What’s worse for America

[Sled21]

(04-12-2022, 08:33 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: The shop owner doubts your version of what you call common sense but I'm sure you'll find a reason to cry about fake news being suppressed.
https://www.rawstory.com/hunter-biden-laptop-misinformation/

and uh . . . my reference to Trump? That was a response to your whining about the Trump-Russia narrative. No wonder you're so confused about politics when you don't even understand the basic flow of a conversation.

The shop owner is not saying it is not real, he saying people are saying there are things on it that aren't. Not the same thing. The FBI has it, and Durham is looking at it. We'll see what happens. Funny how you have no concern that if even some of the things alleged are on it are true, Biden is very likely compromised by the Chinese.

[Sled21]

(04-13-2022, 09:39 AM)GMDino Wrote: Who investigated Benghazi, multiple times?

What were the results of those investigations?

I'll never understand why the new gop can't admit they were wrong or lost.  No wonder they worship Trump.

Because right is right and wrong is wrong, unless you are totally without morals. Do you think it was right she turned down requests for extra security and got those people killed and got off? And we ALL lost.

[GMDino]

(04-13-2022, 09:54 AM)Sled21 Wrote: Because right is right and wrong is wrong, unless you are totally without morals. Do you think it was right she turned down requests for extra security and got those people killed and got off? And we ALL lost.

What did the Republic led investigation say?

[Sled21]

(04-13-2022, 10:06 AM)GMDino Wrote: What did the Republic led investigation say?

Quote:Main report[edit]

The Republicans on the committee released their main report on June 28, 2016 with committee chairman Gowdy saying its contents should "fundamentally change the way you view Benghazi." Major findings from the investigation included:

1. The State Department failed to protect U.S. diplomats in Libya: Clinton and the administration should have realized and addressed risks. (The Democrats' version of the report acknowledges "security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate").
2. The CIA misread how dangerous Libya was in midst of a revolution after overthrowing Gaddafi a year earlier.
3. The Defense Department failed to rescue Americans: U.S. military forces did not reach Benghazi until mid-afternoon the day after the initial attack on the compound. "No U.S. military asset was ever deployed to Benghazi despite the order of the Secretary of Defense at 7 o'clock that night," Gowdy said.
4. The Administration subverted investigation through what Gowdy described as "intentional", "coordinated", and "shameful" stonewalling. Clinton deleted numerous emails on the private server she was using for official business, which the report says "makes it impossible to ever represent to those killed in Benghazi that the record is whole."
5. A Clinton aide influenced the State Department's review: Cheryl Mills, Clinton's former chief of staff has said she offered suggestions on drafts.[71]
6. Americans were transported to Benghazi airport by Khaddafi loyalists, the same group the U.S. had sought to oust earlier. Stated the report: "Some of the very individuals the United States had helped remove from power during the Libyan revolution were the only Libyans that came to the assistance of the United States on the night of the Benghazi attack."
7. A White House meeting during the attack generated a list of 10 action items, half of which related to an anti-Muslim YouTube video that sparked protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.[72]
   

In addition to the main report, alternate versions of committee findings were also prepared; another by House Republicans and one by House Democrats.[73] The State Department prepared a report of its own internal investigation of the attack.[74] The report itself found no wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton.[75]

May not matter to people like you, but it matters to some of us.

[Belsnickel]

I thought talking about Trump was bad, but at least he is still relevant.

[TheUberHuber]

(01-27-2022, 02:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You let Ukraine go without a fight then rest assured Taiwan is next, then the Baltic nations, and they won't be the last.  Have we forgotten already that appeasement does not work?  As for letting Europe handle it?  Europe's combined military would get steamrolled by Russia.  Not to mention the extremely complicated issues of logistics and command structure involving so many different nation's armed forces.  Regardless, Europe has no stomach (I could say balls if I was feeling less kind) for a fight with Russia.  They'll eat whatever shit Putin spoon feeds them so they don't all freeze to death every winter.

Lmao this post aged well.. your analysis on geopolitics and things military are second to none..  

[Dill]

(04-13-2022, 09:54 AM)Sled21 Wrote: Because right is right and wrong is wrong, unless you are totally without morals. Do you think it was right she turned down requests for extra security and got those people killed and got off? And we ALL lost.

Just curious--where are you getting this information? 

Which Benghazi security requests, specifically, did Clinton turn down, and when? 

Source(s)?

[Dill]

(04-13-2022, 10:31 AM)Sled21 Wrote: May not matter to people like you, but it matters to some of us.

Hmmm. So the 10th and final investigation of the Benghazi incident concluded that the State Dept. had failed to protect U.S diplomats in Libya. 

What really "matters" to you here, and to what degree, if you think vetting your sources/information isn't worth the trouble? 

I'd like to address one very important "new finding," which you chose to boldface, from this "very important" report--#6:

What is the point, really, of spinning up a government militia assigned to Annex protection as "Khaddafi loyalists" and (factually incorrect) "the only Libyans that came to the assistance of the United States on the night of the attack"?  

Or to phrase this differently, what segment of the electorate might reliably be expected to accept such "findings" without question,

and what might that segment be reliably expected to infer from them?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-16-2022, 02:26 PM)TheUberHuber Wrote: Lmao this post aged well.. your analysis on geopolitics and things military are second to none..  

Interesting.  How about you explain how I was wrong?  Also, you need to learn how to use ellipsis. 

[Sled21]

(04-17-2022, 03:26 PM)Dill Wrote: Hmmm. So the 10th and final investigation of the Benghazi incident concluded that the State Dept. had failed to protect U.S diplomats in Libya. 

What really "matters" to you here, and to what degree, if you think vetting your sources/information isn't worth the trouble? 

I'd like to address one very important "new finding," which you chose to boldface, from this "very important" report--#6:

What is the point, really, of spinning up a government militia assigned to Annex protection as "Khaddafi loyalists" and (factually incorrect) "the only Libyans that came to the assistance of the United States on the night of the attack"?  

Or to phrase this differently, what segment of the electorate might reliably be expected to accept such "findings" without question,

and what might that segment be reliably expected to infer from them?

The Khaddafi militia was not assigned to annex security. They are the only one's who responded though. The thing to infer here, is the lesson for every foreign leader who has WMD's do not give them up. Qaddafi had them, gave them up, and actually backed America's side in the war on terror. Then the US made the situation in Lybia so bad he was ultimately killed. Ukraine had them, signed a protection agreement, and gave them up. Now they are fighting for their lives.

[TheUberHuber]

(04-18-2022, 12:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Interesting.  How about you explain how I was wrong?  Also, you need to learn how to use ellipsis. 

I could explain the obvious I guess, but I like the Stupids  to make a*$ hats out of themselves as much as possible -- for comedic value. educating Dunn Kruger types is a dead end tbh. 

[TheUberHuber]

(04-18-2022, 02:16 PM)Sled21 Wrote: The Khaddafi militia was not assigned to annex security. They are the only one's who responded though. The thing to infer here, is the lesson for every foreign leader who has WMD's do not give them up. Qaddafi had them, gave them up, and actually backed America's side in the war on terror. Then the US made the situation in Lybia so bad he was ultimately killed. Ukraine had them, signed a protection agreement, and gave them up. Now they are fighting for their lives.

The thing that burns my britches the most is they just recently (2012?) gave up their long range bombers and cruise missiles as a deal to pay their gas bill.

[TheUberHuber]

(04-18-2022, 12:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Interesting.  How about you explain how I was wrong?  Also, you need to learn how to use ellipsis. 

This is the army you think would steamroll europe? Lol

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineInvasionVideos/comments/u77pcd/there_is_such_a_job_to_dispose_of_russian_shit/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

[GreenDragon]

(01-26-2022, 10:50 AM)masonbengals fan Wrote: What’s worse for America…Russia invading Ukraine or 2 million illegals from our south invading America?

Fake news about 2 million illegals invading America from the southern border. 

[Sled21]

(04-21-2022, 05:41 AM)GreenDragon Wrote: Fake news about 2 million illegals invading America from the southern border.