16 at 11:06:09 4F7D7A6B6C7D6A55796A73180 wrote: NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING against Hillary, they tried, 9 DANG TIMES! NOTHING that is simply not true. Those hearings brought us information about the emails for one. secondly, those hearings uncovered the lie about the video because she told her daughter the truth before she told the families the lie about the video.   those hearings lead to the FBI investigation which the FBI director decided not to determine the outcome of the election by and indicting her like any other FBI director would have. and Clinton is in jail now or at least fighting an indictment?? oh wait NO SHE'S NOT, AGAIN, NOTHING HAPPENED, NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING NOTHING.   the lie about the video is a confusion, and a wrong assumption, but being WRONG DOESN'T MAKE IT A LIE. oh and terrorists can use a video as an excuse too either way, the REPUBLICAN FBI investigated, NOTHING. Comey found that Hillary was stupid but not CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT, he said there would be repercussions if Hillary was still in the position she was but she's now a Civilian so it's hard to enact those repercussions on a civilian.   I don't think any other FBI director would have indicted her either, especially since the FBI DOESN'T ACTUALLY INDICT PEOPLE, that would be the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT oh and THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS/HOUSE especially then investigated the FBI's investigation and STILL NOTHING!!!!! I know, I know you want Clinton to be guilty of something, anything, you'd be happy with her being caught littering, but guess what???? NOTHING you lose, the end

Title: Re: Benghazi Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/10/16 at 11:11:33 Actually, we all lose, because she got away with the crimes.

Title: Re: Benghazi Post by verslagen1 on 10/10/16 at 12:37:10 6A4955526754524F5552260 wrote: either way, the REPUBLICAN FBI investigated, NOTHING. Comey found that Hillary was stupid but not CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT, he said there would be repercussions if Hillary was still in the position she was but she's now a Civilian so it's hard to enact those repercussions on a civilian.   Not quite what he said... Quote: But even as Comey said the FBI wouldn't recommend charges -- the final decision will be made by the Department of Justice -- he also delivered a scathing verbal indictment of her behavior. Here are seven quotes from Comey on an issue that is sure to reverberate into the fall campaign: 1. "Extremely careless" "Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information." 2. "Should have known" "There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about those matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation." 3. "Especially concerning" "None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at agencies and departments of the United States government -- or even with a commercial email service like Gmail." 4. "Still obligated to protect it" "Only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked 'classified' in an email, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it." 5. "Generally lacking" While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified email systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information that is found elsewhere in the government. 6. "Hostile actors" "We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent." 7. "Sophisticated adversaries" "She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account." ...wouldn't recommend charges... he would like to remain in office... alive.

Title: Re: Benghazi Post by LostArtist on 10/10/16 at 15:34:16 7D6E7978676A6C6E653A0B0 wrote: [quote author=6A4955526754524F5552260 link=1476067250/0#14 date=1476122769]either way, the REPUBLICAN FBI investigated, NOTHING. Comey found that Hillary was stupid but not CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT, he said there would be repercussions if Hillary was still in the position she was but she's now a Civilian so it's hard to enact those repercussions on a civilian.   Not quite what he said... Quote: But even as Comey said the FBI wouldn't recommend charges -- the final decision will be made by the Department of Justice -- he also delivered a scathing verbal indictment of her behavior. Here are seven quotes from Comey on an issue that is sure to reverberate into the fall campaign: 1. "Extremely careless" "Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information." 2. "Should have known" "There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about those matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation." 3. "Especially concerning" "None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at agencies and departments of the United States government -- or even with a commercial email service like Gmail." 4. "Still obligated to protect it" "Only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked 'classified' in an email, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it." 5. "Generally lacking" While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified email systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information that is found elsewhere in the government. 6. "Hostile actors" "We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent." 7. "Sophisticated adversaries" "She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account." ...wouldn't recommend charges... he would like to remain in office... alive.[/quote] thanks for spelling it all out, still, in sum, = stupid,  not criminal

Title: Re: Benghazi Post by pg on 10/10/16 at 15:45:20 3A2C3B263E2B263D490 wrote: 200,000 dead in Iraq?...  .....crickets... 4 dead in Libya?...           .....endless noise... As Lost said,... Pube's investigated the cr@p out of this for years... ...and,....   ....crickets.... :-/ Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Wolfy, Condi,... all should be in prison... 200,000 lives on their heads... [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0uvgHKZe8[/media] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0uvgHKZe8 Best regards,

Title: Re: Benghazi Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/10/16 at 16:44:56 7655494E7B484E53494E3A0 wrote: [quote author=7D6E7978676A6C6E653A0B0 link=1476067250/15#16 date=1476128230][quote author=6A4955526754524F5552260 link=1476067250/0#14 date=1476122769]either way, the REPUBLICAN FBI investigated, NOTHING. Comey found that Hillary was stupid but not CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT, he said there would be repercussions if Hillary was still in the position she was but she's now a Civilian so it's hard to enact those repercussions on a civilian.   Not quite what he said... Quote: But even as Comey said the FBI wouldn't recommend charges -- the final decision will be made by the Department of Justice -- he also delivered a scathing verbal indictment of her behavior. Here are seven quotes from Comey on an issue that is sure to reverberate into the fall campaign: 1. "Extremely careless" "Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information." 2. "Should have known" "There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about those matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation." 3. "Especially concerning" "None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at agencies and departments of the United States government -- or even with a commercial email service like Gmail." 4. "Still obligated to protect it" "Only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked 'classified' in an email, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it." 5. "Generally lacking" While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified email systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information that is found elsewhere in the government. 6. "Hostile actors" "We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent." 7. "Sophisticated adversaries" "She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account." ...wouldn't recommend charges... he would like to remain in office... alive.[/quote] thanks for spelling it all out, still, in sum, = stupid,  not criminal [/quote] She had years in DC. It was her JOB to know the difference. I say criminal,you say Stupid... And Vote FOR stupid for president. Do be aware that Comey STATED Anyone caught in the same position couldn't expect to Not be prosecuted. IF people are able, They should try  to understand that what he was SAYING WAS if she wasn't Hillary Clinton she would be in court. You're celebrating a double standard. You're CELEBRATING a double standard that makes all Americans serfs. But, it's your side winning, so it's okay. Where are you buying your blinders?

Title: Re: Benghazi Post by Dagillespi on 10/10/16 at 17:04:30 Look what I started......... For the record love this forum, good bunch of guys.  The part that gets me is this if anyone on this forum did this we would be in prison. Now referring to the emails.

Title: Re: Benghazi Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/10/16 at 17:09:32 You didn't start anything. It's been the same game forever. anyone else would be in jail, others have done less and are in prison.

Title: Re: Benghazi Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/10/16 at 17:17:10 She spoke publicly in favor of NAFTA when her husband negotiated it as president, but when it arose as an issue during the 2008 presidential campaign, she backpeddled, calling it a “mistake.” Stupid seems to be her style.

Title: Re: Benghazi Post by LostArtist on 10/10/16 at 18:23:41 6A757374696E5F6F5F67757932000 wrote: She spoke publicly in favor of NAFTA when her husband negotiated it as president, but when it arose as an issue during the 2008 presidential campaign, she backpeddled, calling it a “mistake.” Stupid seems to be her style. yeah, because Trump has haver gone back and revised his position on anything...  nah, never....

Title: Re: Benghazi Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/10/16 at 18:33:16 Well, anyone who supported NAFTA was either, being generous, stupid, or, being a Globalist and working against American interests, a traitor. I was against NAFTA, it was no difficult decision. Anyone who supported NAFTA really needs to sit down and think about why. Anyone who supported it didn't understand how things work. Or, wanted to wreck us. Everyone makes mistakes, Everyone changes their Mind on things. But NAFTA was clearly and obviously poison, Now run back and tell me about the bubs who wrote it. And then let's study the immediate support and signing into law such a huge policy change, written by bubs, yet, supported and endorsed by Clinton, and LOOK AT WHERE WE ARE. Lets elect the MOTS candidate.. yeeeeaaahhh...

Title: Re: Benghazi Post by MnSpring on 10/10/16 at 18:43:34 5675696E5B686E73696E1A0 wrote: "yeah, because Trump has haver gone back and revised his position on anything...  nah, never...."   Of Course,  Clinton, has  NEVER, reversed, HER,  position, on: Gay Rights, Abortion, Immigrants, Borders,  Trade Deals, Manufacturing Deals, Gun Control,  The DOJ or EPA, The AJ, Banking, Wall Street, Bail Outs, War,  etc.  etc., etc., ... And  NEVER, has she,  Spoke from  BOTH, sides of her mouth, when talking to the, 'voters', and her, 'contributors'. NOP,  Never.   Just Ask CNN,  They will TELL YOU,  what to say !

Title: Re: Benghazi Post by LostArtist on 10/10/16 at 19:04:55 716E686F72754474447C6E62291B0 wrote: [quote author=7655494E7B484E53494E3A0 link=1476067250/15#17 date=1476138856][quote author=7D6E7978676A6C6E653A0B0 link=1476067250/15#16 date=1476128230][quote author=6A4955526754524F5552260 link=1476067250/0#14 date=1476122769]either way, the REPUBLICAN FBI investigated, NOTHING. Comey found that Hillary was stupid but not CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT, he said there would be repercussions if Hillary was still in the position she was but she's now a Civilian so it's hard to enact those repercussions on a civilian.   Not quite what he said... Quote: But even as Comey said the FBI wouldn't recommend charges -- the final decision will be made by the Department of Justice -- he also delivered a scathing verbal indictment of her behavior. Here are seven quotes from Comey on an issue that is sure to reverberate into the fall campaign: 1. "Extremely careless" "Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information." 2. "Should have known" "There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about those matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation." 3. "Especially concerning" "None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at agencies and departments of the United States government -- or even with a commercial email service like Gmail." 4. "Still obligated to protect it" "Only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked 'classified' in an email, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it." 5. "Generally lacking" While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified email systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information that is found elsewhere in the government. 6. "Hostile actors" "We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent." 7. "Sophisticated adversaries" "She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account." ...wouldn't recommend charges... he would like to remain in office... alive.[/quote] thanks for spelling it all out, still, in sum, = stupid,  not criminal [/quote] She had years in DC. It was her JOB to know the difference. I say criminal,you say Stupid... And Vote FOR stupid for president. Do be aware that Comey STATED Anyone caught in the same position couldn't expect to Not be prosecuted. IF people are able, They should try  to understand that what he was SAYING WAS if she wasn't Hillary Clinton she would be in court. You're celebrating a double standard. You're CELEBRATING a double standard that makes all Americans serfs. But, it's your side winning, so it's okay. Where are you buying your blinders? [/quote] first, Clinton isn't MY side.   I vote all across the spectrum, Libertarian, Republican, Democrat, it really does quite vary Comey actually said: consequences, not prosecution.  "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past. In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here. To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now. As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case."

Title: Re: Benghazi Post by LostArtist on 10/10/16 at 19:07:15 40635E7D7F64636A0D0 wrote: [quote author=5675696E5B686E73696E1A0 link=1476067250/15#23 date=1476149021]"yeah, because Trump has haver gone back and revised his position on anything...  nah, never...."   Of Course,  Clinton, has  NEVER, reversed, HER,  position, on: Gay Rights, Abortion, Immigrants, Borders,  Trade Deals, Manufacturing Deals, Gun Control,  The DOJ or EPA, The AJ, Banking, Wall Street, Bail Outs, War,  etc.  etc., etc., ... And  NEVER, has she,  Spoke from  BOTH, sides of her mouth, when talking to the, 'voters', and her, 'contributors'. NOP,  Never.   Just Ask CNN,  They will TELL YOU,  what to say ! [/quote] I'm not the one saying that people shouldn't revise their positions, I'm glad Trump has revised his position of a Muslim ban, down to "extreme" vetting. I don't have a problem with people changing their positions, but if you use that a reason not to like someone and then the person YOU DO like does that exact thing... um,  you're the one with the problem

Title: Re: Benghazi Post by LostArtist on 10/10/16 at 19:08:56 293630372A2D1C2C1C24363A71430 wrote: Well, anyone who supported NAFTA was either, being generous, stupid, or, being a Globalist and working against American interests, a traitor. I was against NAFTA, it was no difficult decision. Anyone who supported NAFTA really needs to sit down and think about why. Anyone who supported it didn't understand how things work. Or, wanted to wreck us. Everyone makes mistakes, Everyone changes their Mind on things. But NAFTA was clearly and obviously poison, Now run back and tell me about the bubs who wrote it. And then let's study the immediate support and signing into law such a huge policy change, written by bubs, yet, supported and endorsed by Clinton, and LOOK AT WHERE WE ARE. Lets elect the MOTS candidate.. yeeeeaaahhh... bubs are the ones that overwhelmingly support these kinds of Free Trade deals, something about encouraging the Free market forces to work.... you should be familiar with all that, I'm sure you are.

Title: Re: Benghazi Post by MnSpring on 10/10/16 at 19:18:18 12312D2A1F2C2A372D2A5E0 wrote: " I'm not the one saying that people shouldn't revise their positions, ... " YEA, YOU DID !!!!! Pick One.   !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PAY,  MORE,'Taxes', to just put in a, 'Personal  Pocket'. Or  Stand up for, "FREEDOM". PICK ONE !

Title: Re: Benghazi Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/10/16 at 19:20:37 You're not getting it. The Opposing Party, the bubs, wrote it, Clinton CHAMPIONED it, didn't Veto it,, remember, they are ideologically opposed, enemies, okay? Yet, Clinton said it was a great thing, added a coupla things, signed it. Yeah, the parties are so opposed. Now, familiarize yourself with Left cover And Right cover Certain behaviors are attributed to the parties, you expect it ..And the other side argues and screams, But it passes And they whine about We TRIED to stop them And the voters dump the creeps And nothing is repealed. Read that about fifty times Maybe I can stop being forced to type it.

SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved.