Benghazi Ruining Liberals Deal With She-Devil Hillary

Posted: Jan 26, 2014 12:01 AM
Benghazi Ruining Liberals Deal With She-Devil Hillary

Ericynot1 wrote: So here's the deal. Despite Ransom's wishful thinking, barring some unforeseen event such as a serious illness in her family, Hillary will be the Dem candidate in 2016. And that should make you happy -- if she's as bad as you think she is, she ought to be easily defeated by the Republican candidate of your choice. Hillary Gets Knifed In Benghazi Drive By

Dear Comrade Ericynot,

Sounds like a deal with the devil.

You apparently have a reading comprehension problem.

That’s ok. It’s goes with your math problem, your women problems and the problems you have with basic shapes and colors.

And BEFORE you deny having women problems, knock it off.

You’re a liberal. You ALL have women problems.

Hillary, Pelosi, Windy Davis, Sheila Jackson Lee, Maxine Waters…it’s a stunning line.

Now tell me seriously you don’t believe in Hell.

I did not say that Hillary won’t be nominee from the Democrat Party for president of the United States.

I said her candidacy is likely dead. I acknowledged that the New York Times won’t give it up.

And I’m sure that Hillary won’t either.

But given that she couldn’t beat Barack Obama prior to her disastrous term as Secretary of State, I’m not sure that that little resume item is going to help her bid to become the chief executive for the nation.

But you are right about this.

Democrats, unlike normal people, have a depth perception problem.

This may be related to your problem with basic shapes and colors.

Dems can’t see past the rather shallow, one-dimensional script put out for you by the mainstream media.

Obama got a pretty big assist by the media in defeating Hillary, as was even acknowledged by Saturday Night Live.

They nominated Obama, over Hillary, despite Obama’s lacking even the thin resume that Hillary had.

Yes, her most notable accomplishment has been being a cuckold to Bill for 39 years, many of which he served in public office—and that better qualifies her to be president than Obama. This has become very apparent to everyone over the last five years.

So Democrats may indeed make her party nominee for president. Her failures might be seen by Democrats in a positive light, just like they see Obama’s failures positively.

Back to Saturday Night Live: They did a spoof of the “Hillary 3AM” commercial in which Obama didn’t even know how to turn on the White House furnace.


He still doesn’t know how to do it.

Truth001 lied: So during the Bush administration Powell had 7 Benghazis and Rice had 6. If we're using body count as means of success or failure I would say the Bush heads of state failed miserably. The quote in the article says it best: “The State Department should have increased its security posture more significantly in Benghazi based on the deteriorating security situation" Couldn't this had been said about any Embassy tragedy in 20-20 hindsight? Of course it could have! Try again Mr Ransom. Hillary Gets Knifed In Benghazi Drive By

Dear Comrade Pravda,

Again, being a liberal you have a basic perception problem.

This is Comrade Pravda’s line of thinking, if I might refer to you in the third person, Comrade Pravda: Benghazi was an embassy attack, embassy attacks are bad. Bush had more embassy attacks therefore Bush bad-er than Obama.

This is akin to saying: Books good. Mein Kampf is a book. Mein Kampf is therefore good.

Or to put on a level all progressives would understand, this is like comparing Clifford the Big Red Dog to, say, John Milton’s Paradise Lost.

Body count has NEVER been what conservatives have an issue with, as you no doubt know.

And since even now you seem to have a misapprehension about what it is conservatives have a problem with relative to Benghazi, let me set it straight for you.

Yes, I know. You’ll still get it wrong. But play along.

While the official story seems to pin the lack of security in Benghazi on Ambassador Stevens, any objective observer would have to admit that the official story relies heavily on people who are still officials under the orders of the president of the United States.

Not much objectivity there.

But getting past the argument of who was responsible for the lack of security prior to the attack, one still has to ask themselves why there was not just inadequate response from the people charged with just such responsibilities, but why there was NO response from them.

I served in the Navy mostly as an administrator, but even I know that there are some automatics in the eventuality that an embassy gets attacked. Even more, people who actually made their living doing security work for the State Department tell me, that there are some automatic responses in the Benghazi scenario.

It’s not like we’ve never had embassies attacked, as you yourself point out.

We just don’t LOSE them very often. Last one was Tehran, 1979.

So why was there no response?

And why can’t we get a better understanding of why Stevens was there in the first place?

You combine these uncomprehendables with the fact that the administration made up a far-fetched cover story about a video causing a spontaneous protest and the embassy being overwhelmed, you have to question why.

We now know that within minutes everyone responsible was briefed on the terror attack and clearly understood it as such.

But yet they made up these stories.

When a child tells me an elaborate, incredible lie, that’s easily found out, I make it my business to get to the bottom of it.

The problem with you, dear Comrade Pravda—pun intended—is that when it comes to veracity, you and your liberal friends think that having no standards whatsoever is the same thing as telling the truth.

Eemmenstein wrote: I am curious, did it make a difference that the 9/11 terrorists flew the planes into the WTC because they hate our freedoms or because of the US interference/millitary presence in the Middle East?Hillary Gets Knifed In Benghazi Drive By

Dear Comrade M&M,

Did it make a difference when the United States provided the same type of “interference/military presence” in Europe from 1944 until now?

Why, yes it did.

But saying that, your question is truly silly one.

Tg7211 wrote: It used to be that the difference between living on the dole and working was significant in terms of money and lifestyle, not so much today. And yes I can believe that the value of not working has increased, however I know the benefits of working have decreased even more. When I got my first paycheck minimum wage was less than $2/hr, but my dad a high school grad had a job driving a truck for a union company and we did ok. I think his best year was in the $40k range (late 70's) when a minimum wage job would have paid around $3.5/hr or $7k/yr. if worked full time.

My point is he made 5-6 times the minimum wage as some would need to today to afford the same life style, 5 kids mom mostly home, and I just don't think there are ever going to be those kind of jobs again for people like him. People get into all these value arguments as if labor is a relatively worthless commodoity and somehow capital is magic dust. If we keep that attitude up we will see that our employment problems now are just the beginning. Capital can and does come and go at the whim of its owner and unfortunately labor especially unemployed labor isn't going anywhere.

Time to start valuing labor in the same way as capital and taxing the profits of capital in the same way as the fruits of labor. Black Unemployment: Not Just a Disgrace, a Sin

Dear Comrade 7211,

This is why liberals can never rule sanely.

On the subject on economics you think the relativism social “science” can substitute for the truths behind math.

Minimum wages went from $1.45 to $2.90 in the decade of the 1970s.

At the same time the purchasing power of the dollar didn’t keep pace. Inflation essentially ate at any wage increases, creating the toxic mix of inflation and high unemployment, dubbed the “misery index.”

Rapidly increasing wages, being the largest input into any economy, of course helped inflation along. So did loose monetary policy.

In contrast, since 1994 to 2010 there is been remarkable stability in wages and in income equality.

As our contributor Political Calculations wrote:

Or more specifically, the years from 1994 through 2010, for which the U.S. Census has published detailed data related to the incomes earned by Americans based on their annual surveys of the U.S. population. Our chart showing the trend in income inequality for all individuals as measured by the Gini ratio for these years is below:


Think about it. The reason that the income inequality levels recorded for families and households are lower than those for individuals are because most families and households may have one high income earner, who is balanced out by individuals within the families or households who have low or no incomes.

But, if people with very high income earning potential join together to form families and households, and increasingly do so over time, perhaps because such people might have things in common that make forming themselves into families and households an attractive proposition, then income inequality among families and households will increase.

The same holds true for the opposite end of the income earning spectrum. If people with really low income earning potential join together to form families and households, or perhaps if they choose to split apart, and increasingly do so over time, then the resulting low income family and household will also make income inequality among families and households rise, even though there has been no real change in the amount of actual income inequality among individuals.

The real change has been in the composition of households since you were a kid, not in the wages paid to individuals.

You want income equality?

Then stop promoting policies that celebrate single motherhood, denigrate black males and ignore the historical crime that we all have committed, to some extent, on African-American family life.

Gcauser wrote: The fed appears hopeful, now the Republicans are getting away from the T-Party slash and burn policy and have decided to legislate and govern. This means civil war, of course, because deficit fear mongering is the T-Party's only weapon because most conservatives hate big government (even though they vote for it, ala the Pentagon) So, we go to vote over the next couple cycles and decide what kind of country we want!

Molon Labe... The One Thing the System Fears More than Unemployment

Dear Comrade G,

Hmmm, what’s worse? The sloppy syntax or the sloppy ideas behind it?

I guess, in the interest of “fairness,” I’d have to let your syntax go and just condemn the ideas.

But then I don’t get the whole “fairness” concept.

Your syntax and ideas both suck.

Robertb wrote: You hypocritical schmuck ! During the two catastrophic terms of the pathetic imbecile George W. Bush, there were numerous terrorist attacks by Muslims on US embassies , and over 50 Americans were killed . Where was the outrage among right-wing jerks like yourself all over America ? The silence was deafening . Why no calls for investigation of what the awful Bush administation and demands for Dubya to be impeached ?: How hypocritical can you get ? Arrogant, lying, hypocritical right-wing extremist schmucks make me sick ! I don't believe in hell, but go to hell anyway !

Dear Commie B,

I guess I can’t get as quite as hypocritical as someone who doesn’t believe in God or Hell, yet condemns me to Hell anyway.

You’d think as an atheist, you’d at least find a secular alternative to Hell instead of poaching on religion to explain the consequences of the immorality of things.

Unwittingly, you yourself have just admitted the bankruptcy of your views. You can’t explain, without profanity and leaning on religious concepts, of which you’ll use by not admit of, the objective differences between right and wrong under your humanist philosophy.

That’s because under a secular world view, as you profess, right and a wrong is only a viewpoint, not an endpoint.

Right can be made to look wrong, and wrong can be made to look right if you only stand at the correct angle to them.

The important thing is that YOU, the human, remain the center of all things.

And thus you suffer.

“Now assume there is no God or immortality of the soul. Now tell me, why should I live righteously and do good deeds if I am to die entirely on earth?” asked that great denouncer of liberalism Fyodor Dostoyevsky.

Everything you need to know about the error of humanists can be found in Dostoyevsky’s works.

“Didst Thou forget that man prefers peace,” asks Dostoyevsky’s Grand Inquisitor to Christ, “and even death, to freedom of choice in the knowledge of good and evil? Nothing is more seductive for man than his freedom of conscience, but nothing is a greater cause of suffering.”

Christ’s answer was to simply kiss his Inquisitor on the lips without a word.

You can kiss me on a slightly different spot.

While Jesus turned the other cheek, as Father Mulcahy from M.A.S.H. observed, “He was an exceptionally good sport.”

Robertbr wrote: You are more full of it than all the sewers of the world combined .Obama isn't "picking on" anyone, you moron ! It's the Catholic church which is picking on those who don't follow its idiotic and disastroulsy counterpoductinve policies on marriage, the family & human sexuality . You and other right-wing morons are too dense to realize that Obamacare could REDUCE theabortion rate greatly in the US if the GOP idiots in congress were not so adamantly opposed to it . Get this simple fact into your thick skull : CONTRACEPTIVES PREVENT ABORTIONS .. The imbeciles who run the Catholic church are determined to make abortion illegal everywhere yet are opposed to contracptives . The nuns are idiots who blindly follow the Vatican idiots . The GOP is adamantly opposed ot abortion yegt is too stupid to realize that if our government provided pre natal care for poor pregnant…blah, bhal, balh…

Dear Commie B,

Congrats. You made the two-fer.

It’s not really so much for your comments. On that you only scored a 7.3. Your comments are prima facie evidence of a type of liberal delusion.

You write about Catholics as if we are responsible for all the ills of the world.

By the way: You’re welcome for civilization. Not that we created ALL of it, but with other Christians and Jews and Greeks, we certainly created our share.

I have an idea: We won’t force you to practice our religion and you’ll leave us the Hell alone.

See :-). I got Hell in there. Ha, ha, ha! Bet THAT hurt.

Oh, and one more thing on the content portion of your email: You’re a baby killer. How does it feel to be responsible for more human deaths than the Holocaust?

Now to the technical aspects of your email.

The judges were really impressed with the technical aspects of your email, especially as you dismounted the typewriter. You got extra points for adding extra consonants to the ending of words too. And adding an extra space before punctuation.

You made up for the average quality of your comments with an 8.9 for your typing. Haven’t seen anything like it since that thresher-accident guy used the tip of his nose to write me a poem.

That’s how the judges see it.

But we’ll do things your way:

“Hold your tongue; you won't understand anything. If there is no God, then I am God,” thus I award you no points, and my God have mercy on your soul.

That’s it for this week,