I'm proud to be a Democrat

Ooh but Cobbler is proud democrat, don't you know? He would never believe in such things, even if the truth is right in his face, even if it smack him over the head!!
Well... all you would hear is an empty sound...

We still see a complete unwillingness of the liberals around here to admit that Obama is a prick who is either unwilling or unable to play nice with others. Is this because he is a D or is it because he is the first president to have enough black genetic material to make him dark enough to pass for black thus giving him entree in THE MOST desirable of recognized victims groups ? Or maybe both.

In any case, truth loses.

The fact is that libs would do just about anything to retain the power. So nothing here surprise me.

Left admitting to anything? Are you kidding? In fact I always have fun watching their attempts to defend indefensible, like Bengazi, Clinton kickbacks from foreign govs, open lying to American people, etc. As of yet, I still didn't get any responses, answers or comments regarding their dear friend Gruber, architect of Obama care, describing Americans as being stupid on secret recording, and saying about how lies were necessary to pass it.

What is fun is watching you spout the crap you do and then claim you are more intelligent than the rest of us. You obviously can't see past the nose you are being lead around by.

Seems to me Andy is correct on all counts. Care to dispute any of his charges?

Give us the specific reason why Benghazi is indefensible. Use actual facts and a standard of judgment that can be compared to other instances in the past.

The problem is that Benghazi is not a failure of Clinton. She was Sec of State. Many actual embassies have been attacked under previous administrations. At no time was the Sec of State responsible for those attacks or responsible for the military response. The fact is that Benghazi has been examined several times and nothing has been found to accuse Clinton of anything. The only thing there is political points trying to be gained by making up **** about Benghazi.

I will await your actual facts and their sources. I won't hold my breath.

While you are at it give us ONE instance of a Clinton kickback from a foreign government. Keep in mind the actual definition of "kickback".

Once again. It is only unsubstantiated bullshit that doesn't come close to meeting the standard of what a kickback actually is to make such a claim.

I will again await your actual evidence. Again, I won't hold my breath. The accusations are nonsense that could be used against just about anyone.

At the very least, she failed to provide adequate protection in the weeks leading up to the attack. Bad decision on her part and she failed to admit her mistake.

That makes her an in effective leader. Everyone makes mistakes. Those who fail to admit their mistakes can not be trusted.

Not aware of any kickback, but her "Foundation" did admit the were negligent is providing full disclosure.

Wanna talk about the e-mails? Vince Foster?

All mistakes she failed to admit. And you can trust her?

Well, it is great pleasure watching you stumble on your own words in attempt to minimize the impact of what I said. Yet, you can't deny or contradict any of it, because it is too obvious, and all I did is point it out.

So all you can do is to call me stupid, how dare speak about it.
This was going to be tabu subject.

If no one speaks the truth does it exist?

This is where we are in America circa 2015, where for decades the manipulators and thieves have been working feverishly to corrupt language and control conversations. I for instance long ago pointed out how the word rape has been ruined by making the definition so large as to make the word nearly useless.

So, let's see if you admit that it is not the responsibility of a Sec of State to provide protection for consulate offices. Or perhaps you are going to argue that Bush was an ineffective leader as well as Reagan.

I notice you provided ZERO evidence to support your allegations.

It sure is the responsibility of the Sec of State to coordinate the security for our embassies and offices. You are apparently a Clinton apologist who will ignore the truth even when it smacks you in the face.

Oh wait, you can't be an apologist since Clintons never apologize for anything. They just blame others.

Like Dick Cheney?

Did the republicans apologize for cutting funding at foreign embassies?

The republicans can't be trusted!

And what of the KOCH brother's kick backs so the GOP can sit and do absolutely nothing for 8 years?!!!

It seems you have a strange standard. Are you a Bush apologist? A Colin Powell apologist? A Condoleezza Rice apologist?

http://www.politifact.com/embassyattacks/

Shouldn't you have been demanding that Powell and Rice be brought before Congress to answer for all the attacks on embassies and consulates when they were in office?

Oh... you are going to argue that this is political, aren't you, when you state that only Clinton is running for President. Of course you don't give a damn about security for overseas personnel nor do you actually believe that it is the responsibility of the Sec of State.

Apparently neither does Clinton or you. You constantly argue that if so and so did it, it certainly OK for Clinton to do it.

A child usually reacts that way. You fit your picture !

If so and so did it and it was OK for you then it points to YOU being the one that is acting like a child.