I was wondering, are your thoughts and discussions points controlled by media. Is the news being kept from you? are you aware that a tanker was attacked in the Gulf? are you aware a tradegy is occuring in northern Syria? are you obvlious and just want to focus on what various dills are doing in a small pocket of supposed civilisation just because it is close to you?

This is important and far reaching in its implications

Paraclete: Yes, I am aware of all of which you say here:

There is a lot of what the media puts out that IS CONTROLLED by forces that I don't know the origin of...I don't think its the U.S. Government because the media is decidedly against the current Administration by a great margin: The "sport" of the day/the style of today/the "in vogue" thing to be today is anti-Trump: its the fashion....so, if the government controlled the media, it certainly wouldn't be anti-Trump, it would be an apparatus of the government, which it clearly is not.

Yes, I know there is lot going on in Northern Syria: I don't expect it to go on very long now that Assad has stepped-in and sided with the Kurds: Turkey has nothing for the Syrians because Russia is Syria's ally.....Turkey won't press the issue for too much longer....UNLESS Assad chooses to ALLOW Turkey to slaughter the Kurds and eliminate/exterminate them so he doesn't have to do so. Truth is, we should have ALL gotten behind Assad when he was fighting ISIS to a standstill all by himself BEFORE Russian intervention: Assad showed and extreme amount of courage in standing ALONE fighting and entire blitzkrieg of foreign fighter and the Western cabal of U.S., French, Saudi, British, and other nations chipping in against him.....Anyone who can do that, who is willing to do that, for his country earns some respect or should.

Yes, know about the oil tanker: U.S. can tell the entire M.E. to shove their oil up their asses, the U.S. is energy independent now, the largest exporter of oil in the world! Too bad for Europe and others dependent upon Iranian oil: They are so dependent that they would deal with the devil to get their oil....would look the other way and permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons to get their oil......no don't have much sympathy for the Europeans outside of the ones who have stood up to Germany's 3rd attempt at European conquest called the E.U.....these countries would be Great Britain, Poland, Czech Republic, and Italy who have told Germany to go shove it where the sun don't shine.

Paraclete: Yes, I am aware of all of which you say here:

There is a lot of what the media puts out that IS CONTROLLED by forces that I don't know the origin of...I don't think its the U.S. Government because the media is decidedly against the current Administration by a great margin: The "sport" of the day/the style of today/the "in vogue" thing to be today is anti-Trump: its the fashion....so, if the government controlled the media, it certainly wouldn't be anti-Trump, it would be an apparatus of the government, which it clearly is not.

Yes, I know there is lot going on in Northern Syria: I don't expect it to go on very long now that Assad has stepped-in and sided with the Kurds: Turkey has nothing for the Syrians because Russia is Syria's ally.....Turkey won't press the issue for too much longer....UNLESS Assad chooses to ALLOW Turkey to slaughter the Kurds and eliminate/exterminate them so he doesn't have to do so. Truth is, we should have ALL gotten behind Assad when he was fighting ISIS to a standstill all by himself BEFORE Russian intervention: Assad showed and extreme amount of courage in standing ALONE fighting and entire blitzkrieg of foreign fighter and the Western cabal of U.S., French, Saudi, British, and other nations chipping in against him.....Anyone who can do that, who is willing to do that, for his country earns some respect or should.

Yes, know about the oil tanker: U.S. can tell the entire M.E. to shove their oil up their asses, the U.S. is energy independent now, the largest exporter of oil in the world! Too bad for Europe and others dependent upon Iranian oil: They are so dependent that they would deal with the devil to get their oil....would look the other way and permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons to get their oil......no don't have much sympathy for the Europeans outside of the ones who have stood up to Germany's 3rd attempt at European conquest called the E.U.....these countries would be Great Britain, Poland, Czech Republic, and Italy who have told Germany to go shove it where the sun don't shine.


You see the media bias is showing. Assad didn't oppose ISIS directly he had his hands full with US backed insurgents, even now he hasn't moved against them because he still has insurgents in Idlib to deal with as well as Turkey in his north west. Turkey is now forcing his hand to protect the Kurds as well as Syrian territory.

The media bias is showing as you say you don't need the rest of the world and particularly Iran, but you have to trade with them. We should be exploring who attacked the tanker. Yes, you are an important oil producer but where is that exported product going?

Paraclete: One thing FOR SURE: The U.S. can tell the whole world to go to hell with their oil because we produce all WE need!

Paraclete: One thing FOR SURE: The U.S. can tell the whole world to go to hell with their oil because we produce all WE need!

I wouldn't go that far, and I don't think it's quite that simple, but for those of us who well remember the 73 oil embargo, it is a wonderful blessing to be energy independent.

The U.S. Is Exporting Its Oil Everywhere. With American stockpiles at unprecedented levels, oil tankers laden with U.S. crude have docked in, or are heading to, countries including France, Germany, the Netherlands, Israel, China and Panama. Oil traders said other destinations are likely, just as supplies in Europe and the Mediterranean (https://www.bing.com/search?q=Mediterranean+Sea&filters=sid%3aa4b97381-a6ba-051e-4823-3415e3d2c2cf&form=ENTLNK) region are also increasing.
The U.S. Is Exporting Its Oil Everywhere - Bloomberg (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-18/from-china-to-switzerland-u-s-crude-oil-exports-go-mainstream)



I'm sure they are looking at who attacked that tanker, and maybe they know but ain't telling.

Poor Iran: Don't think they will get much sympathy.

Iran has Vlad, Assad, and a host of militias accross the globe. They don't need our sympathy. Soon they will have the Kurds too, AND the Ukraine.

Where do the stinking Turks fall into this scheme?

They seem to be intent on securing towns and territories in Syria along their border supposedly for a buffer zone against Kurd(?). Well that's what was reported. They also intend to resettle Syrian refugees in that area, while the hold our 50 nukes in Turkey hostage. Who knows what that nut job dictator wants or the game he plays with our dufus.

Talaniman: You know, Turkey never even got so much as a slap on the wrist for all the evils perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire, including the Armenian Genocide, the abuses to Arabs, and being on the wrong side in WWI....I am surprised any Arabs would cozy up to them. I also can't believe the Russians will just sit back and permit Turkey to run amuck in Syria since Russia and Syria are tight.

Vlad plays the long game, and as the US fails and falls back, Vlad advances. You do know that he is talking to the Saudis too don't you? If we cannot protect the Saudis, or the Kurds, Vlad can, at a price of course.

Vlad wins.

Talaniman: This is a crazy thought BUT: Why can't the U.S. and Russia be allies? Wouldn't that shake up the world?

For one, Vlad is a bonafied criminal dictator bent on destroying the west and returning Russia to it's former glory. How do you make friends with that? Ronald Reagan said it best when he and Gorby started co operating in several areas: "Trust but VERIFY!".

Yeah be great if people could be allies and in some things they can be but not in everything it seems.

For one, Vlad is a bonafied criminal dictator bent on destroying the west and returning Russia to it's former glory. How do you make friends with that? Ronald Reagan said it best when he and Gorby started co operating in several areas: "Trust but VERIFY!".

Yeah be great if people could be allies and in some things they can be but not in everything it seems.

What we need is something to get us all on the same page, Xi saw it and offered the belt and road, a diversion maybe but he has got a lot of people on the same page. Vlad doesn't need confrontation with the US, surely his country has suffered enough of that, but Russia is an old civilisation, much older than the US, and a little respect could change much

Paraclete: I believe a U.S.-Russian alliance, of some sort, could have a great stabilizing effect upon the entire world. Start it with trade!

It would be like a cat having an alliance with a mouse.

It would be like a cat having an alliance with a mouse.

you should not think of yourself as a mouse or as a cat. The US has vast resources, so has Russia their greatest resource has proven to be the sacrifice of their people

Well the dufus and Moscow Mitch would love some of that oligarch money for themselves. If they would just lift those sanctions even if it was one oligarch at a time. Personally I would have a problem trusting a leader who would kill and imprison his political opponents, and invaded his neighbors with his armies.

The dufus
does fit right in with the other psycho leaders in the world though. Just never thought we would have our own psychopath wanna be monarch.

Just never thought we would have our own psychopath wanna be monarch.

Yeah. If Trump turns out that way, then it would be two in a row.

He came in that way, with his shadow government flunkies and elected sycophants, and acting cabinet members. I choose to ignore your comparisons to Obama as just more ideological hate speech with no roots in logic. It allows you after all to ignore and dismiss facts of reality NOW. The dufus is despicable, but he feeds your fears with stupid promises he cannot keep, and stokes your hate. You love it, and I feel for you, choosing chaos and more debt. I understand why you choose hate and fear and chaos though, because the world is changing rapidly, and you struggle to keep up.

I choose to ignore your comparisons to Obama as just more ideological hate speech with no roots in logic.

Translation: You choose to consciously ignore the obvious and then try to justify that by completely ridiculous statements such as, "but he feeds your fears with stupid promises he cannot keep, and stokes your hate," also known as a straw man argument.

Your condensation doesn't surprise me at all. Nor does your half baked translation.

Your condensation doesn't surprise me at all.

Of course it doesn't. You knew it was true without me having to tell you.

You and the dufus have no clue what you're talking about, but that doesn't seem to stop either of you from yammering on.

You and the dufus have no clue what you're talking about,

Says the man who chooses blissful ignorance of Benghazi, the VA scandal, the Lynch/BC scandal, and the many other failings of the Obama admin. Like I have said before, it is your total refusal to deal with the truth about BO and HC that makes your protests ring hollow for me.

I don't know why you continue to associate me with Trump. I applaud him where he deserves it and am critical when warranted. Can you say the same about your beloved HC and BO?

You weren't here when Obama ran things so you missed it. YOUR bad. Sorry ain't playing that silly game. You never answered what part of a lying, cheating, big mouth bully dufus wasn't the truth.

You never answered what part of a lying, cheating, big mouth bully dufus wasn't the truth.

I think that description is probably accurate, though I don't think he lies and cheats any more than your hero Mr. Obama did. He's just not nearly as slick about it.

I don't think he (Trump) lies and cheats any more than your hero Mr. Obama did.


The truth is not one of your strong points.

4 Pinocchios.

Yeah. Benghazi. VA scandal. Lynch/BC meeting. Doubling of the national debt. AP phone records scandal. IRS scandal. You can keep your doctor. You can keep your insurance. "I'll have more flexibility after the election."

And we've only talked about these things a dozen times, but believe what you want. Just don't ask me to drink the kool aid.

Now list the dufus lies, scandals and transgressions so we can compare the two fairly. Take your time.

Hey! That's your job. Just make sure it's as accurate as mine. The only one I can think of right off hand is saying he would make his tax return public. I'm sure you'll think of more.

Glad to oblige.

http://www.andywightman.com/archives/858 (http://www.andywightman.com/archives/858)

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/maryanngeorgantopoulos/president-trump-lie-list

https://www.dailywire.com/news/trumps-101-lies-hank-berrien

https://projects.thestar.com/donald-trump-fact-check/

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/05/28/call-them-lies-why-we-sometimes-dont-use-the-l-word-when-trump-is-wrong.html



A lie is a false statement made intentionally. (Merriam-Webster: “Lie, verb: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive.”) In some cases, it’s safe to say Trump is intentionally trying to deceive. In other cases, it’s far less clear that he’s being wrong intentionally — because, with Donald Trump, you regularly can’t rule out the possibility that he is confused or ignorant.
If we journalists are going to present ourselves as arbiters of truth, we have to stick to what we know is true. And that means not calling something a lie when we don’t have a reasonable certainty that Trump’s intention is deception.


You need more as this is a partial from 2016-17 ? Of course there is a lot more.

Just list them like I did with Obama. I'm not going to go on one of your wild goose chases.

I did like this. "If we journalists are going to present ourselves as arbiters of truth, we have to stick to what we know is true. And that means not calling something a lie when we don’t have a reasonable certainty that Trump’s intention is deception."

I went to your first link only to find nonsense like this. "Trump has repeatedly claimed that he had a deal, a promise or reassurances that wind turbines would not be built within view of his golf resort

AsI stated five years, I would not have gone forward with wind turbines off our coastline and was repeatedly promised, as an incentive for us to proceed with my project, that wind turbines would not be destroying and distorting Aberdeen’s magnificent coastline. (2)

No evidence of such a deal has ever been produced and Scottish Ministers have consistently denied the existence of any deal. If Trump has the evidence, he should produce it. Otherwise, he should shut up."

In other words, the guy has no idea if Trump lied or not. Besides, we are talking about President Trump, not citizen Trump. I limited myself to Obama's presidency. Please do likewise.

You can filter it any way you want but fact is he lies a lot and as the link points out either intentionally or through ignorance or confusion. So everyday he is either deceptive, ignorant or confused? DUFUS!

I limited myself to Obama's presidency. Please do likewise.


OK.

To oblige you, Trump has over 13,000 lies and misclaims since his presidency. They can easily be found by googling Trump's 13,000 lies - or words to that effect.

You'll probably find a way to not do that, but there it is for you and others like you.

I googled Obama's lies and found, using the same standard used for Trump's lies, that Obama had 18 lies in his eight years in office compared to Trump's 13,000+ lies in three years.

Total nonsense. According to one article, Trump has claimed 204 times that this economy is the best in history. The article said that was a "false claim", but the unemployment rate is, indeed, historically low. So it's an exaggeration that all pols make. Now has he intentionally lied concerning the deaths of 4 Americans in order to ensure his reelection? No. Did Obama? Yes.

If you are arguing that Trump tends to be careless with facts, then you are exactly right. But if you are going to try and continue with the "Saint Obama" narrative, you'll have to find some other kool aid drinking liberal to agree with you on that one.

Tal, I recall asking for your thoughts no regurgation

Total nonsense. According to one article, Trump has claimed 204 times that this economy is the best in history. The article said that was a "false claim", but the unemployment rate is, indeed, historically low. So it's an exaggeration that all pols make. Now has he intentionally lied concerning the deaths of 4 Americans in order to ensure his reelection? No. Did Obama? Yes.

If you are arguing that Trump tends to be careless with facts, then you are exactly right. But if you are going to try and continue with the "Saint Obama" narrative, you'll have to find some other kool aid drinking liberal to agree with you on that one.

FACTOIDS

Obama left the country with a 4.7 unemployment number (http://www.chicagonow.com/keeping-an-eye-out/2018/01/trump-vs-obama-economy-numbers/)and in 3 years the dufus has dropped it a point!
(https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/trump-unemployment-claims/)
Obama still created more jobs than the dufus despite the recession. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2019/07/05/trump-is-falling-almost-1-million-jobs-short-vs-obama/#5e0dc6908caa)

I don't know whose Kool aid you drank, but how about some credit due for Mr. Obama and stop listening to just the dufus LIES, exaggerations, and falsehoods.


Tal, I recall asking for your thoughts no regurgation

We start off on subject but we ramble on don't we.

So what do you make of this? It's just a chart. Sorry for the link. I tried to copy and paste the image, but for some reason that does not work for me. No idea why that is.

https://unemploymentdata.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/LFPR-11-3-2017.png



but how about some credit due for Mr. Obama and stop listening to just the dufus LIES, exaggerations, and falsehoods.

I have given him credit. I think it would be helpful if you would take your own advice and start giving Trump some credit rather than continuing to listen just to the lies, exaggerations, and falsehoods about the Obama years.

https://unemploymentdata.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/LFPR-11-3-2017.png
I bet it has more to do with an aging population, retirements, or people staying home to care for kids, or family, and unemployment but that's speculation without accompanying data. It is ticking up, but the high range is 67 and the low is 62.5, which is not that wide, 5 points or so over a decade.

I could see a factors more with more data.

How did you do that???

At any rate, the point is that part of Obama's reduction in unemployment was the decision by several million people to just drop out of the work force. Nevertheless, I do give him credit for cutting the unemployment rate basically in half, just as I give Trump credit for the historic lows we now have for unemployment as well as rising wages and individual incomes. Agreed???

I honestly could agree if the dufus was a lot more humble, and didn't try to hog ALL the credit while berating his predessesor.s He's NOT so he lies! I have been quite lavish in giving him credit for being a big fat liar! Not what you wanted to hear? Take it up with HIM, not me. I don't deal with lying bullies that way.

You know that!

Copy and pasting by right clicking is part of my program in windows touch screen. You must have an entirely different system. Did you try highlighting it first?

Obama had 8 YEARS to drop UNEMPLOYMENT to 4.7%.

As you know, the lower the values, the more difficult it is to reduce the values....the lower residuals are always the toughest to effect.

That is absolutely true, but not an excuse for the dufus to lie and deceive by saying he did it all by himself. That's disgusting.

Total nonsense. According to one article, Trump has claimed 204 times that this economy is the best in history. The article said that was a "false claim", but the unemployment rate is, indeed, historically low

Total nonsense yourself. The unemployment rate is NOT the economy - it is PART of the economy. ECON 101.


So it's an exaggeration that all pols make.

Ah, I see. Trump's thousands of documented lies are now exaggerations. Cute, real cute.


Now has he intentionally lied concerning the deaths of 4 Americans in order to ensure his reelection? No. Did Obama? Yes.

Wanna talk about the dead children at the Mexican border? Or how about the bone-headed withdrawal from Syria? Even his Repubs are criticizing him for that one. And no, Obama did not lie about it.


If you are arguing that Trump tends to be careless with facts

No, I'm not arguing that at all. I'm arguing Trump is a pathological liar! Read my lips.


but if you're going to continue with the "Saint Obama" narrative, you'll have to find some other kool aid drinking liberal to agree with you on that one.

I have never considered Obama a Saint. Who's drinking the kool-aid now?

Total nonsense yourself. The unemployment rate is NOT the economy - it is PART of the economy. ECON 101.

If you would pay attention a little better, you would have noted that my response did not concern the economy. It concerned the silly claim about thousands of lies and how they went about getting that number .


Ah, I see. Trump's thousands of documented lies are now exaggerations. Cute, real cute.

Once again, you are not paying attention. Many of those so called "documented lies" were differences of opinion such as the one concerning the unemployment rate.


Wanna talk about the dead children at the Mexican border? Or how about the bone-headed withdrawal from Syria? Even his Repubs are criticizing him for that one. And no, Obama did not lie about it.

The dead children at the border were sick when they arrived. The withdrawal was indeed bone-headed. Did Obama lie about Benghazi? You are nuts if you think he didn't. Susan Rice's statements on the five Sunday morning news shows were flatly, completely, totally untrue.


I have never considered Obama a Saint. Who's drinking the kool-aid now?

You would chop off your hand before you would criticize Obama. I don't think you've ever done it. You even won't admit he lied like a dog about Benghazi. But here's your big chance. Give us a candid assessment of Obama's mistakes.

If you would pay attention a little better, you would have noted that my response did not concern the economy.

Of course, it concerned the economy. Go back and read it.


It concerned the silly claim about thousands of lies and how they went about getting that number

Nothing silly about it. The (now) 13,500+ are verified from Trump's twitters, Trump's video appearances at the WH driveway, and Trump's rallies. Trump is the source for his lies.


Many of those so called "documented lies" were differences of opinion such as the one concerning the unemployment rate.

Your "difference of opinion" is a lie in the real world.


Did Obama lie about Benghazi? You are nuts if you think he didn't.

No, he didn't lie. You are nuts if you depend on FOX for your information.


Susan Rice's statements on the five Sunday morning news shows were flatly, completely, totally untrue.

As has been explained again and again and most recently by Susan Rice, the information she gave was the best intelligence she had at the moment. I'd hardly call it a lie.


You would chop off your hand before you would criticize Obama. I don't think you've ever done it. You even won't admit he lied like a dog about Benghazi.

The only one lying like a dog here is yourself. The facts about Benghazi are all over the internet. Why do you keep repeating right-wing falsehoods from FOX?


But here's your big chance. Give us a candid assessment of Obama's mistakes.

Why is this my "big chance"? Why would I give you a "candid assessment of Obama's mistakes"?

As has been explained again and again and most recently by Susan Rice, the information she gave was the best intelligence she had at the moment. I'd hardly call it a lie.

Except that Obama referred to it as an act of terror in remarks made in the Rose Garden the next day. He claimed that was the case in one of the debates. So which one was it? So Rice said she did not lie? Oh well. That settles it then. After all, she worked for Obama, so no doubt she would never attempt to conceal the truth. Yeah. Right.



The only one lying like a dog here is yourself. The facts about Benghazi are all over the internet. Why do you keep repeating right-wing falsehoods from FOX?

I've never mentioned Fox, but you're right. It's all over the internet. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/28/benghazi-report-points-out-obama-clinton-lies/


Why is this my "big chance"? Why would I give you a "candid assessment of Obama's mistakes"?

Thank you so much for verifying my earlier statement. "You would chop off your hand before you would criticize Obama. I don't think you've ever done it. You even won't admit he lied like a dog about Benghazi."

Maybe you would do it to demonstrate that you actually have some concern for the truth.

Oh come on you aren't concerned with the truth, just covering up the shame of giving us the lying cheating dufus who is also an incompetent criminal. I certainly can understand under those circumstances why you would rather talk about Obama, and anything else that changes the focus from the truth of now.

LOL, what a lousy strategy though, taking incidents litigated already to hide behind and not have to face the constant acceptance of the steady stream of lies and incompetence coming from this WH every freakin' day and some are real whoppers to be sure. I don't blame you for desperately trying to change the subject to our guy, instead of your guy because the truth of the dufus is too much for even YOU.

The saddest part is now you must blast everybody on the dem side so you can justify holding your nose and voting for him again. Now you tell the truth, did you really hold your nose the first time? Are you still holding it? Will you keep holding it and keep the dufus around for more lies and deceit, and incompetence?

Hmm. Maybe your living your worst nightmare and the dems boot the dufus and his dummy, and let Nancy finish his term. See I understand you better than you understand yourself. I hope you understand that dems won't save you from that either.

We're getting way ahead of ourselves here: Clinton got IMPEACHED and he stayed in office because he is a man with no scruples nor morals (unlike Nixon who was just threatened with Impeachment and decided to leave because he knew the process was not good for the country)…...and I have heard most on this site say time and time again that Trump is a man with no scruples and no morals....you know what that means: Trump will stay in office EVEN IF HE IS IMPEACHED.....because he won't leave and the Demos don't have the votes.

Oh come on you aren't concerned with the truth, just covering up the shame of giving us the lying cheating dufus who is also an incompetent criminal. I certainly can understand under those circumstances why you would rather talk about Obama, and anything else that changes the focus from the truth of now.

The truth is, Trump is no worse than Obama in that regard. As I've said a million times, I have no big problem with your criticisms of Trump. It's your committed worship of Obama that I object to. If you ever watch the movie "13 Hours", you'll have a different attitude.



The saddest part is now you must blast everybody on the dem side so you can justify holding your nose and voting for him again. Now you tell the truth, did you really hold your nose the first time? Are you still holding it? Will you keep holding it and keep the dufus around for more lies and deceit, and incompetence?

Every dem candidate is a whole hearted supporter of abortion, gay marriage, and playing race/class politics. If you want my vote, you need to find a John Kennedy.


Hmm. Maybe your living your worst nightmare and the dems boot the dufus and his dummy, and let Nancy finish his term.

My gosh your incessant, non-thinking name calling gets old. It's such a poor reflection on your intelligence that you can't think of anything compelling to say so you just call names. I think you can do better than that. At any rate, no one is talking about getting rid of Pence. In fact, if you successfully impeach Trump, then I would be happy to have Pence as pres and could support him fully. Maybe, in fact, you are doing me a favor!!

What is really a threat in all of this is the obvious strategy of the dems to remove Trump by non-democratic processes. They know they likely cannot defeat him in an election, so they are, at this point at least, just cooking up any kind of charges they can come up with in an attempt to either remove him or soil his presidency enough to make his reelection that much more difficult. It has nothing to do with justice, and if they are successful, they will further divide an already dangerously divided nation.

Except that Obama referred to it as an act of terror in remarks made in the Rose Garden the next day.

So what. Are you saying it WASN'T an act of terror? Anyway, that doesn't mean he killed them.


So Rice said she did not lie? Oh well. That settles it then. After all, she worked for Obama, so no doubt she would never attempt to conceal the truth. Yeah. Right.

Wow! Now there's a partisan comment. I thought you were into truth?


Thank you so much for verifying my earlier statement.

Exactly how did I do that?


to demonstrate that you actually have some concern for the truth.

I don't think you want to get into a debate about truth. You're unarmed.

So what. Are you saying it WASN'T an act of terror? Anyway, that doesn't mean he killed them.

You're trying a dodge. I'm saying he plainly engaged in lying when he sent Susan Rice out to contradict what he had said earlier. I never said he killed them.


Wow! Now there's a partisan comment. I thought you were into truth?

I don't just blindly believe what Rice said anymore than I blindly believe what Trump says.


Exactly how did I do that?
By your total refusal to objectively assess Obama's performance.



I don't think you want to get into a debate about truth. You're unarmed.

A meaningless statement. Like I've said before, if you can't win the argument, then attack the person.

You're trying a dodge. I'm saying he plainly engaged in lying when he sent Susan Rice out to contradict what he had said earlier. I never said he killed them.

I still say, SO WHAT. Is that your response to Trump's many lies? I thought you did say that about Obama killing them - or something like that. Didn't you say he was responsible for the killing? Maybe I'm wrong.


By your total refusal to objectively assess Obama's performance.

That still doesn't answer my question. Are you trying a dodge?


Like I've said before, if you can't win the argument, then attack the person.

You mean like you do?

GEEZ JL, you've ranted and raved but have won no arguments either. Should we take a vote on that?

I still say, SO WHAT. Is that your response to Trump's many lies? I thought you did say that about Obama killing them - or something like that. Didn't you say he was responsible for the killing? Maybe I'm wrong.

Well, I'm glad you have finally acknowledged that Obama lied about Benghazi. What is my response? I despise lying no matter if it is Trump or Obama doing it. I don't think Obama or Clinton were directly responsible for the deaths of the four Americans, but it is absolutely true that the ambassador's many pleas for help were ignored and that not a finger was raised to help them during the attack itself, all of which was deplorable.


By your total refusal to objectively assess Obama's performance.
That still doesn't answer my question. Are you trying a dodge?

I said you would cut your hand off before you would be critical of Obama. You then absolutely passed on an opportunity to give an objective assessment of his eight years. Case closed.


Like I've said before, if you can't win the argument, then attack the person.
You mean like you do?

So you would agree it is not a good strategy?

Well, I'm glad you have finally acknowledged that Obama lied about Benghazi.

I never denied it. You have me mixed up with someone else.


it is absolutely true that the ambassador's many pleas for help were ignored and that not a finger was raised to help them during the attack itself, all of which was deplorable.

It is absolutely FALSE!! That's why I say for you to stop reading right-wing nonsense and get the facts. They're there if you look for them. This Benghazi business that you obsess over is a clear indication that your arguments on other issues are not to be trusted.


I said you would cut your hand off before you would be critical of Obama. You then absolutely passed on an opportunity to give an objective assessment of his eight years. Case closed.

Case open. For the third time, why should I answer your question about my take on Obama? You still haven't answered that. What are you afraid of? Do you understand that you are not the final authority here who gets all his questions answered simply because you ask them? Even without my answer, you have decided to judge my non-answer. We all learn a little more about you every day.

It is absolutely FALSE!!

Oh? Then tell us what assistance was rendered.


Case open. For the third time, why should I answer your question about my take on Obama?

I don't care if you answer it or not. Good grief. You make such a major case about such a minor affair. Keep worshiping him if you want to. My point for months has been that you three liberal amigos love to bash and criticize Trump, but you will not apply the same standards to your liberal heroes. And then you want to sometimes act morally superior to others because you are so willing to jump on Trump. Well, if it's good for the goose, then it's good for the gander. I'm no fan of Trump, but I'll take him over HC any day of the week.

Oh? Then tell us what assistance was rendered.

It's all there waiting for you. Start with wikipedia.


I don't care if you answer it or not.

Obviously, you do.


Keep worshiping him if you want to.

There you go again.


My point for months has been that you three liberal amigos love to bash and criticize Trump, but you will not apply the same standards to your liberal heroes.

You have no valid point. You have a rant and a rave. That's it. In point of fact, I have few heroes, liberal or otherwise. Although, Elijah Cummings was a hero - a great man.

Better to be one of Three Amigos, then you being one of Three Stooges.


I'm no fan of Trump, but I'll take him over HC any day of the week.

Then why do you obsess over Obama and HC and Benghazi and rarely say a word about Trump.

It's all there waiting for you. Start with wikipedia.


So we have it again. You make an assertion for which, evidently, you have not a shred of evidence, and then respond by encouraging someone else to find the data. Well, no thanks. That's your job.


Then why do you obsess over Obama and HC and Benghazi and rarely say a word about Trump.

I already answered that. I have already said that I raise those names to point out that whatever standard you hold Trump to, you should hold BO and HC to them as well. As I said just a few posts up, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."

Yes Elijah Cummins was a true hero and inspiration. JL I am guilty of bashing and criticizing the dufus because he does so much to bash and be criticized for, and I do love it. I really don't know what I'll do for fun and sport when Nancy dumps him from the WH, or puts him in jail. Guess I'll just have to be happy with bashing and criticizing right wing loonies again, but honestly it ain't the same.

So we have it again. You make an assertion for which, evidently, you have not a shred of evidence, and then respond by encouraging someone else to find the data. Well, no thanks. That's your job.

I have more than enough evidence to establish the truth of the matter. I won't do your work for you and if you were truly interested you would follow my advice. There is far too much to fit into this format.


I already answered that. I have already said that I raise those names to point out that whatever standard you hold Trump to, you should hold BO and HC to them as well. As I said just a few posts up, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."

I do hold Obama to the same standard I hold Trump to. HC, too. But even you must admit that Trump is a bizarre entity who shocks almost on a daily basis. Today and yesterday was no exception - his craziness is all over the media. He doesn't seem able to control himself.

I have more than enough evidence to establish the truth of the matter. I won't do your work for you and if you were truly interested you would follow my advice. There is far too much to fit into this format.

Yes. You have so much evidence that you can't post a single word. My work? It was your assertion. You back it up if you can. I don't think you can.



I do hold Obama to the same standard I hold Trump to. HC, too. But even you must admit that Trump is a bizarre entity who shocks almost on a daily basis. Today and yesterday was no exception - his craziness is all over the media. He doesn't seem able to control himself.

You do nothing but adore Obama. If it was otherwise, you would be as outraged about Benghazi as most other people were. As to Trump, there is a lot of truth in your statement. His mouth and his impulsive decision making are detrimental. It is also true, to be fair, that the economy is doing great and that he is appointing solid conservative federal judges, both of which I applaud.

Yes. You have so much evidence that you can't post a single word. My work? It was your assertion. You back it up if you can. I don't think you can.

I'm not taking the bait. Nice try. If you don't want to make the effort, I think you should stop making false claims about it.


You do nothing but adore Obama. If it was otherwise, you would be as outraged about Benghazi as most other people were.

Adore? You're pushing it, don't you think?

"Most other people" are aware that Benghazi has become a never-ending right-wing loony talking point. You should be embarrassed by it.


It is also true, to be fair, that the economy is doing great

To be fair, Obama started and continued the economy. Trump inherited it. He wouldn't know what to do with a good economy if it smacked him in the face. To be more fair, economies have a mind of their own. What will you say when it tanks to a recession if Trump is in office? Never mind. That's a rhetorical question.


he is appointing solid conservative federal judges, both of which I applaud.

You should be hoping he would appoint judges based on their application of and love of LAW, not a political ideology.

I'm not taking the bait. Nice try. If you don't want to make the effort, I think you should stop making false claims about it.


"Most other people" are aware that Benghazi has become a never-ending right-wing loony talking point. You should be embarrassed by it.

Except for you, evidently, for you don't have even the first little piece of evidence to disprove it. Even worse, you don't want to admit to that. Pitiful. Oh well, since you are a dry well, we'll just have to move on. Maybe someday you will learn that it is your job to prove your points and not mine. And just to keep you from denying it, this is the exchange you are being asked to respond to.


Your statement: It is absolutely FALSE!!
My response: Oh? Then tell us what assistance was rendered.

Except for you, evidently, for you don't have even the first little piece of evidence to disprove it. Even worse, you don't want to admit to that. Pitiful. Oh well, since you are a dry well, we'll just have to move on. Maybe someday you will learn that it is your job to prove your points and not mine. And just to keep you from denying it, this is the exchange you are being asked to respond to.

If it didn't work the first time, what makes you think it will work the second time?

If it didn't work the first time, what makes you think it will work the second time?

I'm afraid you are quite correct. It's what I've been saying all along.

4 killed in Bengahzi 30 rescued. They fought off the attack by terrorists.

4 killed in Bengahzi 30 rescued. They fought off the attack by terrorists.

They fought off the attack with absolutely no help whatsoever from the Obama administration. It's quite possible that just a simple flyover by a couple of F-16's would have made a big difference, but they didn't even get that. It was nine hours before anything that could have remotely been termed "help" arrived. Then the Obama team lied about what caused the whole thing.

Preliminary report are often updated, and it's no secret that we were on high alert at ALL the embassies around the world. We were all horrified, but what good does it do to shoot the messenger? You wingers never even acknowledged the attack was fought off by more than 30 of our guys who did their job. Yet when we lost 4 guys in Africa your excuse was they knew what they were getting into. So did they Bengahzi contingent.

So did the Benghazi contingent in Libya, full of roving factions of terrorists and rebels. Even after an official fact finding investigation recommendations, and changes made, still repubs persisted to smear and blame and you have carried that torch to this day as well. You wingers never stop as long as you can get what you want, and I hope tax breaks for the rich and conservative judges is worth having a dufus that ignores the law, shreds the constitution and the dignity of his office.

At least recognize we are in the middle of the biggest scandalous behavior this country has ever known, and spare me the uninformed would have should have speculation of yours of something you should have reconciled with years ago. The nation is being ripped apart NOW, while you reminisce.

The people in Benghazi had warned the State Department on a number of occasions that they needed more security but received nothing. Yet even at that, it was the lying afterwards that was the big problem. But who knows, maybe all those attackers in Benghazi were "Russian assets"!!

All the embassies around the world had beefed up security even Bengahzi. Congress denied extra funding for Bengahzi, as it was asked for. We argued on those very issues on THIS forum after it happened so I guess you missed that too. Maybe you can't know what you don't know, but I have asked you to go back and read some of those older threads instead of relitigating old stuff with people who have been here and moved on.

LOL, if Obama had done a fraction of what the dufus has done today I would have thrown him under a bus quick fast and in a hurry, and voted for Mitt. He did not and has not and still carries himself rather well. Also a lot of people held their noses and voted for HC, and sadly many stayed home. There is still those Ruskies and their antics to contend with, and no doubt they are hardly finished since they got away with it and still think they will get away with it again. Thanks to the dufus and Moscow Mitch.

LOL, if Obama had done a fraction of what the dufus has done today I would have thrown him under a bus quick fast and in a hurry, and voted for Mitt.

I don't think you would have. With all the scandal and lying that went on with Obama, if that didn't get your attention, then nothing would have. Even now the three liberals on this board cannot bring themselves to admit to it.

Why should they? Obamas' behavior and words were nothing compared to what the dufus has done in his first 3 years and no amount of dufus pandering will get any dem to say otherwise. He has enough sycophants and enablers as it is and that includes YOU.

Nope, nobody here will help you justify your support for a lying cheating dufus so get with the program and move along.

Why should they? Obamas' behavior and words were nothing compared to what the dufus has done in his first 3 years and no amount of dufus pandering will get any dem to say otherwise. He has enough sycophants and enablers as it is and that includes YOU.

And the non-thinking name calling just keeps on going. Your mentor, Mr. Trump, would be proud of you. As the old saying goes, "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery."


Nope, nobody here will help you justify your support for a lying cheating dufus so get with the program and move along.

Unlike you, I don't give my complete, blind, unthinking devotion to any president.

Neither do I and I know what to do with bullies.

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAIZbmk.img?h=416&w=624&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f&x=2860&y=1166

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAIZbmj.img?h=416&w=624&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f&x=2373&y=1585

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAIYSDy.img?h=416&w=624&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAIZ4LD.img?h=416&w=624&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAIVtFG.img?h=416&w=624&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAIS1jd.img?h=416&w=624&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f&x=850&y=392

Maybe you like my cartoons better.

Benghazi was a planned behavior, a behavior by design: For the record, Obama wanted to release the "BLIND SHEIKH" Omar Abdel-Rahman, the planner of the 1993 WTC bombing but he wanted to do it so that he wouldn't 'have any blood on his hands", so he and Hillary Clinton and the bunch around them concocted the idea of permitting Ambassador Christopher Stevens to be "captured" by terrorists and held for ransom so that the Blind Sheikh could be exchanged for the Ambassador.....the plan went to hell when the meek, handpicked Ambassador fought back to the death.....at that point, a huge coverup began to take place.

Maybe you like my cartoons better.


Great cartoons! Best ever. Nicely loaded with pointed sarcasm.

V7 - with that last loony conspiracy you've hit a new low. How do you manage it?

Thanks Athos, and I'm not sure where Vac got THAT wild conspiracy scheme from.

I'm not sure where that conspiracy theory came from either. At any rate, it's not like the actual reality was not pretty bad on its own.

Athos: Not looney at, nor is it a "theory": Obama, almost immediately upon taking office, trotted quickly off to the M.E. to present his pedigree IN PRIVATE (no journalist permitted) to the Saudi Royal Family.....all of buzz was about him placating Muslims and he was being pressured to do so....No, not a story, its part of BHO's legacy: He wanted to release the Blind Sheikh....you believe the internet, saw where you reference it a lot in your continual fights with jlisenbe, so why don't you look this one up! He thought a "pacifist" like Stevens wouldn't fight, BHO was wrong.

I did as you suggested and only find right wing loony sights carrying that story line. Started by this guy. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lyons_(admiral))

Athos: Not looney at, nor is it a "theory": Obama, almost immediately upon taking office, trotted quickly off to the M.E. to present his pedigree IN PRIVATE (no journalist permitted) to the Saudi Royal Family.....all of buzz was about him placating Muslims and he was being pressured to do so....No, not a story, its part of BHO's legacy: He wanted to release the Blind Sheikh....you believe the internet, saw where you reference it a lot in your continual fights with jlisenbe, so why don't you look this one up! He thought a "pacifist" like Stevens wouldn't fight, BHO was wrong.

V7 - Just because you see this nonsense on the internet, it doesn't mean the stuff is true. You are required to verify sources by checking other sources. Look for legitimate sites - major newspapers, TV News and Documentaries, main stream magazines and periodicals, and see if they are covering whatever theory you're promoting at the moment. If the issue is found only in extreme right-wing (or extreme left-wing, for that matter), it's probably bogus.

Don't you think a story blaming Clinton for kidnapping Stevens so that a ransom could be arranged for the Blind Sheik who was a pal of Obama's is just a little, well, weird? A tipoff should have been that no one picked it up. If true, the media would have had a field day - especially the center-right crowd.