Ytowngirlinfla
Posts: 2,295
May 20, 2015 9:46pm
How many dead military members because of Bush's WMD and the invasion of Iraq?Belly35;1729869 wrote:four dead Americans on her watch and asleep at the switch
S
superman
Posts: 3,582
May 20, 2015 9:48pm
Liberals bringing up Bush. Shocking.Ytowngirlinfla;1729984 wrote:How many dead military members because of Bush's WMD and the invasion of Iraq?
Ytowngirlinfla
Posts: 2,295
May 20, 2015 9:49pm
I'm not even a liberal but if you are going to blame Hilary you might as well blame Bush as well.superman;1729987 wrote:Liberals bringing up Bush. Shocking.
S
superman
Posts: 3,582
May 20, 2015 10:10pm
Liberal refusing to own what they are. Shocking.Ytowngirlinfla;1729989 wrote:I'm not even a liberal but if you are going to blame Hilary you might as well blame Bush as well.
like_that
Posts: 26,625
May 20, 2015 11:38pm
No you shouldn't, that completely irrelevant and a huge cop out. Bush has no power in this country and never will again. We are talking about a potential POTUS and you want to bring up a former president to deflect. The fact you (or anybody who uses this cop out) have to use bush as a measuring stick for Hillary/Obama says enough about them.Ytowngirlinfla;1729989 wrote:I'm not even a liberal but if you are going to blame Hilary you might as well blame Bush as well.
Maybe after 20 years we will stop hearing this cop out response.
J
jmog
Posts: 6,567
May 21, 2015 9:34am
Please feel free to explain what GW Bush has to do with the next Presidential election. That comment was not only needlessly inflammatory (as in it had nothing to do with the thread topic) but it has no bearing on the next election.Ytowngirlinfla;1729984 wrote:How many dead military members because of Bush's WMD and the invasion of Iraq?
With that in mind...
Mrs. Ytowngirlinfla, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
May 21, 2015 10:05am
You'd think after 6+ years people still wouldn't be lowering the bar with "what about Bush". I mean, what does one accomplish arguing someone sucks less (debatable) than Bush?like_that;1730098 wrote:No you shouldn't, that completely irrelevant and a huge cop out.
So you voted for him/her because they aren't as bad as Bush?!? Well, the country is in good hands.
Q
QuakerOats
Posts: 8,740
May 21, 2015 11:03am
- "SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL, pictured, a longtime Clinton confidant, reportedly advised then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton two days after the 2012 Benghazi terror attack that an Al Qaeda-tied group had planned the deadly assault and used a protest as cover — but despite this warning, Clinton's UN ambassador went on to publicly claim it was 'spontaneous.'"
To think that this corrupt, lying, bitch is even in the presidential race discussion is absolutely mind-blowing.
Belly35
Posts: 9,716
May 21, 2015 11:14am
Benghazi Bombshell: Clinton pal told her attack was planned, Al Qaeda-tiedptown_trojans_1;1729874 wrote:She has been cleared of any misconduct by the R led Congress.
But, yeah sure blame her.
If we go that rational then every single SEC STATE has had blood on their hands.
Emails reportedly show confidant told Clinton Benghazi attack planned by AQ-tied fighters
SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL, pictured, a longtime Clinton confidant, reportedly advised then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton two days after the 2012 Benghazi terror attack that an Al Qaeda-tied group had planned the deadly assault and used a protest as cover — but despite this warning,
Asleep at the switch ..... didn't take her duty serious, politics for profit not for the interest of the Ameican people...
TedSheckler
Posts: 3,974
May 21, 2015 12:19pm
A simple "wrong" would have done just fine...jmog;1730130 wrote: Mrs. Ytowngirlinfla, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Apple
Posts: 2,620
May 21, 2015 9:05pm
Looks like Trey Gowdy is on the Blumenthal connection with the Congressional investigation.Belly35;1730146 wrote:Benghazi Bombshell: Clinton pal told her attack was planned, Al Qaeda-tied
Emails reportedly show confidant told Clinton Benghazi attack planned by AQ-tied fighters
SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL, pictured, a longtime Clinton confidant, reportedly advised then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton two days after the 2012 Benghazi terror attack that an Al Qaeda-tied group had planned the deadly assault and used a protest as cover — but despite this warning,
Asleep at the switch ..... didn't take her duty serious, politics for profit not for the interest of the Ameican people...
http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-foundation-silent-on-blumenthals-exit-date/
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
May 21, 2015 10:44pm
How are Democrats not getting nervous? Hillary isn't quite as teflon as Slick Willy, and the Republican nominee is going to have plenty to attack Clinton on with honesty and transparency.
Then again, maybe the liberal media will fall in line and this is all just an effort to later dismiss it as "old news" and "no there there".
Then again, maybe the liberal media will fall in line and this is all just an effort to later dismiss it as "old news" and "no there there".
like_that
Posts: 26,625
May 22, 2015 12:24am
They will definitely dismiss it as old news while also still bringing up Bush [emoji23].gut;1730310 wrote:How are Democrats not getting nervous? Hillary isn't quite as teflon as Slick Willy, and the Republican nominee is going to have plenty to attack Clinton on with honesty and transparency.
Then again, maybe the liberal media will fall in line and this is all just an effort to later dismiss it as "old news" and "no there there".
Q
QuakerOats
Posts: 8,740
May 22, 2015 8:50am
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/22/clinton-foundation-reveals-up-to-264m-in-previously-undisclosed-payments/
Tried to hide another $26 million. Corrupt, lying, bastards........
Tried to hide another $26 million. Corrupt, lying, bastards........
cruiser_96
Posts: 7,536
May 22, 2015 9:12am
Once again the myth of a "Liberal Media Bias" is exposed for the joke (and lie) that it is! The Clintons are now victims of a vicious group of activists weilding the pen - er, computer. For shame.
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
May 22, 2015 11:42am
LMAO, they don't even try to hide it any more. Just because the media may not be as liberal as you doesn't mean they aren't biased.cruiser_96;1730410 wrote:Once again the myth of a "Liberal Media Bias" is exposed for the joke (and lie) that it is!
W
wkfan
Posts: 1,641
May 22, 2015 1:10pm
http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/apexchange/2015/05/22/us--dem-2016-clinton-emails.html
HRC received classified emails on her private email......
All the more reason to force her to turn ALL e-mails over the DOJ.
Does anyone still think the reason that she had used a private email for SOS mail was so that she did not have to carry two cell phones?
HRC received classified emails on her private email......
All the more reason to force her to turn ALL e-mails over the DOJ.
Does anyone still think the reason that she had used a private email for SOS mail was so that she did not have to carry two cell phones?
cruiser_96
Posts: 7,536
May 22, 2015 1:23pm
Hey! I'm not a liberal. I prefer "Communist"!gut;1730454 wrote:LMAO, they don't even try to hide it any more. Just because the media may not be as liberal as you doesn't mean they aren't biased.
cruiser_96
Posts: 7,536
May 22, 2015 1:25pm
Do you honestly believe that the very people who would vote for her care? #BlindAllegiencewkfan;1730465 wrote:http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/apexchange/2015/05/22/us--dem-2016-clinton-emails.html
HRC received classified emails on her private email......
All the more reason to force her to turn ALL e-mails over the DOJ.
Does anyone still think the reason that she had used a private email for SOS mail was so that she did not have to carry two cell phones?
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
May 22, 2015 2:26pm
I think it's funny watching her call for the release of her emails as some sort of commitment to transparency....you know, the emails that her group already screened before turning over to the DOJ.wkfan;1730465 wrote:http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/apexchange/2015/05/22/us--dem-2016-clinton-emails.html
HRC received classified emails on her private email......
All the more reason to force her to turn ALL e-mails over the DOJ.
Does anyone still think the reason that she had used a private email for SOS mail was so that she did not have to carry two cell phones?
I've only seen it mentioned in passing, but I'm quite concerned her ability as POTUS could be compromised if the Russians, Chinese or anyone else has incriminating emails of hers. Knowing Clinton, there's definitely some shady stuff...and it's something more than "unlikely" she was hacked.
Classyposter58
Posts: 6,321
May 22, 2015 4:22pm
Yeah she's screwed
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
DeyDurkie5
Posts: 11,324
May 22, 2015 9:52pm
Shut it down, classy has spoken
F
Footwedge
Posts: 9,265
May 23, 2015 11:50pm
Yes it is irrelevant if sticking to the context of this thread. But you bet your sweet ass it's relevant to the big picture if one wants to rationally discuss dead Americans because of bad policy.like_that;1730098 wrote:No you shouldn't, that completely irrelevant and a huge cop out. Bush has no power in this country and never will again. We are talking about a potential POTUS and you want to bring up a former president to deflect. The fact you (or anybody who uses this cop out) have to use bush as a measuring stick for Hillary/Obama says enough about them.
Maybe after 20 years we will stop hearing this cop out response.
F
Footwedge
Posts: 9,265
May 23, 2015 11:57pm
Irrelevant to the thread ..agreed. People being dumber for reading it? Hardly. How many Americans still give Bush a free pass for the loss of American soldiers over a pack of lies? What's really amazing is all the ass clowns like you that...after all that is now known as fact...still justify the criminal invasion in Iraq. Beyond pathetic....and a truly sorry commentary on how partisan hacks use tunnel vision glasses.jmog;1730130 wrote:Please feel free to explain what GW Bush has to do with the next Presidential election. That comment was not only needlessly inflammatory (as in it had nothing to do with the thread topic) but it has no bearing on the next election.
With that in mind...
Mrs. Ytowngirlinfla, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
HitsRus
Posts: 9,206
May 24, 2015 9:46am
Charles Krauthammer has a great article today that is particularly relevant to this discussion. You can argue whether the war was a mistake, based on a false premise, or was too costly in American lives....but Bush handed off to Obama a victory. what has transpired since is even worse, because it has negated what we paid so dearly for......and that is entirely related to the next election, and those responsible for it.
http://www.omaha.com/opinion/charles-krauthammer-there-s-no-question-who-authored-latest-iraq/article_3ed7e855-cc97-54ec-abd5-fbe47c17cb8b.html
http://www.omaha.com/opinion/charles-krauthammer-there-s-no-question-who-authored-latest-iraq/article_3ed7e855-cc97-54ec-abd5-fbe47c17cb8b.html