Congratulations, House Republicans!

http://obamadiary.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/bd5lvbiciaayarv.jpg

0 Replies

@coldjoint,

Clodboink - explain your little cartoon please.

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

Quote:

Who says so, Snopes?

If they did everyone would know its true.

1 Reply

@bobsal u1553115,

Quote:

If they did everyone would know its true.

In the war of ideologies there is nothing objective, and Snopes is no different.

1 Reply

@bobsal u1553115,

Quote:

- explain your little cartoon please.

It simply says the Koch brothers own the Vatican, and that Vatican is racist like everyone except Democratic politicians.

0 Replies

@coldjoint,

The alleged Snopes-Soros connection is still another unverified and unverifiable righ wing conspiracy theory, aka urban legend. Snopes is wholly owned by a ouple with no political affiliation and no discernible bias, and takes no money from outside sources--they derive their revenue from advertisin on the site. THREE of their COMPETITORS, FactCheck.org, TruthorFiction.com, and About.com, ALL says the charges are bogus. frankly, joint, they have a lot more collective credibility than you or your cites do.

They all say the charges against Snopes are remarkably free from actual examples of bias, or any specific checkable facts. FAIL again, joint.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

, FactCheck.org, TruthorFiction.com, and About.com, ALL says the charges are bogus. frankly, joint, they have a lot more collective credibility than you or your cites do.

And who are they funded by? Everyone has an angle and progressives have been playing the game longer. It is plain to see the liberal influence in everything involving social issues. The issues that spawn more division and unrest. And being part of the army of useful idiots suits you just fine.

Dismissed.

http://www.acidpulse.us/images/smilies/salute.gif

0 Replies

re: joint

Yeah, just as I thought, you have no evidence, just someone's (or your own) reckless, feckless assertion, unbacked up by anything other than someone's mauderings. Another in a series of totally evidence-free coldjoint conspiracy theories.

0 Replies

@coldjoint,

The Pink Prevaricator wrote:

Quote:
I guess this is just another example of you having **** for brains and being out of touch with reality.

And I guess this is another example to attack the messenger, not the message.

When you really do have **** for brains and like to show us that fact, it isn't really an attack, is it?

The Pink Prevaricator wrote:

You have said 0 about Reids corruption. You have said 0 about Islamic intimidation. You have said nothing about the billionare that caused Keystone to be delayed again. Nothing about obvious corruption in the DHS, IRS, or the DOJ.

Reid's corruption? If you have some real evidence then present it. Your **** for brains claims aren't nearly enough to convince people that can actually examine evidence.

Islamic intimidation? Are there Islamic terrorists? Yes. Does that prove Islam is intimidating anyone? No. It just supports Ghandi's statement about Christianity is true about Islam.

Keystone has a process. The attempt to short circuit the process has done more to delay it than anything else.

There may be corruption in DHS, IRS, or the DOJ but you haven't presented any clear evidence of that. The IRS scandal is that they are underfunded so can't collect the taxes from the scofflaws. The GOP pulled the same crap in the 80s. Phonied up some IRS scandal then cut the IRS budget then realized that doing so cut the government funding. Some people don't learn from their past mistakes it seems.

The Pink Prevaricator wrote:

Instead you insist you know more about someones healthcare than he does.

Unlike you I know the difference between healthcare and health insurance. But then you do like to demonstrate you have **** for brains.

0 Replies

@coldjoint,

The Pink Prevaricator wrote:

Quote:
3. Talk about irrational paranoia. The video and Benghazi didn't sway the election.

You don't know the truth so you can't say that. It is obvious that a terror attack was out of the question on Obamas watch, let alone Killary Clintions. You are spouting bullshit and rhetoric. And none of that deals with anything remotely resembling the truth.

Actually I do know the truth about that. We have polling of what mattered to the voters during the election. Benghazi has never been an issue outside the RW echo chamber. Wishful thinking on your part doesn't make it true.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/06/exit-polls-top-issues-for-voters/

Terror attacks have occurred under Obama. They occurred MORE often and with more causalities under Bush. Benghazi happened. It was minor in the scheme of terrorist attacks. Most voters view it that way. It was nothing like the attacks on 9/11. Anyone without **** for brains would recognize that.

0 Replies

@coldjoint,

coldjoint wrote:

Quote:
That's not the real issue.

That is not an issue? You are stick on stupid. How did that cut stop the military from intervening.

What prevented the military from interfering in Benghazi was reality. The first attack lasted only a couple of hours and would have taken at at least 12 hours to get a US response team there.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83713.html
The response from Tripoli was on it's way in only a couple of hours. This is the kind of stuff from you that makes us realize you have **** for brains. All major military personnel that have spoken on the issue have stated there was no way to get a military response there in the time frame of the attack. Yet, somehow you want us to believe know more about military operations than anyone who is actually involved in them. No, you don't **** for brains.

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

The Pink Prevaricator wrote:

It has been made more than clear that when they did know they did not go. Those who were there have told Congress that.

Sorry, **** for brains. That didn't happen. No one has told Congress that. Some idiot that lied to get on TV told that story but was quickly found out.

Congress has been told quite a different story from the one you are promoting and they have accepted the story told by the military
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/04/10/gop-chairman-satisfied-with-military-response-to-benghazi-attack/

Quote:

Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., said the military did what it reasonably could during a chaotic night of two separate attacks on Sept. 11, 2012.

Maybe you should check your facts once in a while so you don't spend so much time revealing you have **** for brains.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

The response from Tripoli was on it's way in only a couple of hours.

Why that long? That is total bullshit.They should have been on there way before the phone call was finished. You can call me anything you want. It does not change the fact Obama hasn't a ******* clue about being a leader.

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

The Pink Prevaricator wrote:

Quote:
The response from Tripoli was on it's way in only a couple of hours.

Why that long? That is total bullshit.They should have been on there way before the phone call was finished. You can call me anything you want. It does not change the fact Obama hasn't a ******* clue about being a leader.

I guess having **** for brains, you don't know the difference between on the way and responding. The response means they have to get to the airport, get a flight authorized and leave. They are not "on the way" to Benghazi until the plane is in the air. They evacuated personnel to the airport from the annex the next morning.

The only thing that isn't changing here, Pinkie, is that you have **** for brains. Anyone that has ever had to respond in a crisis would know you don't rush off without knowing what you are heading into and what the proper response should be.

1 Reply

@parados,

ice brain doesn't know how to check on facts. He listens to FOX News, and thinks he has the right information. TNCFS

It's been shown that it doesn't matter how many reliable sources we post here to show he is wrong; he continues to repeat the lies he heard of FOX News.

Brain dead.

0 Replies

@parados,

.

Quote:

Anyone that has ever had to respond in a crisis would know you don't rush off without knowing what you are heading into and what the proper response should be.

Is an attack a crisis for our military? I hope not. They are prepared and already have a course of action. That is what training and intelligence is for.

I guess you will never run out of excuses, but you are desperate to defend an inept president, and it shows.

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

The Pink Prevaricator wrote:

Is an attack a crisis for our military? I hope not. They are prepared and already have a course of action. That is what training and intelligence is for.

I guess you will never run out of excuses, but you are desperate to defend an inept president, and it shows.

The military wasn't under attack. But just in case you missed it the military has said they don't rush in on rescue missions without intelligence and information about the situation on the ground. To do otherwise would risk friendly fire incidents or ambush.

Again, your **** for brains are shown to be what they are compared to what the real military does.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

they don't rush in on rescue missions without intelligence and information about the situation on the ground.

Well they didn't listen to them when they used the opinion of the analysts in Langley, not Benghazi, to explain what was going on.

1 Reply

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/imgs/2014/140428-you-dont-have-to-be-a-master-sleuth.jpg

1 Reply

@bobsal u1553115,

No, you don't.

1 Reply

Congratulations, House Republicans!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know