You think so?
Sure, its always a possibility.
What do you think? How many gunman do you think there were?
You think so?
Sure, its always a possibility. What do you think? How many gunman do you think there were?
I suspect this will turn out to be a disgruntled contractor or something, But I could be wrong.
Where did I say it was funny? Pitiful!
Still not funny, in fact its tragic how Cons will jump at any chance to scream scandal.
Joke?You made a joke about it asshat; or did you forget your little strawman thread starter?
What a moron.
What do YOU think?The DC Police Chief thinks there are as many as 3.
. I agree with him, there might be, but I doubt it!The DC Police Chief thinks there are as many as 3.
What do YOU think?
. I agree with him, there might be, but I doubt it!
So your afraid to share an opinion?I think you should stick to regaling the forum with tales of your amorous conquests.
I never said it was not terrorism. It just might be, but I was lampooning the rights accusation that Obama was somehow covering up what happened in Benghazi because he did not specifically call it terrorism the next morning.
So your afraid to share an opinion?
This is quite disingenuous. The cover was simply the attempt to blame a stupid video that nobody had watched on it, putting somebody in prison for it, when they knew within 1/2 hour that there was no connection to any video, that it wasn't part of any "spontaneous uprisings". They spent weeks trying to get the American public to believe this lie, they even sent out Susan Rice to continue the frickin' lie.
Why were they lying, Jarod? Why did they feel it important, during a Presidential election cycle where they were claiming victory over terrorism, to not just simply lie, but to bald-faced lie to the American people? When they knew it never had anything to do with any stupid movie trailer why did they continue to promote that for weeks?
I keep asking for the quote you call a lie! Every time you cut and run.This is quite disingenuous. The cover was simply the attempt to blame a stupid video that nobody had watched on it, putting somebody in prison for it, when they knew within 1/2 hour that there was no connection to any video, that it wasn't part of any "spontaneous uprisings". They spent weeks trying to get the American public to believe this lie, they even sent out Susan Rice to continue the frickin' lie.
Why were they lying, Jarod? Why did they feel it important, during a Presidential election cycle where they were claiming victory over terrorism, to not just simply lie, but to bald-faced lie to the American people? When they knew it never had anything to do with any stupid movie trailer why did they continue to promote that for weeks?
If you are not smart enough to understand sarcasm, I cant help you.
This is quite disingenuous. The cover was simply the attempt to blame a stupid video that nobody had watched on it, putting somebody in prison for it, when they knew within 1/2 hour that there was no connection to any video, that it wasn't part of any "spontaneous uprisings". They spent weeks trying to get the American public to believe this lie, they even sent out Susan Rice to continue the frickin' lie.
Why were they lying, Jarod? Why did they feel it important, during a Presidential election cycle where they were claiming victory over terrorism, to not just simply lie, but to bald-faced lie to the American people? When they knew it never had anything to do with any stupid movie trailer why did they continue to promote that for weeks?
I keep asking for the quote you call a lie! Every time you cut and run.
Lots of accusations of lying, no production of the lie.