Trump fans: Respond to Khizr Kahn, muslim father who lost his son in Iraq, DEVASTATES Trump at DNC

As we have written, the Obama administration was quick to blame an online anti-Muslim video, which did trigger protests in Egypt and elsewhere, and slow to acknowledge that the heavily armed assault in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. “Hillary Clinton contributed to that false impression even though the State Department and Hillary Clinton seemed to know from the beginning that this was a terrorist attack,” Tapper says.

'Let's move on': Hillary's blithe response after devastating Congress report reveals she lied and lied again about what caused US Ambassador to die in Bengazi

'Let's move on': Hillary's blithe response after devastating Congress report reveals she lied and lied again about what caused US Ambassador to die in Bengazi

independent wrote:

'Let's move on': Hillary's blithe response after devastating Congress report reveals she lied and lied again about what caused US Ambassador to die in Bengazi

'Let's move on': Hillary's blithe response after devastating Congress report reveals she lied and lied again about what caused US Ambassador to die in Bengazi

Congress report showing she lied and lied again?

Despite eyewitness accounts, Clinton, administration pushed video explanation for Benghazi

Trumpster fire wrote:

Hillary never publicly blamed the video for the attack, though it was part of the terrorists' motivations, and I don't vote anywhere near 90% D.

You must have missed these facts posted earlier. Let them sink in.

New State Department documents belatedly provided to the watchdog group Judicial Watch show that Hillary Clinton told different stories as secretary of state to different foreign leaders about a YouTube video that the Obama administration falsely blamed for the Sept. 11, 2012 Benghazi terrorist attacks.

The documents, which Judicial Watch obtained last month, include notes of calls that Clinton had with world leaders after the terrorist attacks.

One set of notes comes from a Sept. 15 telephone call Clinton had with then-Egyptian Foreign Minister Mohamed Amr. During the chat, Clinton referred to the “stupid, very offensive film” as the root cause of the Benghazi violence, which left four Americans dead.

Trumpster fire wrote:

Trumpster fire wrote:

Hillary never publicly blamed the video for the attack, though it was part of the terrorists' motivations, and I don't vote anywhere near 90% D.

You must have missed these facts posted earlier. Let them sink in.

Bump 😊

Independent, do you know what you are? You're a septic annelid. Who do you think you're kidding about Benghazi? Hmm? Who?

Orlando, Florida: 50 Killed

Blacksburg, Virginia: 32 killed

Newtown, Connecticut: 27 killed

Killeen, Texas: 22 Killed

San Ysidro, California: 21 Killed

San Bernardino, California: 14 Killed

Edmond, Oklahoma: 14 Killed

Fort Hood, Texas: 13 Killed

Binghampton, New York: 13 Killed

Aurora, Colorado: 12 Killed

What I like most about freaks like you is that you hype an outside terrorist threat while the NRA and American gun manufacturers have flooded the domestic market with weapons so that any kook can cull innocent Americans any time they want.

Better to live in fear than in a state of siege.

totally logical wrote:

lipstick on a pig wrote:

The one candidate who will do everything in his power to defeat radical islam and keep it out of the country.

What ACTUAL EVIDENCE do you have that Trump is the one candidate who will do everything in his power to defeat radical Islam? The only "evidence" is his rambling promises. "Believe me." Okay, sure.

His proposal to ban people from the middle east, for starters. Right now the logic is to let in millions of middle eastern people into the country even after the crisis that is recking havoc in Europe right now. Its about time we get rid of the do-gooder, almost child like politicians and hire someone who at least recognizes the impending danger of this policy.

maybe it is pandering, but the message is still strong and your analogy is weak. Hillary has not proposed surveillance and exclusion of all black people from our country. You stupid fool.

The De-Colonization issue is now front and center thanks to Sanders and Stein voters.

Travesty wrote:

Americans love fear wrote:

It's the strangest thing. A nation that constantly talks tough, but, is just so insecure and frightened. Americans love to live in fear. How many years did you have your children growing up fearing communism and an impending nuclear war? How did that work out? And now, you want to live your life fearing impending attacks from radical Islam. The USA is the most frightened nation in the world, and that's what Donald Trump Is pandering to and creating. He wants you all to be afraid. Sounds like it's working because that's how all his supporters sound. Insecure and frightened. Always afraid of impending attacks from evil enemies. You really need to let that go, it's no way to live.

Better to live in fear than in a state of siege.

So what are the origins of "Jihad Vs. McWorld", to steal a line from Benjamin Barber? Pretty obviously, petroleum and/or fossil fuel. It's not as if Islam is a legitimate ideological rival to Capitalism. We would never have been over there without an insatiable need for oil.

That's why we overthrew the Democratically elected leader of Iran, Mohamed Mosaddegh (which is why Iran hates us and took over our Embassy in the 1970's) it's why we aided Bin Laden and the pre-Taliban in Afghanistan, in our proxy-War against Russia. The utterly false rationale for our invasion of Iraq (no yellow-cake uranium, no Al-Qaeda connection, Bush's complaint of "he tried to kill my Dad," a good reason for sacrificing 5,000 American lives, right?)

We were there to set up an Arab-oil state friendly to western corporate interests...and it failed massively and gave birth to ISIS.

Meanwhile, Bush and the Vulcan Neo-Cons who made it happen were denying climate science, censoring NASA scientists like Jim Hansen, and refusing to discuss empirical reality.

Evidence of Climate Change continues to mount: the rapid melt of the Greenland Ice-Shelf, the break-up of the western Antarctic Ice-shelf, the last three years-in-a-row the warmest on the historical record, the thawing of permafrost at northern latitudes, which releases methane, a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.

Why is it that right-wing fruit-loops like Disco Gary hype a bunch of Wahabist clowns with AK's as existential threats to the planet when in fact, we are the primary threat to life on planet Earth?, especially with a totalitarian clown in play to win the Presidency, void the Paris climate agreement, and stack the Supreme Court for decades?

Trump calls Climate Change a "Chinese Hoax," but do you know where the 1.37 billion people of China get their drinking water? From several major rivers running off Himalayan glaciers that are presently retreating. Does that mean Obama's agreement with Xi Jinping to reduce CO2 emissions is a hoax (even though the Chinese spent years building new coal-fire plants that contributed to terrible air-quality?) Disco Gary, you thoughtful human being, please weigh in with your ineluctable wisdom, and tell us why it is okay to deny the laws of Physics, which the disciplines of engineering and medicine rely on, as do climatologists (leftist radicals, I suppose) and why it is okay to ignore the entire world (who signed onto the both the Kyoto and the Paris Climate Accords) and why it is okay to ignore peaceful indigenous cultures like the Sami, the Inuit, and the Vilui Sakha, who are losing their homes and way of life to Climate Change.

So it's not really Jihad Vs. McWorld, after all. It's the division in the human mind between self-centered impulses and the common good. It explains why Trump wants more gun-massacres, more climate-change, no civil liberties, and more Putin, which means more state-sponsored doping for the glory of the Russian kleptocracy.

chilhowee wrote:

Independent, do you know what you are? You're a septic annelid. Who do you think you're kidding about Benghazi? Hmm? Who?

Orlando, Florida: 50 Killed

Blacksburg, Virginia: 32 killed

Newtown, Connecticut: 27 killed

Killeen, Texas: 22 Killed

San Ysidro, California: 21 Killed

San Bernardino, California: 14 Killed

Edmond, Oklahoma: 14 Killed

Fort Hood, Texas: 13 Killed

Binghampton, New York: 13 Killed

Aurora, Colorado: 12 Killed

What I like most about freaks like you is that you hype an outside terrorist threat while the NRA and American gun manufacturers have flooded the domestic market with weapons so that any kook can cull innocent Americans any time they want.

You forgot the thousands killed just in south Chicago over the years. Oh, wait, doesn't support you argument. Sorry.

No matter how you feel about this topic, I think everyone can agree on one thing:

Good wiping technique is paramount.....especially in the Summer.

comeonman wrote:

Lol. Nice links! WaPo?! MSNBC?! Newsweek?! Do you ever leave your masters' misinformation bubble? Jeez.

Ok, so here's some opposing links:

(link, link, link, etc)

Sooo.....Good effort with that strong, "badass" finish to your post though. LOLOLOL

1) Wow, you worked in about 4 "LOL's" ! What a strong argument you made! You should be very proud of yourself.

2) as far as my links go:

a) they were the first hits on google. Blame google, not me, for "cherry picking " biased sources (as you suggested I did )

b) Read the damn quotes. Those are some of the top constitutional scholars in the country. I didn't pick editorial opinion pieces from "left-wing" sources. So if you read in a quote from a renowned expert in the NYtimes, let me guess, you just ignore it because of the title of the news-source ??

c) even John Yoo seemed to agree that a faith test for immigration was likely unconstitutional

3) Now your "opposing" links: You have some good ones. Let's look at the very first one, which seems to be an unbiased source (bravo for you). On Trump's proposed Muslim ban-

"Immediately, this political argument led to a constitutional debate. Reputable legal scholars have taken directly opposite positions on the constitutionality of such a ban." And....

"It does seem reasonably clear that, if a proper challenger could be found, the courts very likely would be open to hear their claim. And it would not be a sure thing that they would lose in that forum."

Since you apparently didn't even read your own sources, or understand them, I'll translate it for you-

Many legal scholars think the ban is unconstitutional (which was MY POINT, dummy, I never said "ALL"), and there is a chance that if a proper challenger brought this to court, they would win.

So......THAT is your great rebuttal to my point that

"Except......quite a few legal scholars/experts on constitutional law disagree with (the contention that Trump's proposed ban on Muslims is constitutional) " ?? Seriously?

4) Lastly, your other sources don't contradict me either:

a) 2 says: Trump's ban is *not necessarily* unconstitutional (meaning there is a debate about this)

b) another says it is "POSSIBLE" Trump's ban could get upheld by the court's.

And all sources basically rip the proposal as a bad idea.

So......what the hell was your point? I never said ALL constitutional scholars think the Trump ban proposal is unconstitutional. I just said that "QUITE A FEW" do. And all you did was provide sources that AGREE WITH ME that quite a few do! Outstanding work.

(you probably just skimmed my post and once you saw MSNBC (!!!) and WAPO (omg, omg, omg!!) you hyperventilated so much you just decided to make assumptions about what I wrote instead of actually reading it. And now you look like an idiot. Bang up job!

hogwash. hogwash I tells ya.

The US Pentagon manages logistic/support personnel, attacker ground troops, and Marines. Only 11% are the latter two, So please lay off Trump and Pence since only one of nine Pentagoners ever sacrifice themselves for America

Life time ban wrote:

totally logical wrote:

What ACTUAL EVIDENCE do you have that Trump is the one candidate who will do everything in his power to defeat radical Islam? The only "evidence" is his rambling promises. "Believe me." Okay, sure.

His proposal to ban people from the middle east, for starters. Right now the logic is to let in millions of middle eastern people into the country even after the crisis that is recking havoc in Europe right now. Its about time we get rid of the do-gooder, almost child like politicians and hire someone who at least recognizes the impending danger of this policy.

Haha. Yeah, that's going to work.

Whatever you do, don't read this.