# Back to Benghazi for Hillary!



## Ralphy1 (Jul 27, 2015)

Another hearing will take place in October.  This is a wast of time and money in my estimation and is just political theater.  Surely you agree with me...


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Jul 27, 2015)

IMHO, the Republicans are making an error in this constant legal harassment of Ms. Clinton.  So far, she has not been indicted, convicted... or found innocent of the various and sundry conspiracies tossed out by the right.  That "status of limbo" has caused some doubt in the minds of the undecided voters and would probably assist the Republicans at election time.  
Instead of allowing that doubt to quietly fester in the background, the far right has scheduled more than one hearing/litigation where Ms. Clinton will appear and testify under oath.  If she weathers these hearings, appears strong and in control, many of the doubts will disappear and the GOP will be seen as staging "witch hunts".  It will backfire and she will come out a clear winner.  Of course, if something is proven as criminal, the time and money spent will be worth it to the GOP.  
Ms. Clinton is an experienced and proven politician.  Even if she did err on the side of circumventing some legislative rules, she is entirely too "street smart" to have left a trail.  This is nothing but political grandstanding by the far right.
The Tea Party candidates are continuing their attempts to bring down America rather than build it up.  One would have thought the years of "birtherism" would have taught a lesson.  It's difficult to pour sand into a rock!  Currently, our infrastructure in deteriorating and the Highway Bill is expiring.  Thousands of people will be laid off from their jobs in engineering and highway maintenance if a new highway bill is not passed.  Instead of moving the bill through the system, the Tea Party is insisting on adding an amendment to repeal the Affordable Care Act.  Sacrifice the good of the whole to make some political points with your small constituency of right wing disciples.


----------



## Ms Sam (Jul 27, 2015)

Well said, Grumpy.  My sentiments....EXACTLY!


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jul 27, 2015)

One exception I would take with your otherwise fine comments, Grumpy, is that the Tea Party does not see itself as bringing the country down, rather, as trying to build it back up...


----------



## QuickSilver (Jul 27, 2015)

Grumpy Ol' Man said:


> IMHO, the Republicans are making an error in this constant legal harassment of Ms. Clinton.  So far, she has not been indicted, convicted... or found innocent of the various and sundry conspiracies tossed out by the right.  That "status of limbo" has caused some doubt in the minds of the undecided voters and would probably assist the Republicans at election time.
> Instead of allowing that doubt to quietly fester in the background, the far right has scheduled more than one hearing/litigation where Ms. Clinton will appear and testify under oath.  If she weathers these hearings, appears strong and in control, many of the doubts will disappear and the GOP will be seen as staging "witch hunts".  It will backfire and she will come out a clear winner.  Of course, if something is proven as criminal, the time and money spent will be worth it to the GOP.
> Ms. Clinton is an experienced and proven politician.  Even if she did err on the side of circumventing some legislative rules, she is entirely too "street smart" to have left a trail.  This is nothing but political grandstanding by the far right.
> The Tea Party candidates are continuing their attempts to bring down America rather than build it up.  One would have thought the years of "birtherism" would have taught a lesson.  It's difficult to pour sand into a rock!  Currently, our infrastructure in deteriorating and the Highway Bill is expiring.  Thousands of people will be laid off from their jobs in engineering and highway maintenance if a new highway bill is not passed.  Instead of moving the bill through the system, the Tea Party is insisting on adding an amendment to repeal the Affordable Care Act.  Sacrifice the good of the whole to make some political points with your small constituency of right wing disciples.



I agree... The GOP can never resist a chance to over play it's hand..   They do it over and over and it always backfires.  You would think they would learn... but what was it that Einstein said about insanity??   lol!!


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jul 27, 2015)

The GOP has very little to hammer her with so they keep going after her honesty which polls are showing that she is losing credibility in this area...


----------



## QuickSilver (Jul 27, 2015)

Ralphy1 said:


> The GOP has very little to hammer her with so they keep going after her honesty which polls are showing that she is losing credibility in this area...



Yes... that is exactly what they are doing... despicable lot aren't they.    Unfortunately, with the vast money in the game due to Citizens United.. many folks will fall for that propaganda..   Sickening.


----------



## Josiah (Jul 27, 2015)

I'm so tired of Benghazi. If you have to play these games, how about going back and attacking her on Whitewater for a while?


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jul 27, 2015)

Don't worry, they will...


----------



## BobF (Jul 27, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Yes... that is exactly what they are doing... despicable lot aren't they.    Unfortunately, with the vast money in the game due to Citizens United.. many folks will fall for that propaganda..   Sickening.



Too bad we can't get George Sorro's on our side as well.   The Republicans could really use that money he is wasting on the Democrats.


----------



## Josiah (Jul 27, 2015)

BobF said:


> Too bad we can't get George Sorro's on our side as well.   The Republicans could really use that money he is wasting on the Democrats.



I like your sense of humor, Bob.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 27, 2015)

If there is anyone left in the USA that hasn't figured out this is just a underhanded "dirty trick" of the republicans to smear the Democratic front runner for President, I'd led him or her to a nice quiet place where people in white coats will help care for them.


----------



## BobF (Jul 27, 2015)

Hillary will be better than what we have today.    But most anyone would be better than what we have today.

10 trillion of more unexplained debt.   Why and for what?    It was at 7.5 trillion in Bush's term, the the Democrats took over Congress and it went right up to over 10 trillion debt.   Obama arrives and now it is over 18 trillion in debt and still climbing.   But it is all the Republicans fault?

One fact Obama never talks about is the debt he has created.   When Obama is gone, someone will have to figure out how to pay down our debts, quickly, before the  US credit gets hurt more than it already is.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jul 27, 2015)

BobF said:


> Hillary will be better than what we have today.    But most anyone would be better than what we have today.
> 
> 10 trillion of more unexplained debt.   Why and for what?    It was at 7.5 trillion in Bush's term, the the Democrats took over Congress and it went right up to over 10 trillion debt.   Obama arrives and now it is over 18 trillion in debt and still climbing.   But it is all the Republicans fault?
> 
> One fact Obama never talks about is the debt he has created.   When Obama is gone, someone will have to figure out how to pay down our debts, quickly, before the  US credit gets hurt more than it already is.




I was wondering when you were going to bloviate about the mythical Obama debt....


----------



## BobF (Jul 27, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> I was wondering when you were going to bloviate about the mythical Obama debt....



Just reminding folks of the facts that exist now that were not here before Obama.   And that is not bloviating at all.   Just facts.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jul 27, 2015)

We have been through this a hundred times and you have been continually proven wrong by me and others.. and it has been pointed out to you over and over that a President CANNOT spend with Congress approving it..  It is Constitutionally IMPOSSIBLE...  Yet.. you cling to your delusion.   I'm not going to continue this with you...


----------



## drifter (Jul 27, 2015)

I was hoping this would not come up again.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 27, 2015)

A major reason for that debt is republican "decider" G.W. Bush.  A solution is once we finally pay his debts and the debts incurred to put us back on stable footing, is DO NOT ELECT MORE REPUBLICANS!!!!!


----------



## BobF (Jul 27, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> We have been through this a hundred times and you have been continually proven wrong by me and others.. and it has been pointed out to you over and over that a President CANNOT spend with Congress approving it..  It is Constitutionally IMPOSSIBLE...  Yet.. you cling to your delusion.   I'm not going to continue this with you...



Maybe you have been over this a hundred times but I have not been proven wrong.   It is you that is having trouble with reality.

Until this past winter, Obama would tell the Congress he needed lots of bucks.   No specified locations for spending, just give me lots of bucks to play with.   And our socialist led Democratic Senate always approved all this spending.   Having a Republican house did no good as when they tried to stop this undocumented and crazy spending.   The government just shut down and blamed it all on the Republicans.    Now we do have a Republican House and Senate, but not sure how much good they can have with a 'shut down the government' minded President.   Obama just has no love of our type of government, he just wants money to play with.    And he can really force his wishes anytime he shuts down the government.   The people of the US do have a need for government services.   Especially those services the government has taken over and say they will control it their way.   If closed nothing gets done.


----------



## BobF (Jul 27, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> A major reason for that debt is republican "decider" G.W. Bush.  A solution is once we finally pay his debts and the debts incurred to put us back on stable footing, is DO NOT ELECT MORE REPUBLICANS!!!!!


 
Jim, how do you come up with such a lie as this.    George Bush had a debt of 7.5 trillion showing until his last 2 years when the Democrats took both House and Senate and forced debt up to over 10 trillion in two years of Bush's service.   Now Obama has pushed it all the way up to 18 trillion dollars.   I suppose you think that was all Bush too.   What a bunch of BS you are trying to sell Jim.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 27, 2015)

OMG!!!!  So much is absolute bunk in that post  it would take a book to present the REAL facts and then Bob would once again say, as he just did, "your facts are wrong".  The poor guy is lost in his hatred and cannot be reasoned with.


----------



## BobF (Jul 27, 2015)

drifter said:


> Everybody is entitled to spend a little money now and then, Bob. You and I shouldn't be worrying ourselves about such small potatoes as debt. We've got professionals working for us that handle things like that. It'll never be a problem for you and I. We'll be dead and gone before the bill collector comes calling, then some smart guys will worry about that puny debt. Maybe someday somebody will solve that national debt problem, if not it may be like the poor, who will always be with us. Me and you need not worry about Obama either. I'm sure they are talking among themselves, like families do, about what they are going to do and where they will live when they leave office. Write your representative or your senator and lay your worries at their feet. Not to worry. They will handle it for you. That's why we elect them so we can enjoy our retirement years, worry free. Do me a favor and relax, you're beating this subject to death and it's a non issue for me and you who've already got one foot in the grave.



You are so right about us being gone before these debts get paid off.    We should not be doing this to our kids and grand kids.   What a mess we are creating for them.   They will need more than jobs to live and help pay down these debts.   Not too far down the road the government will be like Greece.   Lots of good ideas for the folks but no money to pay for them.   These lies we have to live with are a shame for us to put up with and urge more yet.


----------



## BobF (Jul 27, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> OMG!!!!  So much is absolute bunk in that post  it would take a book to present the REAL facts and then Bob would once again say, as he just did, "your facts are wrong".  The poor guy is lost in his hatred and cannot be reasoned with.



I never expected you to understand.   Facts are facts and the government is publishing them.    Who better to know than the government.

Not hatred Jim.   Just some open minded facts that even you could open and read.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 27, 2015)

Ok Bob.  Have a nice day.


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Jul 27, 2015)

In one of Bob's posts, he says the spending under a Republican POTUS was the fault of a Democratic majority in Congress.  Soon thereafter, Bob says the spending during the tenure of a Republican controlled Congress is the fault of a Democratic POTUS.  I do believe this truly defines the word "spin".


----------



## BobF (Jul 27, 2015)

Grumpy Ol' Man said:


> In one of Bob's posts, he says the spending under a Republican POTUS was the fault of a Democratic majority in Congress.  Soon thereafter, Bob says the spending during the tenure of a Republican controlled Congress is the fault of a Democratic POTUS.  I do believe this truly defines the word "spin".



Not at all spin.   In Bush's last two years the Congress was taken over by Pelosi and Reid.    Both are hard headed Democrats that love to spend so folks would think of them being great folks.   So in their two years the drove the debt from 7.5 trillion up to over 10 trillion.   Bush could not stop them as they used Iraq and Afghanistan war budget bills and loaded them with junk spending.   Bush could not reject as he did have military justification for funds to meet.   Two nasty Democrats using the wars to feed their personal spending habits.

Then along come Obama ready to spend whether the Senate approves or not.   As long as Reid remained in the Senate no Republican efforts got much attention but spending was done on command.   And in the last few months where the Republicans have once again got control of the Congress, I have not yet heard Obama say we have spent too much.   He continues and has the final persuasion of closing the government again.   So the Republican Congress is having some unwanted spending problems.


----------



## tnthomas (Jul 27, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> I agree... The GOP can never resist a chance to over play it's hand..   They do it over and over and it always backfires.  You would think they would learn... but what was it that Einstein said about insanity??   lol!!



One video clip is worth ten thousand words:


----------



## imp (Jul 27, 2015)

BobF said:


> Hillary will be better than what we have today.    But most anyone would be better than what we have today.
> 
> 10 trillion of more unexplained debt.   Why and for what?    It was at 7.5 trillion in Bush's term, the the Democrats took over Congress and it went right up to over 10 trillion debt.   Obama arrives and now it is over 18 trillion in debt and still climbing.   But it is all the Republicans fault?
> 
> One fact Obama never talks about is the debt he has created.   When Obama is gone, someone will have to figure out how to pay down our debts, quickly, before the  US credit gets hurt more than it already is.



Must agree, Bob! Sorry, QS, cannot see how a burdensome National Debt is "imaginary".    imp


----------



## QuickSilver (Jul 28, 2015)

imp said:


> Must agree, Bob! Sorry, QS, cannot see how a burdensome National Debt is "imaginary".    imp



I didn't say it was IMP....  I said that the statement that Obama caused it was.


----------



## BobF (Jul 28, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> I didn't say it was IMP....  I said that the statement that Obama caused it was.



How strange.   Who has been around to cause the debts and allowed this debt burden to happen.   His leadership name is President Obama.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jul 28, 2015)

BobF said:


> How strange.   Who has been around to cause the debts and allowed this debt burden to happen.   His leadership name is President Obama.



And the ONLY President who the Republican House has REFUSED to pass any budget or appropriation bill he suggested..    The House turned to Republican majority in 2010..  AND the Senates Republican minority filibustered any bill with Obama's stamp on it since he took office in 2009...  May I ask HOW Obama was able to do all this spending?


----------



## tnthomas (Jul 28, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> And the ONLY President who the Republican House has REFUSED to pass any budget or appropriation bill he suggested..    The House turned to Republican majority in 2010..  AND the Senates Republican minority filibustered any bill with Obama's stamp on it since he took office in 2009...  May I ask HOW Obama was able to do all this spending?



Good point.  It's amazing how some folks can avoid acknowledging the glaring truth.   Maybe the truth doesn't fit well anywhere in their political belief system.


----------



## BobF (Jul 29, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> And the ONLY President who the Republican House has REFUSED to pass any budget or appropriation bill he suggested..    The House turned to Republican majority in 2010..  AND the Senates Republican minority filibustered any bill with Obama's stamp on it since he took office in 2009...  May I ask HOW Obama was able to do all this spending?



That has already been covered, more than once.    When ever the House stood against the Presidents wild spending and refused to pass his bills, Obama wouls start shutting down the government rather than try to negotiate and relent from his spending crazes.   Of course the Democrat controlled Senate, Reid leading, would just not even pick up any Republican bills and process them.   I was a complete Democrat controlled operation till this past January when both House and Senate became Republican.   Must have been some public decision to make that change in the last elections.  Still, as long as our spending President is in the top chair, he can go back into shutting down the sections of government that hurt the people the most.

So to avoid these government shut downs the Republican have decided to push back but step aside rather than have more phoney government shut downs.

So till Obama is gone, we have a poor example of how to get our country back into the 'bills paid' status once again.   Just hope we can get the debt paid down before we end up like Greece or Puerto Rico and begging for money to keep our government running.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jul 29, 2015)

Who shut down the government??   lol!!

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/government-shutdown-wars

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-shut-down-the-government-for-nothing/280611/

Each and every Government shutdown was the fault of the Republicans... looking to hold something for ransom.. whether it was the debt ceiling.. or the ACA.. the GOP LOOOOOVES the theatrics of a shutdown  and then LOOOOOOOVE to turn around and blame the President..  AND YOU fall for that nonsense..  hahahahahahahha.


----------



## BobF (Jul 29, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Who shut down the government??   lol!!
> 
> http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/government-shutdown-wars
> 
> ...



But who had the authority to shut down the government?    It was not the Congress as you suggest.   This is just some more of the twisted logic from the Obama side rather than admit Obama has made some bad choices. 

   Less than one year and a half till we have a new leadership for the US.   Too early to say who it might be.   It can be Democrat or Republican or  independent as of today.   We just have to wait and see how all this preliminary stuff shakes out and whether Hillary or other Democrat or if one of the many Republicans already standing for the election selection get elected.   Not much either of us can predict that situation.    

My often stated idea is that Hillary will be better than what we have today.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jul 29, 2015)

Never mind Bob..   It is clear that you will not give up your delusions...  and you continue to ignore the truth, using the twisted Right Wing Echo Chamber to reinforce your false beliefs.   It's really very sad.. but that's your choice.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Aug 7, 2015)

Josiah said:


> I'm so tired of Benghazi. If you have to play these games, how about going back and attacking her on Whitewater for a while?


----------



## BobF (Aug 8, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Never mind Bob..   It is clear that you will not give up your delusions...  and you continue to ignore the truth, using the twisted Right Wing Echo Chamber to reinforce your false beliefs.   It's really very sad.. but that's your choice.



You never answered my question of *"But who had the authority to shut down the government?    It was not the Congress as you suggest."*   It is the Obama place to work, not the Congress.  Twisted ideas and shifting blame seem to be your specialties.   But not a all truthful.   Obama doesn't seem to negotiate at all.   He just steps back and shuts down some government operations.   Nice of his moves.  Hurt the masses rather than consider some changes the Congress has asked for.


----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 8, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


>




Great point SB


----------



## BobF (Aug 8, 2015)

Big problem with that chart.   It offers no solutions from the Democrats for those same issues.   Non whatsoever.

"Yes, TRY TO IMAGINE the.................."

The bombings of the 9/11 in New York City came just following the Clinton days when Clinton had been bombing in foreign countries.   Just not hard enough to make a message but did likely enrage some folks into fighting back at the US.  That entire poster is filled with distorted facts and misleading ideas.


----------



## Debby (Aug 8, 2015)

BobF said:


> Hillary will be better than what we have today.    But most anyone would be better than what we have today.
> 
> 10 trillion of more unexplained debt.   Why and for what?    It was at 7.5 trillion in Bush's term, the the Democrats took over Congress and it went right up to over 10 trillion debt.   Obama arrives and now it is over 18 trillion in debt and still climbing.   But it is all the Republicans fault?
> 
> One fact Obama never talks about is the debt he has created.   When Obama is gone, someone will have to figure out how to pay down our debts, quickly, before the  US credit gets hurt more than it already is.




Do you really understand how much 18 trillion dollars is?  I have read that it will be impossible to pay that back.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/what-does-trillion-dollars-look-0    That link gives an illustration of how many pallets of $100 dollar bills makes up $1 trillion dollars.  Notice the teeny little man standing at the front, left corner of that field of pallets stacked two high.  And you owe $17 or $18 trillion?  Paid down quickly????


----------



## SeaBreeze (Aug 8, 2015)

BobF said:


> Big problem with that chart.   It offers no solutions from the Democrats for those same issues.   Non whatsoever.



The _only _purpose of that chart is to list incidents of attacks and lives lost, and points out the lack of blame on the sitting Republican president during those attacks from conservatives.  Of course, when it's an incident which occurs under President Obama (Democrat), there is outrage from the conservatives, can't say that chart is not truthful.


----------



## Debby (Aug 8, 2015)

> =......May I ask HOW Obama was able to do all this spending?




I would think that it isn't hard to see that military expenditures is responsible in large part for that debt.  1,000 x $1,000,000,000.00 (that's a billion) = $1 trillion dollars and according to this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States, the USA spends $610 billion (give or take a buck or two) per year on your military so in the last 8 years, you've spent $4,880 billion dollars on military which (help me here folks because 'my math she is not so good) I think is almost five trillion dollars.

Combine that with the loss of income tax as a result of job losses, plus infrastructure costs and social costs and probably minimal income tax paid by the rich guys........sounds like a recipe for disaster doesn't it?


----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 8, 2015)

Debby said:


> I would think that it isn't hard to see that military expenditures is responsible in large part for that debt.  1,000 x $1,000,000,000.00 (that's a billion) = $1 trillion dollars and according to this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States, the USA spends $610 billion (give or take a buck or two) per year on your military so in the last 8 years, you've spent $4,880 billion dollars on military which (help me here folks because 'my math she is not so good) I think is almost five trillion dollars.
> 
> Combine that with the loss of income tax as a result of job losses, plus infrastructure costs and social costs and probably minimal income tax paid by the rich guys........sounds like a recipe for disaster doesn't it?




Not saying there isn't spending... only that Constitutionally.. the President of the United States CANNOT spend the money without the approval of the House of Representatives.. and it being passed by the Senate..  A President cannot do it on his own..  It is down by budgetary means... and THAT my friend is the responsibility of the House.   THEY are the holders of the purse strings..  That's how our system works.. and the Constitution outlines it very very clearly.   Blaming the sitting President for the debt is partisan BS.. only.


----------



## BobF (Aug 8, 2015)

When the Democrats took over the Congress in George Bush's last two years the debt was at 7.5 trillion.   Between the new Representative leader Pelosi and the new Senate leader they were able to force the debt up to about 10 trillion.   There method was simple.   They would take military spending bills and load them with their favorite spend for the people projects with no financing means attached.   Debt being created.   Bush could not just reject a bill that is paying for the military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.   So Pelosi and Reid both got their expensive playful things done with no Congressional debates of good or bad being done.

When Obama forces his ideas he was shutting down he government rather than to debate in Congress.   Recent times have shown the Congress speaking of that threat again and saying they will try to end Obama's waste of money by going deeper into debt.   But they concern about his threats to shut down the government again and really don't want that to be put on them.   It is not a good balanced situation with a Congress that wants to run one way and a President that wants to run a different way.   That is the problem with Obama, he doesn't care that the Congress wants to run a bit different than him.   He is not an emperor,  nor a do all President, Obama is supposed to be directed by Congress after Congress debates an issue.    Little goes into Congress anymore as the Obama government is run by many party driven subsets that have been given approval to do things the President wants.

Only another year and a half and that type of government may be tossed and we can go back to running as the Constitution tells us to run.


----------



## Debby (Aug 8, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Not saying there isn't spending... only that Constitutionally.. the President of the United States CANNOT spend the money without the approval of the House of Representatives.. and it being passed by the Senate..  A President cannot do it on his own..  It is down by budgetary means... and THAT my friend is the responsibility of the House.   THEY are the holders of the purse strings..  That's how our system works.. and the Constitution outlines it very very clearly.   Blaming the sitting President for the debt is partisan BS.. only.




I think you've misunderstood my last comment.  I wasn't saying it's any one person or groups fault as much as I was simply pointing out that endless conflict requires billions of dollars every year and since everyone was talking about Obama's 'adding to the deficit' I just grabbed the last 8 years for the equation.  I'd think that allowing for inflation, etc., and depending on how substantive the conflict of the moment, other years figures would show the same principle.   A whack of money spent on military and all of it adding to a developing deficit situation.

As a reference point, Russia only spends about $68 billion per year compared to your current(?)  $610 billion.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Oct 18, 2015)

Jeb has it all figured out about 9/11, his brother, Benghazi, Clinton and Obama.


----------



## BobF (Oct 18, 2015)

I think Jeb should just sit down and allow our famous rich man take chance at leading the US.   We have had far too many polished politicians leading this country deeper into a disaster.    Why not allow this unpolished politician see if he can do for the US as well as he has done for his business opportunities.   If he does well we can all cheer and applaud.    If he makes no good for us, at least he did no worse than those polished politicians.   To me it is a chance to improve this country as the others have not done well for most of us.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Oct 18, 2015)

I don't think Jeb is going to be in a position to "allow" anything.


----------



## Ruthanne (Oct 18, 2015)

This is BS in my opinion!!


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 19, 2015)

So....  BobF is for TRUMP!    Why am I not surprised..


----------



## Shalimar (Oct 19, 2015)

Gonna vote today. General election at last!


----------



## BobF (Oct 19, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> So....  BobF is for TRUMP!    Why am I not surprised..



Of the two mentioned, why not.    

When is the Democrat ticket going to get straitened out?    Is the VP going to run or not.   Each time I hear it the VP will tell us later.   Of the candidate so far, Hillary is better than what we have today.   But the VP might end up being better than Hillary.

Actual choice won't really be clear until next spring.   Then the real debates can start.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 19, 2015)

It's laughable to think that people REALLY want to vote for inexperienced and uninformed candidates.   Would you go to an accountant to have your appendix out?   Would you go to a mailman to have your taxes done?   I simply don't understand this nonsense of wanting to elect incompetent people..   This is the office of the President of the United States we are talking about.  I want someone who has some experience and knowledge of how things work..  Not some schmuck who is playing with Maslow's Hierarchy and working on the self aggrandizement level..   It's ludicrous and it's foolhardy..


----------



## Shalimar (Oct 19, 2015)

Perhaps there is a desperation to vote for anyone who spouts the right stuff, regardless of ability, in a frenzied attempt to block a Democratic president in the next election. As time goes on, paranoia seems to be the name of the game.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 19, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> Perhaps there is a desperation to vote for anyone who spouts the right stuff, regardless of ability, in a frenzied attempt to block a Democratic president in the next election. As time goes on, paranoia seems to be the name of the game.



Yes... that too.. along with the misguided belief that it's best to "Know nothing"... Education and experience are maligned in favor of people that can appear as ignorant as the electorate by spouting the same bigoted and distasteful remarks they wish they could say.   It's sad to know that these candidates are speaking the views and thoughts of the Republican base.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Oct 19, 2015)

*No Evidence of Wrongdoing*

More here.

Democrats on the House Select Committee on Benghazi have released a damning 124-page report that finds no evidence of wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton, but a mountain of proof that the Republican-led investigation is a partisan sham.


According to the Democrat Staff Report on the Select Committee:


_In stark contrast to these baseless political attacks, the 54 individuals who have now been interviewed by the Select Committee have identified:

__– no evidence that Secretary Clinton ordered the military to stand down on the night of the attacks;


– no evidence that Secretary Clinton personally approved or ordered a reduction of security in Benghazi prior to the attacks;


– no evidence that Secretary Clinton pressed the United States into supporting the United Nations campaign in Libya under false pretenses;


– no evidence that Secretary Clinton or her aides oversaw an operation at the State Department to destroy or scrub embarrassing documents;


– And no evidence that Secretary Clinton or any other U.S. official directed or authorized the U.S. Mission in Benghazi to transfer weapons from Libya to another country.


__The evidence obtained by the Select Committee also corroborates previous testimony to Congress indicating that Secretary Clinton was deeply engaged during and after the attacks and took action to ensure the safety and security of U.S. personnel, even as intelligence assessments of the attacks changed more than once during this period.
_
The report exposed the political intentions of the House Select Committee on Benghazi. For example, the Republican-led committee has not held a single hearing with a member of the Department of Defense on Benghazi and has conducted nearly ten times as many interviews with State Department employees as they have with Department of Defense employees (27-4).


The investigation into the investigators also found that Chairman Gowdy’s (R-SC) claim that the Select Committee is not focused on Hillary Clinton to be completely false, “The Select Committee has been engaged in an aggressive press campaign focused almost entirely on Secretary Clinton, issuing 27 press releases related to Secretary Clinton since March, but only 5 on all other topics combined. Chairman Gowdy has referenced Secretary Clinton more than 50 times in nationally televised interviews since March.”

​​One of the witness interviews debunked the Republican claim that Clinton issued a stand down order.The former spokesperson for the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs testified:

​Q: It has been alleged that Secretary of State Clinton intentionally blocked military action on the night of the attacks. One Congressman has speculated that, quote, “Secretary Clinton told Leon Panetta to stand down,” end quote, and this resulted in the Defense Department not sending more assets to help in Benghazi. Do you have any evidence that Secretary of State Clinton ordered Secretary of Defense Panetta to stand down on the night of the attacks?

A: No.Q: Do you have any evidence that Secretary of State Clinton issued any kind of order to Secretary of Defense Panetta on the night of the attacks? A: No.

​The report reveals that Clinton did nothing wrong and that the House Select Committee on Benghazi is nothing more than a partisan stunt that is designed to destroy the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination.The evidence is laid out over the course of 124 brutal pages.

 Republicans have lied to the American people about the purposes and intentions of this committee. House Republicans have wasted millions of taxpayer dollars on an investigation that is finding nothing new.The only evidence of wrongdoing found is on the Republican side of the aisle.

 The investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails under the pretense of Benghazi is an illegal use of taxpayer funds for partisan political purposes.Benghazi has backfired and now Republicans are paying the price for their brazen abuses of power.
​


----------



## Shalimar (Oct 19, 2015)

Wow. Reminds me of our Prime Minister thinking he could take on our Supreme Court--more than once. Backfired also.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 19, 2015)

The best part of the interview with Jeb was that if GW was NOT responsible for the attack on the World Trade Center.. HOW is Clinton and Obama responsible for the attack on a consulate half way around the world in Benghazi.   He didn't have a good answer...  More proof this is a Republican witch hunt.


----------



## Jackie22 (Oct 19, 2015)

[h=1]Cummings Responds to Explosive New Report on Chairman Gowdy’s Links to Stop Hillary PAC (HRC GROUP)[/h]Rep. Elijah Cummings, Ranking Member, Select Committee on Benghazi: 

Today, the Washington Post reported on newly discovered links between Rep. Trey Gowdy, the Chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, and Stop Hillary PAC, which describes itself as “created for one reason only—to ensure Hillary Clinton never becomes President of the United States.” 

This is the same group that last week aired a highly offensive new attack ad using images of Ambassador Stevens’ grave—without his family’s permission—and exploiting the deaths of four Americans to damage Secretary Clinton’s bid for president. Democrats have complained repeatedly about Gowdy’s connections to the group. 

The Post article includes several new revelations: 

Gowdy’s leadership PAC, Themis, shared the same treasurer as Stop Hillary PAC since 2013, an outspoken political operative and Clinton opponent named Dan Backer. 

Backer also served as treasurer on three other PACs that each donated $2,000 to Gowdy for Congress in April. Only after being confronted with these facts by the Washington Post did Gowdy return these donations on Friday. 

Just last month, STOP Hillary PAC spent $10,000 on robocalls and other efforts in support of Gowdy. 

In response to this new report, Ranking Member Elijah E. Cummings issued the following statement: “These are shocking new revelations that directly contradict the promise we made to the families of the four brave Americans.”... 

http://democrats.benghazi.house.gov...-new-report-on-chairman-gowdy-s-links-to-stop


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 20, 2015)

Oh good grief...  Are these people obsessed or what? 

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/10...proceedings-hillary-inauguration-day.htmlWhat a bunch of sickos

And in my judgement, with respect to Hillary Clinton, she will be a unique president if she is elected by the public next November, because the day she’s sworn in is the day that she’s subject to impeachment because she has committed high crimes and misdemeanors.

Brooks wants to launch impeachment proceedings against Hillary Clinton on Inauguration Day. There could hardly be a clearer signal that the GOP’s crusade against Hillary is politically motivated, than a member of Congress suggesting impeachment on day one of her presidency.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Oct 20, 2015)

But at least she is a citizen, or maybe not...


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 20, 2015)

I don't know...  After all... Chicago is called ChiRaq..  so maybe not..


----------



## Ralphy1 (Oct 20, 2015)

Yup, and she could be bi, just thinking as she has a thing for pantsuits...


----------



## Dudewho (Oct 20, 2015)

If you think Benghazi has been over blown maybe you could tell us some answers to the following because I have not heard them. 
In lieu of 4 dead Americans I think all Americans should know: 


As Secretary of State, do you know who is responsible for security at the different American Embassy’s around the world?
If not, who's responsible for telling you such things, and did anyone get fired for the dereliction of duties for not informing you?
Where were you on that night? Were you in the war room? Where was President Obama? Was he in the war room? 
Who gave the order to “Stand Down”? Were you informed of the order? If not did anyone get fired for the dereliction of duties for not informing you?

In the days leading up to the tragic events, after a 20 foot hole was blown in the Embassy’s outer wall, why was the request for additional security declined? Whose decision was it to decline the additional security requests? Were you informed of the denial? If not did anyone get fired for the dereliction of duties for not informing you?

If you think Trey Gowdy and the investigation a farce, why have the 7 or 8 investigations that have already been conducted failed to answer some _basic_ questions? If anyone has the answers please share them with us.

 Americans deserve them; especially the families of the deceased deserve answers.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 20, 2015)

Dudewho said:


> If you think Benghazi has been over blown maybe you could tell us some answers to the following because I have not heard them.
> In lieu of 4 dead Americans I think all Americans should know:
> 
> 
> ...



Let me answer your question WITH a question..


Do you believe that George W Bush was derelict in his duties by not preventing the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Towers?  He was given briefings that an attack was imminent..  Should he have been able to prevent that attack?


----------



## Dudewho (Oct 20, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Let me answer your question WITH a question..
> 
> If you have proof that I was imminent...Yes
> All officials should be held in the same standard.
> Do you have proof that was imminent or proof that President Bush stonewalled an investigation?


----------



## Dudewho (Oct 20, 2015)

Dudewho said:


> QuickSilver said:
> 
> 
> > Let me answer your question WITH a question..
> ...


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 20, 2015)

George Tenet, the CIA director, knew in advance there was going to be an attack, and he said so to the president.


What I am saying IS.... IF GW wasn't responsible for the worst attack on US soil in history... with 3000 dead and countless others injured...  THEN  Clinton is not responsible for an attach half way around the world on some remote embassy.......  PERIOD....  These hearings are NOTHING more than a political smear campaign completely designed to "Bring DOWN"  Hillary Clinton.    The committee should be disbanded and the RNC forced to pay the $4.5 million in taxpayer money back.


----------



## Shalimar (Oct 20, 2015)

Hmm. Ostrich syndrome is alive and well, or perhaps the committee is looking for a miracle, aka Lucifer Son Of The Morning, appearing on Fox News in a puff of smoke, and revealing Hillary's true demonic form to the viewers? Eek! Get ready for Hallowe'en folks!  Stay tuned......


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 20, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> Hmm. Ostrich syndrome is alive and well, or perhaps the committee is looking for a miracle, aka Lucifer Son Of The Morning, appearing on Fox News in a puff of smoke, and revealing Hillary's true demonic form to the viewers? Eek! Get ready for Hallowe'en folks!  Stay tuned......




The Gig is up for the GOP and their phony hearings...  The entire world knows that what is long suspected is completely TRUE... and admitted as such.   But like a Dog shaking a bone... they don't want to give up their scheme..  Guess we will have to let them know next November how most Americans feel about this charade.


----------



## Dudewho (Oct 20, 2015)

Thanks for clearing everything up. I guess you were under the impression I was looking for bloviating and he said she said instead of answers.
 We'll have to leave it up to Mr.Gowdy and the rule of law.


----------



## Shalimar (Oct 20, 2015)

Lolololololol.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 20, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> Lolololololol.



You are right...  Gowdy and "rule of LAW" shouldn't be in the same sentence.  It is pretty funny...   at least NOW we know it for what it is..


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 20, 2015)

Also DUDE...  while we are talking about the hypocrisy of Republicans concerning GW...  How about this?   STILL believe this Benghazi nonsense  isn't  a political witch hunt?


----------



## AZ Jim (Oct 20, 2015)

the roar of crickets.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 20, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> the roar of crickets.



Oh don't worry... I'm sure some ridiculous excuse will be given for not giving a rat's arse over the embassy attacks and 60 deaths under Bush and wasting all this time and money over Benghazi...  Only not the real reason.. which of course we all know is to "get" Hillary Clinton and prevent her from winning the presidency.


----------



## BobF (Oct 21, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Oh don't worry... I'm sure some ridiculous excuse will be given for not giving a rat's arse over the embassy attacks and 60 deaths under Bush and wasting all this time and money over Benghazi...  Only not the real reason.. which of course we all know is to "get" Hillary Clinton and prevent her from winning the presidency.



Your opinion, but for some reason the FBI and others just have not declared it a waste of time yet.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 21, 2015)

Can you explain why there were no investigations into the Consulate attacks and 60 deaths under Bush?


----------



## Shalimar (Oct 21, 2015)

Because they were Republicans? If I am right do I get a prize?


----------



## Ralphy1 (Oct 21, 2015)

That was so easy that all you get it crabs and ice water...


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 21, 2015)

Ding.. ding. ding!!   We have a wiener..   you win a lapel button saying

IOKIYAR    (It's ok if you are Republican)


----------



## Shalimar (Oct 21, 2015)

Wiener? Lolololol.


----------



## BobF (Oct 21, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Can you explain why there were no investigations into the Consulate attacks and 60 deaths under Bush?



Not at all.   Just what happened and when?    Were there any warnings of impending problems?   That is just not the same event as what is happening with the present occasion.   So what is this correlation you seek?   Kind of empty argument.   Until the examiners end their quest, the concern is valid.   

FBI is not Republican, or Democrat, that I remember.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 21, 2015)

FBI is NOT investigating Benghazi..   It is looking at the emails to see is any were considered classified at the time...  Period..


----------



## BobF (Oct 21, 2015)

Maybe the FBI is not studying Benghazi?   But how do you know when no one else really knows where their investigation will lead.   Read this article and see some of the concerns the FBI is working on.

http://observer.com/2015/10/hillarys-email-troubles-are-far-from-over/

[h=1]Hillary’s Email Troubles Are Far From Over[/h] 		[h=2]New information shows just how slipshod Ms. Clinton's security measures were for her “private” server[/h]		 			By John R. Schindler | 10/19/15 10:12am

.
.
There’s also the matter of exactly _what_ the FBI is  investigating. Recent revelations hint that the compromising of  classified information on Ms. Clinton’s “private” email and server was  more serious than originally believed. While earlier reports  indicated only a small percentage of the sensitive information that  “spilled over” onto Ms. Clinton’s personal email was highly classified  at the Top Secret level, that may be only a small portion of what was  potentially compromised.

Particularly disturbing is the report  that one of the “personal” emails Ms. Clinton forwarded included the  name of a top CIA asset in Libya, who was identified as such. The source  of this information was Tyler Drumheller, a retired senior CIA  operations officer, who served as a sort of one-man private spy agency  for Sid Blumenthal, the Clintons’ close family friend and factotum whose  sometimes long-winded emails, particularly regarding Libya, have  generated much of the controversy behind EmailGate.
.
.
It will be weeks, even months, before the FBI’s investigation concludes  and the Department of Justice has to decide whether any of the events  surrounding EmailGate reach the threshold of prosecution. Many in the  FBI and the Intelligence Community suspect the fix is already inside the  West Wing to prevent that from happening, but it’s still early in this  investigation.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Oct 21, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Oh don't worry... I'm sure some ridiculous excuse will be given for not giving a rat's arse over the embassy attacks and 60 deaths under Bush and wasting all this time and money over Benghazi...  Only not the real reason.. which of course we all know is to "get" Hillary Clinton and prevent her from winning the presidency.



The heck to all who died under Bush, nobody wants to hear that silly stuff, it's Hillary who's the monster.   More on the committee and time/money wasted.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-benghazi_56265909e4b08589ef48f937





> Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the ranking member on the Benghazi committee, on Monday called for the panel to be abolished. It has been in existence for 17 months and cost more than $4.5 million.
> 
> Cummings and his fellow Democrats also released a report that day saying there is "no evidence" to support the claims Republicans are making about Clinton's role in the 2012 attack. "
> 
> ...


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 21, 2015)

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/10/after-gowdy-caught-lie-he-runs-politico


Rep Trey Gowdy admits he altered the  documents that he used to make false claims against Hillary Clinton in a response to a letter from Rep Elijah Cummings. 
*Gowdy admits that he decided to make this improper redaction.* That he attempts to obfuscate the point by stating the "Executive" branch, AFTER Gowdy appointed himself as arbiter of classification, asked for the redaction on PRIVACY grounds, something Cummings himself stated in his letter, does not obviate the fact that Gowdy purposefully altered a document in order to falsely accuse Clinton of wrongdoing.


----------



## BobF (Oct 21, 2015)

Another release about the Benghazie attack.

[h=3]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/may/12/john-garamendi/prior-benghazi-were-there-13-attacks-embassies-and/[/h]
[h=1]Prior to Benghazi, were there 13 attacks on embassies and 60 deaths under President George W. Bush?[/h]                      By  Louis Jacobson on Monday, May 12th, 2014 at 5:23 p.m.         

.
.
We turned to the Global Terrorism Database,  a project headquartered at the University of Maryland. The database  documents terrorist attacks around the world going back to the 1970s,  and experts told us it is the best resource available for this  fact-check.
.
.

Generally, the experts we contacted agreed that Garamendi was making a  reasonable point that there has been a steady, and comparatively  overlooked, series of deadly attacks on U.S. embassies in recent years.


Still, these experts also said there are valid reasons to treat Benghazi differently from the earlier attacks.


  "Is Benghazi different? Absolutely," said Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a  senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and an  adjunct assistant professor in Georgetown University’s security studies  program.


  One reason, he said, is that an American ambassador died in the  attack, which hadn’t happened since the 1970s. Another relevant  question, Gartenstein-Ross said, "is whether what happened was put to  the American people in an honest manner, not just with respect to the  administration, but also with respect to the intelligence community."


  Gartenstein-Ross added that he wasn’t endorsing "how the Republicans  go about" investigating this question. But he did say it’s a "real,  legitimate question."

"As always, what causes the problem is not so much what happens, but the  response to it," said Theodore R. Bromund, a senior research fellow at  the conservative Heritage Foundation. "‘If the administration had come  out shortly after the attack and said, ‘Our consulate was attacked by  organized Islamist forces, and we will pursue these terrorists and bring  them to justice, one way or the other,’ I very much doubt there would  be much juice in these hearings, if indeed they were being held at all."
.
.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 21, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


> The heck to all who died under Bush, nobody wants to hear that silly stuff, it's Hillary who's the monster.   More on the committee and time/money wasted.
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-benghazi_56265909e4b08589ef48f937




Another fact that Republicans so conveniently forget is that they CUT the budget for security at US embassies....  I don't think Clinton would have even been able to send additional security..  

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/250237-gop-embassy-security-cuts-draw-democrats-scrutiny

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/jason-chaffetz-embassy_n_1954912.html

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010.
On Wednesday morning, CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien asked the Utah Republican if he had "voted to cut the funding for embassy security."
"Absolutely," Chaffetz said. "Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have…15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize


----------



## BobF (Oct 21, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Another fact that Republicans so conveniently forget is that they CUT the budget for security at US embassies....  I don't think Clinton would have even been able to send additional security..
> 
> http://thehill.com/homenews/house/250237-gop-embassy-security-cuts-draw-democrats-scrutiny
> 
> ...



OK, keep nit picking why it is Republican and not Democrat problems.   But did you read the stuff I have posted about the FBI not ending its look into Hillary's actions.    The time left to investigate is really open.   Someday there will be an end and until then we have no ideas about Hillary being in trouble or not.   Right now I think there are some issues still needing looked into and answers made available.   Till Hillary is declared clean, there will always be doubt.   Come next spring we can really see who will be running for President from both parties and maybe independents too.   Right now it is far too early to make any predictions.   I hope Hillary  gets formally cleared as I don't like having the far far left guy become our President.   His Progressive Democrat group has the idea of taking over and slowly changing our government into far left socialist like the ones in Europe.


----------



## Jackie22 (Oct 22, 2015)

I've been watching the latest hearing on Benghazi this morning....what a farce and sham...this will only help Hillary Clinton's campaign....the witch hunt has backfired on these republicans, their agenda is clear to all.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 22, 2015)

Jackie22 said:


> I've been watching the latest hearing on Benghazi this morning....what a farce and sham...this will only help Hillary Clinton's campaign....the witch hunt has backfired on these republicans, their agenda is clear to all.



I was wondering how that was going...  I'm hoping she chews them up and spits them out..


----------



## Jackie22 (Oct 22, 2015)

....they have NOTHING....


----------



## BobF (Oct 22, 2015)

A bunch of cry babies.   Wait till it is over.   Then you can cheer or complain.   The FBI is still active on security problems and this about protection.   It won't stop because some think it should.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 22, 2015)

Jackie22 said:


> ....they have NOTHING....



Americans are now coming to understand what Republicans have been up to with this bogus investigation...   Hopefully it will cost them BIG TIME next November.


----------



## Davey Jones (Oct 22, 2015)

GOD!!!!  Clinton looks so old and worn out there, looks like she miss her appointment with her make up artist. He did a great job on her for the debate, she looks 20 years younger.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 22, 2015)

Davey Jones said:


> GOD!!!!  Clinton looks so old and worn out there, looks like she miss her appointment with her make up artist. He did a great job on her for the debate, she looks 20 years younger.



would you say that about a man??


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Oct 22, 2015)

EVERYTHING I've seen of today's hearing shows this committee as nothing but a witch hunt.  Of all the false accusations made and rhetoric, Secretary Clinton handled herself quite well.  If you want to know just how well she did, tune in to Faux Noise.  Those pundits are going nuts because nothing incriminating or damaging came out of today's testimony.  This was supposed to be a slam dunk for the Pubs, knocking Clinton out of the possibility of gaining the Presidency.  It turned out to be a few hard right-wing Congressmen sermonizing about their political stance and their opinion... OPINION.

A number of pundits, this afternoon, are saying "If you disliked Clinton before today... you still dislike her.  If you liked Clinton before today... you still like her."  Most voters are far more interested in baseball, right now, than in listening to political posturing.  

Any investigation should be totally and completely about what happened that resulted in the death of 4 Americans and what can be done to, hopefully, keep it from happening again.  Instead, this seems to be all about what happened AFTER the event and how decisions AFTER the event can be used for political gain by Republicans today.


----------



## Shalimar (Oct 22, 2015)

My God, who cares how old Hillary looks? When will we stop grading women on their personal appearance? They are not dolls. Jeez.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 22, 2015)

Just tuned in and they are still at it... Republicans are making FOOLS of themselves in their blatant hatred...  It's disgusting


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 22, 2015)

It's news on the ABC over here this morning. Comment suggested that it is overkill and probably counter productive in the political sense.

Julia Gillard was subjected to similar grilling over something from her past as a lawyer. She allowed the media to grill her until they had not more questions, then faced a Royal Commission for a day and a half. No wrong doing was established but the allegations kept being raised. Now that she has left politics all interest has ceased.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 22, 2015)

ELEVEN HOURS!!   and  NOTHING!   Kudos to Clinton...   Remained calm... and focused... Republicans have uncovered nothing new...  Now.. can we all just admit that this is a failed attempt to scuttle her campaign and nothing more?

and TODAY.... Hillary Clinton has proven beyond a shadow of doubt that he has what it takes to be president of the United States... That woman has nerves of steel...... and she will do us proud!!


----------



## Jackie22 (Oct 22, 2015)

I hope every American was watching these fool GOP Committee members showing their hate and stupidity today, it was on full display.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 22, 2015)

I am so PROUD of Hillary Clinton!!   This Republican embarrassment should hang their heads in shame... Oh.. and pay back the$4.5 million in taxpayer money wasted....


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Oct 22, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> I am so PROUD of Hillary Clinton!!   This Republican embarrassment should hang their heads in shame... Oh.. and pay back the$4.5 million in taxpayer money wasted....



The number tossed out in today's testimony is $20 million in taxpayer funds being spent on ALL 9 of the committee hearings.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 22, 2015)

Whatever the sum.... The RNC should pay us back...


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Oct 22, 2015)

Jackie22 said:


> I hope every American was watching these fool GOP Committee members showing their hate and stupidity today, it was on full display.



Too bad ALL prime time programming was not replaced with this hearing.  Those who would have watched would have seen the vicious rhetoric spewed by the Republican inquisitors.  

Your comment is proven by the committee... the Republican members of the committee... voting to seal the transcript and NOT release it to the American people.  All along, the plan was to discredit Secretary Clinton.  That plan backfired with her calm and cognizant testimony today.  Gowdy and Company will do everything they can to keep any evidence of today's spectacle from being put in front of the American people.


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Oct 22, 2015)

This has been a great week for Secretary Clinton.  Joe decided not to enter the race, leaving her as the probably Democratic candidate for POTUS.  Then, her numbers should go up tomorrow after today's GOP debacle.  She appeared very "Presidential" in how calm and distinct she handled the 11 hours of testimony.

After today, the cadre of GOP candidates know that should they become the nominee the Benghazi issue will NOT be something they can use.


----------



## BobF (Oct 22, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> I am so PROUD of Hillary Clinton!!   This Republican embarrassment should hang their heads in shame... Oh.. and pay back the$4.5 million in taxpayer money wasted....



This investigation started long before this election period and will continue for a while at least.   It is not about making her lose the election at all.   The questions and concerns are about those four killed including the Ambassador.   Why was their no defenses set up prior as other embassies had already been attacked.   We had plenty of military within an hour of there but none were even alerted or assigned to be around the embassy.   Those are the questions being asked and answered by Hillary.   What I heard was that there was no such need or request that she saw come to her desk.   Maybe so, but that is important to know, as in the future we will need to change our ways to protect our own properties and people around the world.   I think there will be some good come of this committee if they do nothing to Hillary herself.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 22, 2015)

She certainly proved that she is very capable of being the President of the USA....


----------



## SeaBreeze (Oct 22, 2015)

Grumpy Ol' Man said:


> Too bad ALL prime time programming was not replaced with this hearing.  Those who would have watched would have seen the vicious rhetoric spewed by the Republican inquisitors.



I watched the first couple of hours, then I was busy and only saw bits and pieces of the hearing.  I agree the Republicans on the committee were vicious to say the least, they were very obviously on a mission to embarrass her or catch her in a lie that they could pounce on.  I was impressed on how she kept her composure through all that nonsense.

 The expression I've heard a lot lately was 'witch hunt', and I could clearly see today that the description was not an exaggeration.  Now I know why Hillary said that the republicans were her enemies, it's true if you judge by the politicians involved in trying to break her.  Can't believe what's happening in politics these days, very childish and cutthroat to be sure.  http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/clinton-clears-major-hurdle-after-measured-benghazi-testimony



QuickSilver said:


> She certainly proved that she is very capable of being the President of the USA....



Just observing part of the hearing today, I have a greater respect for Hillary Clinton than I ever had in the past.  She's a strong person, very level-headed and very knowledgeable.  She's dedicated to serving her country and the American people.  I agree she proved that she would be a capable and respectable President of the United States of America.


----------



## Dudewho (Oct 23, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> She certainly proved that she is very capable of being the President of the USA....[/QUO
> 
> Yes Iagree, she lies to deflects and deceives with the best of them.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 23, 2015)

Well...  she sure stymied your bunch of lynch men.....  Good for her...  Now.. will your band of merry men give it up already?    No.... probably not...   by the very definition of insanity... doing the same thing over and over expecting a different outcome... 

As for lying?   She was under oath... perjury is not something she would risk..  So just get over it already..


----------



## Misty (Oct 23, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Whatever the sum.... The RNC should pay us back...



The National Institutes of Health (NIH) gave $2,466,482 to Daniel Resnic to develop three versions of the Origami condom, including the “first of its kind” anal condom. Resnic was later accused of wasting the money on full-body plastic surgery, trips to Costa Rica, parties at the Playboy mansion, and patents for inventions such as “rounded corners.”


The NIH has also given $3,531,925 to researchers to determine why lesbians are obese and gay men are not. Results have included: gay men have a “greater desire for toned muscles” than straight men, lesbians have low “athletic self-esteem,” and young men think about their muscles.


The Democratic members on the Benghazi committee also like to point out that the Benghazi investigation has lasted 532 Days, “longer than the investigations of Pearl Harbor, the Kennedy assassination, Iran-Contra, and Hurricane Katrina.”


The federally funded investigation into lesbian obesity has lasted for 1,460 days, or four years since it began in September 2011.


These two projects cost taxpayers $5,998,407.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/feds-h...-fat-lesbian-studies-than-benghazi-committee/

When are taxpayers going to be paid back for this ridiculous spending?


----------



## BobF (Oct 23, 2015)

So Hillary has proven herself to be a solid professional politician type.   I did not think we really wanted any more of those in our government and would prefer reasonable, honest, hard working types.   Some that understand economics, fairness, honesty, to replace all our liars and professional politicians on both sides of the center.

Maybe Hillary should also show some other attitudes if she really wants to win the election.


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Oct 23, 2015)

Interesting that the right says they want to do away with "political types" while hailing the transition of Governor Reagan to President Reagan as the highlight of American history.  They suggest a President should be a blowhard who thinks he can buy anything as long as he keeps tossing cash at it.  Or, they want a physician who probably thinks an ICBM is something on the order of "Identifying Chocolate in Bowel Movements".  
The world stands at a time when no geographical area is safe from terrorism, disease, natural disasters, or tyranny.  To install a financier or surgeon to lead the most powerful nation in the world hinges on either insanity or stupidity.  Oh!  I don't see a single one of the Freedom Caucus, etc. who espouse eliminating politicians from governments volunteering to bow out.


----------



## Jackie22 (Oct 23, 2015)

In the aftermath of the hearing......lol




*B*enghazi hearing floods Clinton campaign coffers with cash
By ANNIE KARNI 10/23/15 11:40 AM EDT Updated 10/23/15 11:43 AM EDT


Call it the Committee To Increase Hillary Clinton's Fundraising.
Donations have been flooding into campaign coffers over the past 13 hours since her testimony in front of the House Benghazi committee wrapped late Thursday night, thrilling Clinton fundraisers on the eve of a weekend-long finance committee meeting that couldn’t have come at a better time. According to communications director Jennifer Palmieri, the hour between 9:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. last night was their best fundraising hour of the campaign to date.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...enefits-benghazi-hearing-215107#ixzz3pQKh73am


...and this from HuffPost Politics ‏@HuffPostPol 36m36 minutes ago 


Hillary Clinton wins endorsement of AFSCME, which has more than 1.6 million members.

http://huff.to/1W9hUug


----------



## Shalimar (Oct 23, 2015)

Hahahahahahahaha.


----------



## BobF (Oct 23, 2015)

Grumpy Ol' Man said:


> Interesting that the right says they want to do away with "political types" while hailing the transition of Governor Reagan to President Reagan as the highlight of American history.  They suggest a President should be a blowhard who thinks he can buy anything as long as he keeps tossing cash at it.  Or, they want a physician who probably thinks an ICBM is something on the order of "Identifying Chocolate in Bowel Movements".
> The world stands at a time when no geographical area is safe from terrorism, disease, natural disasters, or tyranny.  To install a financier or surgeon to lead the most powerful nation in the world hinges on either insanity or stupidity.  Oh!  I don't see a single one of the Freedom Caucus, etc. who espouse eliminating politicians from governments volunteering to bow out.



Why do you keep on picking on Reagan?   What was his problem other than getting into the way of a bullet.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 25, 2015)

Jackie22 said:


> In the aftermath of the hearing......lol
> 
> 
> 
> ...




If the Repugs are smart... they will close the book on this "hearing" nonsense..   It's only going to bite them in the arse..  BUT.....  putting SMART... and REPUGS in the same sentence is pretty silly I guess..


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Oct 25, 2015)

Watching Gowdy and Jordan on various Sunday news shows you'd think they indicted, tried, and convicted Secretary Clinton.  It is amazing how some are playing the hearing we saw televised last week.  

The conservative wing of the GOP will divert most of its attention to seeing how much they can control Ryan once he is elected to the Speaker position.  There is an entire host of legislation they want to shove through the House, knowing well most will never make it past the Senate.  If Ryan plays their game, the "non-governing" will continue.  

The FBI has announced there will be no indictments from the IRS investigation.  Benghazi, for all practical purposes, is laid to rest.  The investigation into Secretary Clinton's e-mails will continue and we will probably see at lease one Congressional Committee formed to "investigate" that.  Boehner just announced he is appointing a committee to "investigate" Planned Parenthood.  More taxpayer dollars down the drain.  More partisan politics.  More grandstanding.  More of the Republicans shooting themselves in the foot.


----------



## Jackie22 (Oct 25, 2015)

Grumpy Ol' Man said:


> Watching Gowdy and Jordan on various Sunday news shows you'd think they indicted, tried, and convicted Secretary Clinton.  It is amazing how some are playing the hearing we saw televised last week.
> 
> The conservative wing of the GOP will divert most of its attention to seeing how much they can control Ryan once he is elected to the Speaker position.  There is an entire host of legislation they want to shove through the House, knowing well most will never make it past the Senate.  If Ryan plays their game, the "non-governing" will continue.
> 
> The FBI has announced there will be no indictments from the IRS investigation.  Benghazi, for all practical purposes, is laid to rest.  The investigation into Secretary Clinton's e-mails will continue and we will probably see at lease one Congressional Committee formed to "investigate" that.  Boehner just announced he is appointing a committee to "investigate" Planned Parenthood.  More taxpayer dollars down the drain.  More partisan politics.  More grandstanding.  More of the Republicans shooting themselves in the foot.



Yes, on my Facebook, many post on how Gowdy really showed the world what a deceitful person Hillary is...lol...people gobble this up, embellish it and pass it on.

You are exactly right on all their shenanigans costing the taxpayer...

Here is an article that shows a break down of the amount of money the Republicans wasted from 2010 to 2014...the total being more than 30 billion.



POSTED ON: http://sheppardpost.com/


----------

