OT: It's time to move on

[Carbon]

House Benghazi Report Finds No New Evidence of Wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/us/politics/hillary-clinton-benghazi.html

[BobbyK]

Its beginning to fall apart for the GOP. Hillary isn't going to be
prosecuted and is picking up points against the buffoon daily
Its really a shame that the GOP wasn't able to offer a reasonable
person to run for President. We need two strong parties.

[Alan Baker]

Oh ye of little faith.

Have you seen Breitbart's take on the same report:

<http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/28/benghazi-committee-releases-final-report-slams-clinton/>

I think Wired said some intelligent things about this:

<http://www.wired.com/2016/06/benghazi-report-shows-internet-killing-objectivity/>

[Carbon]

I did like this twitter exchange:

David Corn: If I were a right-wing extremist who thought HRC is a
demonic always-lying socialist who covered-up Benghazi, I'd be very
sad today.

Jon Favreau: no you wouldn't, because all your news sources would
still say that a) she's to blame, and b) all other news is biased

[MNMikeW]

Carbon wrote:
> House Benghazi Report Finds No New Evidence of Wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/us/politics/hillary-clinton-benghazi.html

LOL!!! So THEY say. Crooked Hillary fits her to a tee.

[MNMikeW]

David Corn, left wing extremist. And she is to blame. Oh wait, that's
right. This IS the Obama administration after all.

[John B.]

Who's "they"? The committee found no wrongdoing by HRC. Are you
saying they were wrong?

[MNMikeW]

The committee was not looking for wrongdoing by HRC specifically. In
fact, they stated read the report, come to your own conclusion. There
was plenty of wrong doing to go around. It's the lib media that has been
pushing the "no wrong doing by Hillary" meme. As usual.

Then read the Democrats, cough, "report". Where all they did was cover
for Hillary and somehow blamed Trump for things. And these clueless
tools have the gall to bitch about partisanship.

[BobbyK]

Both parties are doing the same thing. I read both reports and what I
see is that there was no possible way to have gotten our troops there
to help. The big SNAFU was between the military and Washington. Even
the Republican report says that I know that you want to see HRC have
to take the rap and be indicted, but it certainly looks like she won't
be.

[MNMikeW]

There was never an indictment on the table for this. No they wouldnt
have gotten there with all the bungling that went on. I'd like to know
who the dumbfuck was that made them change out of their uniforms 4
times. This is a total state dept fuck up. A state dept. run by Hillary.

[Alan Baker]

The state department doesn't control the military, Mikey

[John B.]

The reason the press focused on the "no wrongdoing by Hillary"
angle is that that's what people wanted know. This is a political
issue as well as a foreign policy issue. A finding of culpability
on her part would have had ramifications for the presidential
campaign.

[MNMikeW]

John B. wrote:

>>
>> The committee was not looking for wrongdoing by HRC specifically. In
>> fact, they stated read the report, come to your own conclusion. There
>> was plenty of wrong doing to go around. It's the lib media that has been
>> pushing the "no wrong doing by Hillary" meme. As usual.
>>
>> Then read the Democrats, cough, "report". Where all they did was cover
>> for Hillary and somehow blamed Trump for things. And these clueless
>> tools have the gall to bitch about partisanship.
>
> The reason the press focused on the "no wrongdoing by Hillary"
> angle is that that's what people wanted know. This is a political
> issue as well as a foreign policy issue. A finding of culpability
> on her part would have had ramifications for the presidential
> campaign.

They made it a political issue as soon as they trotted out the video lie.

[Alan Baker]

No.

But we do know the Republicans wanted to use the inquest for political
gain...

...because they admitted it.

[MNMikeW]

Alan Baker wrote:

>>
>> They made it a political issue as soon as they trotted out the video lie.
>
> No.

I'm afraid so wee man.

>
> But we do know the Republicans wanted to use the inquest for political
> gain...
>
> ...because they admitted it.

LOL!!! I will await your left-wing opinion piece that proves this.

[Alan Baker]

On 2016-06-29 2:12 PM, MNMikeW wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
>
>>>
>>> They made it a political issue as soon as they trotted out the video
>>> lie.
>>
>> No.
>
> I'm afraid so wee man.

Nope. That simply doesn't make sense.

>>
>> But we do know the Republicans wanted to use the inquest for political
>> gain...
>>
>> ...because they admitted it.
>
> LOL!!! I will await your left-wing opinion piece that proves this.

I'm sure you'll hate the source, but they are QUOTING:

'In an interview with WIBX 950 in New York on Wednesday, moderate
Republican Rep. Richard Hanna said House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy
was speaking the truth when he said this month that the committee had
successfully injured Clinton.

“Sometimes the biggest sin you can commit in D.C. is to tell the truth,”
Hanna told the upstate New York radio station. “This may not be
politically correct, but I think that there was a big part of this
investigation that was designed to go after people and an individual,
Hillary Clinton.”'

<http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/another-republican-admits-benghazi-panel-political>

And CNN has the same report.

<http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/14/politics/hillary-clinton-benghazi-committee/>

And they're reported here:

<http://www.syracuse.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/10/clinton_campaign_gop_rep_richard_hanna_admits_benghazi_probe_is_political_sham.html>

<http://www.syracuse.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/10/rep_richard_hanna_defends_his_comments_on_hillary_clinton_and_benghazi.html>


And since the only source you'll accept as unbiased appears to be Fox News:

'BILL O'REILLY: If you don't think the Benghazi thing is political, of
course it's political. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't know what
exactly happened, and why the secretary of state was ignorant about the
security problems in Benghazi, Libya. But if you think those guys, those
Republicans on that panel don't want to bring down Hillary Clinton,
you're six-years-old. Because they do. So it is political.'

But tell you what:

You tell me what source you would consider fair and balanced, and I'll
source the quotes from there. You game?

[MNMikeW]

Alan Baker wrote:

>
> Nope. That simply doesn't make sense.

To an idiot like you, yes perhaps.

>
>>>
>>> But we do know the Republicans wanted to use the inquest for political
>>> gain...
>>>
>>> ...because they admitted it.
>>
>> LOL!!! I will await your left-wing opinion piece that proves this.
>
> I'm sure you'll hate the source, but they are QUOTING:
>
>

> <http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/another-republican-admits-benghazi-panel-political>
>
>
> And CNN has the same report.
>
> <http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/14/politics/hillary-clinton-benghazi-committee/>
>
>
> And they're reported here:
>
> <http://www.syracuse.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/10/clinton_campaign_gop_rep_richard_hanna_admits_benghazi_probe_is_political_sham.html>
>
>
> <http://www.syracuse.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/10/rep_richard_hanna_defends_his_comments_on_hillary_clinton_and_benghazi.html>
>
>
>
> And since the only source you'll accept as unbiased appears to be Fox News:
>
> 'BILL O'REILLY: If you don't think the Benghazi thing is political, of
> course it's political. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't know what
> exactly happened, and why the secretary of state was ignorant about the
> security problems in Benghazi, Libya. But if you think those guys, those
> Republicans on that panel don't want to bring down Hillary Clinton,
> you're six-years-old. Because they do. So it is political.'

More opinion.

>
> But tell you what:
>
> You tell me what source you would consider fair and balanced, and I'll
> source the quotes from there. You game?

That is simply hanna's spin on what McCarthy said.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/oct/07/context-what-kevin-mccarthy-said-about-hillary-cli/

[Alan Baker]

No. These are McCarthy's WORDS (and I'll include the context)

'MCCARTHY: No, no. Sean, no, because the courts had put a stay on that.
So there was no funding going towards that. The question I think you
really want to ask me is, how am I going to be different?

HANNITY: I love how you asked my questions. But go ahead, that is one of
my questions. Go right ahead.

MCCARTHY: I knew you'd want to ask it. What you're going to see is a
conservative speaker that takes a conservative congress that puts a
strategy to fight and win.

And let me give you one example. Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was
unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a
select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping.'

<http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2015/09/29/rubio-cruz-talk-foreign-policy-govt-shutdown-mccarthy-on-how-differs-from/>

So McCarthy talks about how he's going to create a "strategy to fight
and win" as the Republican speaker of a Republican controlled congress...

...and then gives you an explicit example of such a strategy in action:
attacking Hillary Clinton via the Benghazi committee.

It's black letter, Mikey.

"As speaker, I'm going to put together a political strategy to fight and
win, and as an example, look at the Benghazi committee".

What you hate about this isn't that "the left" has twisted what he said,
but that you cannot simply admit the plain truth.

[MNMikeW]

Alan Baker wrote:

>>
>> That is simply hanna's spin on what McCarthy said.
>>
>> http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/oct/07/context-what-kevin-mccarthy-said-about-hillary-cli/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> No. These are McCarthy's WORDS (and I'll include the context)
>
> 'MCCARTHY: No, no. Sean, no, because the courts had put a stay on that.
> So there was no funding going towards that. The question I think you
> really want to ask me is, how am I going to be different?
>
> HANNITY: I love how you asked my questions. But go ahead, that is one of
> my questions. Go right ahead.
>
> MCCARTHY: I knew you'd want to ask it. What you're going to see is a
> conservative speaker that takes a conservative congress that puts a
> strategy to fight and win.
>
> And let me give you one example. Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was
> unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a
> select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping.'
>
> <http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2015/09/29/rubio-cruz-talk-foreign-policy-govt-shutdown-mccarthy-on-how-differs-from/>
>

So, why did you snip it after Her numbers are dropping?

"And let me give you one example. Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was
unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a
select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping.

Why? Because she's un-trustable. But no one would have known any of that
had happened had we not fought and made that happen"

[Alan Baker]

Because it isn't relevant.

He gave the Benghazi special committee up as an example of a political

strategy to fight and win.

That's the important part. Paraphrased:

"An example of our strategy to fight and win in the Benghazi special
committee."

Sorry, but that is a true reading of what he said.

[MNMikeW]

Alan Baker wrote:


>>>
>>> <http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2015/09/29/rubio-cruz-talk-foreign-policy-govt-shutdown-mccarthy-on-how-differs-from/>

>> So, why did you snip it after Her numbers are dropping?
>>
>> "And let me give you one example. Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was
>> unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a
>> select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping.
>> Why? Because she's un-trustable. But no one would have known any of that
>> had happened had we not fought and made that happen"

>
> Because it isn't relevant.

It is actually, but you are too much of a fraud to actually put in all
the context.

>
> He gave the Benghazi special committee up as an example of a political
> strategy to fight and win.
>
> That's the important part. Paraphrased:
>
> "An example of our strategy to fight and win in the Benghazi special
> committee."
>
> Sorry, but that is a true reading of what he said.

No, it is just your sorry spin on it.

[Alan Baker]

No. Those are HIS WORDS.

Let me shorten it for you:

'What you're going to see is a conservative speaker that takes a
conservative congress that puts a strategy to fight and win.

And let me give you one example. Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was
unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a

select committee.'

How am I spinning anything?

Strategy followed by example of strategy; connected by the word "AND"
for crissakes.

Explain what his meaning was for us, please.

[MNMikeW]

Why do you keep snipping this?
"What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping.Why? Because she's

[Michael]

"MNMikeW" wrote in message news:nl1is0$1t21$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

Why are you enabling this jerk? The idiot has no skin in this game.....he's
not from this country. What HRC did or didn't do, did not affect him or his
country in any way. The jerk is simply trolling for attention....and you are
enabling him. The DLS, that is.

107,000+ trolls.....and climbing. Some life accomplishment, eh? He must
thank God every day for his inheritances and his future inheritance.
Without them, the jerk would be living in a homeless shelter. As it is,
he's probably on the Canadian dole.

[Alan Baker]

Why is it relevant?

Explain how McCarthy's statement about political and how the Benghazi
committee is an example of that strategy can mean anything else.

[Alan Baker]

Wow.

Wrong as always.

What happens in the US affects Canada HUGELY.

[Moderate]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

>
> Wow.
>
> Wrong as always.
>
> What happens in the US affects Canada HUGELY.

Absolutely Canada is the zit on America's ass.

[Alan Baker]

LOL

Actually, Canada is the United States largest trading partner.

[BobbyK]

Her numbers are getting bigger in the polls. She's picked up about
half a dozen on average vs.Trump and that's what counts

[Carbon]

Exactly.

[Alan Baker]

What Mikey has now clearly run from is that that:

I stated that Republicans had admitted that they wanted to use Benghazi
for political purposes.

He challenged that.

I provided a quote from McCarthy that said PRECISELY what I claimed...

...and then he wanted to move the goalposts.

:-)

[BobbyK]

On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 18:15:21 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@nomail.com>
wrote:

No, the likes of you are out zits.

[Michael]

"BobbyK" wrote in message
news:6bo8nbh6trvmifbq0...@4ax.com...

Sorry to disappoint you. Her lead is steadily shrinking.

It's a good thing you don't have two nickels to rub together. We all can
contribute to your life style, if she is elected.

[Carbon]

Mike, the whole point of the campaign was to make her seem less
trustworthy to voters.

Not that it matters. You have Republicans on the record, on Fox News no
less, admitting that the Benghazi committee was politically motivated.

And then, predictably, they came up with nothing.

Give it up. It's over.

[Alan Baker]

Cite please...

>
> It's a good thing you don't have two nickels to rub together. We all
> can contribute to your life style, if she is elected.

And you have so much, do you?

LOL

[Alan Baker]

On 2016-06-29 5:35 PM, Michael wrote:
>
>

Oh, and facts:

<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html>

Every single poll listed has Clinton leading and the aggregate data has
Clinton's lead growing over the last month.

[Moderate]

BobbyK <bkn...@Conramp.net> Wrote in message:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 18:15:21 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <.

>>
>>Absolutely Canada is the zit on America's ass.
>
> No, the likes of you are out zits.
>

Baker Junior right on cue. You two buddies are like twins.
--

[BobbyK]

On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 20:38:10 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@nomail.com>
wrote:

>BobbyK <bkn...@Conramp.net> Wrote in message:
>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 18:15:21 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <.
>>>
>>>Absolutely Canada is the zit on America's ass.
>>
>> No, the likes of you are out zits.
>>
>

>Biaker Junior right on cue. You two buddies are like twins.

Although Alan is a pain in the ass with his nitpicking and trolling,
he's far above you in intelligence and proves it on a regular basis.
Alan, John B., Greg, Carbon and I have no problem making you the fool.
The wonderful thing is that you don't know what you don't know, and
blithely go on making the ubiquitous gaffes. Look up Dunning–Kruger
in the dictionary and you may find your picture there.

You would do well to back off your inane political statements, but
then RSG can use the comedy.

[Dene]

"MNMikeW" wrote in message news:nl1is0$1t21$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

- show quoted text -

Why are you enabling this jerk? The idiot has no skin in this game.....he's
not from this country. What HRC did or didn't do, did not affect him or his
country in any way. The jerk is simply trolling for attention....and you are
enabling him. The DLS, that is.

107,000+ trolls.....and climbing. Some life accomplishment, eh? He must
thank God every day for his inheritances and his future inheritance.
Without them, the jerk would be living in a homeless shelter. As it is,
he's probably on the Canadian dole.

---------------

Ya know Mikey....he's right! You cannot have an honest discussion with this troll.

Greg

[Alan Baker]

We had an honest discussion...

...or at least we did until Mikey denied the obvious truth.

I claimed the Republicans had admitted to using the Benghazi committee
for political purposes.

Mikey wanted proof.

I gave him absolute proof in the form of McCarthy admitting that the
Benghazi committee was an example of Republican political strategy.

He suddenly and dishonestly wanted to discuss anything but that fact.

:-)

[Moderate]

Your liberal group think is tragic. You fall in like like little
robots. I could not melt an original thought and pour it on any
of you.
--

[Alan Baker]

You're right.

To do that, you'd first need to HAVE an original thought.

[Carbon]

On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 21:33:41 -0500, Moderate wrote:
> BobbyK <bkn...@Conramp.net> Wrote in message:
>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 20:38:10 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@nomail.com>
>> wrote:
>>.
>>> Biaker Junior right on cue. You two buddies are like twins.
>>
>> Although Alan is a pain in the ass with his nitpicking and trolling,
>> he's far above you in intelligence and proves it on a regular basis.
>> Alan, John B., Greg, Carbon and I have no problem making you the fool.
>> The wonderful thing is that you don't know what you don't know, and

>> blithely go on making the ubiquitous gaffes. Look up Dunning-Kruger

>> in the dictionary and you may find your picture there.
>>
>> You would do well to back off your inane political statements, but then
>> RSG can use the comedy.
>
> Your liberal group think is tragic. You fall in like like little robots.
> I could not melt an original thought and pour it on any of you.

Oh right, group think... https://goo.gl/vop2qL

[BobbyK]

On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 19:43:49 -0700, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:

>On 2016-06-29 7:33 PM, Moderate wrote:
>> BobbyK <bkn...@Conramp.net> Wrote in message:
>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 20:38:10 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@nomail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Biaker Junior right on cue. You two buddies are like twins.
>>>
>>> Although Alan is a pain in the ass with his nitpicking and trolling,
>>> he's far above you in intelligence and proves it on a regular basis.
>>> Alan, John B., Greg, Carbon and I have no problem making you the fool.
>>> The wonderful thing is that you don't know what you don't know, and

>>> blithely go on making the ubiquitous gaffes. Look up Dunning訪ruger

>>> in the dictionary and you may find your picture there.
>>>
>>> You would do well to back off your inane political statements, but
>>> then RSG can use the comedy.
>>>
>>
>> Your liberal group think is tragic. You fall in like like little
>> robots. I could not melt an original thought and pour it on any
>> of you.
>>
>You're right.
>To do that, you'd first need to HAVE an original thought.

Messrs Kruger and Dunning are doing high fives.

[Moderate]

BobbyK <bkn...@Conramp.net> Wrote in message:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 19:43:49 -0700, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On 2016-06-29 7:33 PM, Moderate wrote:

>>>
>>> Your liberal group think is tragic. You fall in like like little
>>> robots. I could not melt an original thought and pour it on any
>>> of you.
>>>
>>You're right.
>>To do that, you'd first need to HAVE an original thought.
>
> Messrs Kruger and Dunning are doing high fives.
>

The twins can't have an original thought. Nailed it.
--

[Alan Baker]

Nailed WHAT?

Tell me how you're Obamacare uninsured thing worked out for you?

Or your cost of the Iraq war thing?

[MNMikeW]

Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2016-06-29 7:15 PM, Dene wrote:
>>
>>
>> "MNMikeW" wrote in message news:nl1is0$1t21$1...@gioia.aioe.org...
>> - show quoted text -
>> Why are you enabling this jerk? The idiot has no skin in this
>> game.....he's
>> not from this country. What HRC did or didn't do, did not affect him
>> or his
>> country in any way. The jerk is simply trolling for attention....and
>> you are
>> enabling him. The DLS, that is.
>>
>> 107,000+ trolls.....and climbing. Some life accomplishment, eh? He must
>> thank God every day for his inheritances and his future inheritance.
>> Without them, the jerk would be living in a homeless shelter. As it is,
>> he's probably on the Canadian dole.
>>
>> ---------------
>>
>> Ya know Mikey....he's right! You cannot have an honest discussion with
>> this troll.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>
> We had an honest discussion...
>
> ...or at least we did until Mikey denied the obvious truth.
>
> I claimed the Republicans had admitted to using the Benghazi committee
> for political purposes.

No, ONE republican made a statement that was twisted by you to support
your idiotic claim.

>
> Mikey wanted proof.
>
> I gave him absolute proof in the form of McCarthy admitting that the
> Benghazi committee was an example of Republican political strategy.
>
> He suddenly and dishonestly wanted to discuss anything but that fact.
>
> :-)

You mean like you dishonelsty keep snipping out the context liarboy? You
truly are a pathetic cunt.

[MNMikeW]

Alan Baker wrote:

>>
>> Why do you keep snipping this?
>> "What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping.Why? Because she's
>> un-trustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened had
>> we not fought and made that happen"
>
> Why is it relevant?
>
> Explain how McCarthy's statement about political and how the Benghazi
> committee is an example of that strategy can mean anything else.

You have a vivid imagination, LOL!!

[MNMikeW]

Alan Baker wrote:

>>> Why do you keep snipping this?
>>> "What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping.Why? Because she's
>>> un-trustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened had
>>> we not fought and made that happen"
>>
>> Her numbers are getting bigger in the polls. She's picked up about
>> half a dozen on average vs.Trump and that's what counts
>>
>
> What Mikey has now clearly run from is that that:
>
> I stated that Republicans had admitted that they wanted to use Benghazi
> for political purposes.

They didnt.

>
> He challenged that.
>
> I provided a quote from McCarthy that said PRECISELY what I claimed...
>
> ...and then he wanted to move the goalposts.
>

A snipped quote liarboy.

[MNMikeW]

Carbon wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 17:42:10 -0500, MNMikeW wrote:
>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>
>>> No. Those are HIS WORDS.
>>>
>>> Let me shorten it for you:
>>>
>>> 'What you're going to see is a conservative speaker that takes a
>>> conservative congress that puts a strategy to fight and win.
>>>
>>> And let me give you one example. Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was
>>> unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a
>>> select committee.'
>>>
>>> How am I spinning anything?
>>
>> Why do you keep snipping this? "What are her numbers today? Her numbers
>> are dropping.Why? Because she's un-trustable. But no one would have
>> known any of that had happened had we not fought and made that happen"
>
> Mike, the whole point of the campaign was to make her seem less
> trustworthy to voters.

No, the whole point was to find out who masterminded this fuck up.
During the investigation, is when it was found out that Hillary is a
lying and untrustworthy.

>
> Not that it matters. You have Republicans on the record, on Fox News no
> less, admitting that the Benghazi committee was politically motivated.

Admitting, lol. You and the Baker idiot are quite the pair.

>
> And then, predictably, they came up with nothing.
>
> Give it up. It's over.

With this crooked administration, yes it probably is.

[John B.]

On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 6:13:40 PM UTC-4, MNMikeW wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
>
> >>

> >> That is simply hanna's spin on what McCarthy said.
> >>
> >> http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/oct/07/context-what-kevin-mccarthy-said-about-hillary-cli/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > No. These are McCarthy's WORDS (and I'll include the context)
> >
> > 'MCCARTHY: No, no. Sean, no, because the courts had put a stay on that.
> > So there was no funding going towards that. The question I think you
> > really want to ask me is, how am I going to be different?
> >
> > HANNITY: I love how you asked my questions. But go ahead, that is one of
> > my questions. Go right ahead.
> >
> > MCCARTHY: I knew you'd want to ask it. What you're going to see is a

> > conservative speaker that takes a conservative congress that puts a
> > strategy to fight and win.
> >
> > And let me give you one example. Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was
> > unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a

> > select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping.'

> >
> > <http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2015/09/29/rubio-cruz-talk-foreign-policy-govt-shutdown-mccarthy-on-how-differs-from/>
> >
>
> So, why did you snip it after Her numbers are dropping?
>

> "And let me give you one example. Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was
> unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a

> select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping.

> Why? Because she's un-trustable. But no one would have known any of that
> had happened had we not fought and made that happen"

CNN says today that her numbers against Trump are going up, and his down.

[Alan Baker]

No, actually.

There were two different republicans I quoted in the original post.

And the one we've focused on said CLEARLY that the Benghazi committee
was an example of Republican strategy to fight and win. No twisting at
all was necessary.

>>
>> Mikey wanted proof.
>>
>> I gave him absolute proof in the form of McCarthy admitting that the
>> Benghazi committee was an example of Republican political strategy.
>>
>> He suddenly and dishonestly wanted to discuss anything but that fact.
>>
>> :-)
>
> You mean like you dishonelsty keep snipping out the context liarboy? You
> truly are a pathetic cunt.

LOL!

How did the context take away from the central proof, Mikey?


>

[Alan Baker]

So no explanation.

I thought as much.

:-)

[Alan Baker]

On 2016-06-30 6:57 AM, MNMikeW wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
>
>>>> Why do you keep snipping this?
>>>> "What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping.Why? Because
>>>> she's
>>>> un-trustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened had
>>>> we not fought and made that happen"
>>>
>>> Her numbers are getting bigger in the polls. She's picked up about
>>> half a dozen on average vs.Trump and that's what counts
>>>
>>
>> What Mikey has now clearly run from is that that:
>>
>> I stated that Republicans had admitted that they wanted to use Benghazi
>> for political purposes.
>
> They didnt.

They really did.

"strategy to fight and win" "And an example... ...Benghazi"

>
>
>>
>> He challenged that.
>>
>> I provided a quote from McCarthy that said PRECISELY what I claimed...
>>
>> ...and then he wanted to move the goalposts.
>>
>
> A snipped quote liarboy.
>

LOL

[Alan Baker]

On 2016-06-30 7:02 AM, MNMikeW wrote:
> Carbon wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 17:42:10 -0500, MNMikeW wrote:
>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>
>>>> No. Those are HIS WORDS.
>>>>
>>>> Let me shorten it for you:
>>>>
>>>> 'What you're going to see is a conservative speaker that takes a
>>>> conservative congress that puts a strategy to fight and win.
>>>>
>>>> And let me give you one example. Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was
>>>> unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a
>>>> select committee.'
>>>>
>>>> How am I spinning anything?
>>>
>>> Why do you keep snipping this? "What are her numbers today? Her numbers
>>> are dropping.Why? Because she's un-trustable. But no one would have
>>> known any of that had happened had we not fought and made that happen"
>>
>> Mike, the whole point of the campaign was to make her seem less
>> trustworthy to voters.
>
> No, the whole point was to find out who masterminded this fuck up.
> During the investigation, is when it was found out that Hillary is a
> lying and untrustworthy.

No. He claimed it was an example of their "strategy to fight and win"
that the committee was even formed.

[Moderate]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

It worked out as I suspected it would. One idiot convinced the
other idiots I was wrong simply by saying I was wrong.

--

[Michael]

"MNMikeW" wrote in message news:nl38ee$bs1$3...@gioia.aioe.org...

It looks like the Dumb Little Shit is in his glory on this thread. With all
that babbling, raving, hand waving, red herrings, goalpost moves and what he
thinks are clever remarks. What better way to fill in time when you don't
have a job?

You are a true friend in enabling him.

[John B.]

On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 9:57:53 AM UTC-4, MNMikeW wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
>
> >>> Why do you keep snipping this?
> >>> "What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping.Why? Because she's
> >>> un-trustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened had
> >>> we not fought and made that happen"
> >>
> >> Her numbers are getting bigger in the polls. She's picked up about
> >> half a dozen on average vs.Trump and that's what counts
> >>
> >
> > What Mikey has now clearly run from is that that:
> >
> > I stated that Republicans had admitted that they wanted to use Benghazi
> > for political purposes.
>

> They didn't.

Whether they admitted it or not, "getting" Hillary was certainly
a large part of the motivation for the committee investigation. If
it makes you feel any better, if it had been a Democratic investigation
of a GOP presidential candidate, it would have been just as
politicized.

[BobbyK]

On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 12:17:08 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@nomail.com>
wrote:

Simply with cites and quotes proving you were wrong....as has been the
case often. Because you definitely have the Dunning-Kruger syndrome
you just can't recognize that.

[Alan Baker]

No. Actually.

Your "facts" were debunked thoroughly.

Specifically, in the case of the percentage of uninsured, I showed you
that the current figures were lower than your out of date figures and
lower than the beginning numbers you cited and from precisely the same
source as you used, hence you cannot whine about the source.

[Alan Baker]

I haven't moved the goalposts at all, Michael...

...but Mikey tried.

[Moderate]

BobbyK <bkn...@Conramp.net> Wrote in message:

What cites?
--

[BobbyK]

On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 14:25:41 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@nomail.com>

wrote:

>BobbyK <bkn...@Conramp.net> Wrote in message:
>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 12:17:08 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@nomail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>It worked out as I suspected it would. One idiot convinced the
>>> other idiots I was wrong simply by saying I was wrong.
>>
>> Simply with cites and quotes proving you were wrong....as has been the
>> case often. Because you definitely have the Dunning-Kruger syndrome
>> you just can't recognize that.
>>
>
>What cites?

The ones that you didn't read, or disbelieved because of your
syndrome. Seek help.

[Alan Baker]

And they did most explicitly admit to it.

McCarthy called it "an example" of the strategy that we would bring to
"fight and win" if he were chosen as leader.

[MNMikeW]

Alan Baker wrote:

>>
>
> And they did most explicitly admit to it.
>
> McCarthy called it "an example" of the strategy that we would bring to
> "fight and win" if he were chosen as leader.
>

Funny how it's suddenly no longer a political strategy, LOL! Fraud!

[Alan Baker]

It is a political strategy, Mikey. It is obvious to everyone that he was
talking about political strategy.

[Moderate]

BobbyK <bkn...@Conramp.net> Wrote in message:
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 14:25:41 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@nomail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>BobbyK <bkn...@Conramp.net> Wrote in message:
>>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 12:17:08 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@nomail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>It worked out as I suspected it would. One idiot convinced the
>>>> other idiots I was wrong simply by saying I was wrong.
>>>
>>> Simply with cites and quotes proving you were wrong....as has been the
>>> case often. Because you definitely have the Dunning-Kruger syndrome
>>> you just can't recognize that.
>>>
>>
>>What cites?
>
> The ones that you didn't read, or disbelieved because of your
> syndrome. Seek help.

So none.


--

[Alan Baker]

On 2016-06-30 3:34 PM, Moderate wrote:
> BobbyK <bkn...@Conramp.net> Wrote in message:
>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 14:25:41 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@nomail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> BobbyK <bkn...@Conramp.net> Wrote in message:
>>>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 12:17:08 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@nomail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It worked out as I suspected it would. One idiot convinced the
>>>>> other idiots I was wrong simply by saying I was wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Simply with cites and quotes proving you were wrong....as has been the
>>>> case often. Because you definitely have the Dunning-Kruger syndrome
>>>> you just can't recognize that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What cites?
>>
>> The ones that you didn't read, or disbelieved because of your
>> syndrome. Seek help.
>
> So none.
>
>

Sorry, but you were given specific cites, and in each case they
disproved your claims.

[Moderate]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

Where are the cites you posted?
--

[BobbyK]

On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 17:34:28 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@nomail.com>

wrote:

>BobbyK <bkn...@Conramp.net> Wrote in message:
>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 14:25:41 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@nomail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>BobbyK <bkn...@Conramp.net> Wrote in message:
>>>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 12:17:08 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@nomail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>It worked out as I suspected it would. One idiot convinced the
>>>>> other idiots I was wrong simply by saying I was wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Simply with cites and quotes proving you were wrong....as has been the
>>>> case often. Because you definitely have the Dunning-Kruger syndrome
>>>> you just can't recognize that.
>>>>
>>>
>>>What cites?
>>
>> The ones that you didn't read, or disbelieved because of your
>> syndrome. Seek help.
>
>So none.

I'll give you a response that you'll recognize since you have used it
more often than anyone.

It was posted several times. Look it up yourself.

We aren't your secretaries.

[Alan Baker]

Seriously?

In this message: <nl1ktr$l66$1...@news.datemas.de>

I gave you this link:

<http://www.gallup.com/poll/190484/uninsured-rate-lowest-eight-year-trend.aspx>

... which showed far more current information about uninsured rates than
the link you provided from the same organization.

Game, set and match:

You made a claim.

You tried (at least for a change) to provide a cite that proved your claim.

I provided post that included cite that showed you were full of it...
...again.

Not surprisingly, you never replied to that post.

Sorry, but that's how it went down.

[Moderate]

So none from you or your boyfriend.

Seems like it was just last year that you started a campaign to
ban anyone from replying to Baker's posts.

Now you two are just a couple of cocktails away from blowing each
other.
--

[BobbyK]

On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 18:24:01 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@nomail.com>

wrote:

>BobbyK <bkn...@Conramp.net> Wrote in message:
>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 17:34:28 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@nomail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>So none.
>
>> I'll give you a response that you'll recognize since you have used it
>> more often than anyone.
>>
>> It was posted several times. Look it up yourself.
>>
>> We aren't your secretaries.
>>
>
>So none from you or your boyfriend.
>
>Seems like it was just last year that you started a campaign to
> ban anyone from replying to Baker's posts.
>
>Now you two are just a couple of cocktails away from blowing each
> other.

When Alan's right, he's right. When you are wrong it's expected.

[Carbon]

On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 09:34:43 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2016-06-30 7:02 AM, MNMikeW wrote:
>> Carbon wrote:
>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 17:42:10 -0500, MNMikeW wrote:
>>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> No. Those are HIS WORDS.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me shorten it for you:
>>>>>
>>>>> 'What you're going to see is a conservative speaker that takes a
>>>>> conservative congress that puts a strategy to fight and win.
>>>>>
>>>>> And let me give you one example. Everybody thought Hillary Clinton
>>>>> was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special
>>>>> committee, a select committee.'
>>>>>
>>>>> How am I spinning anything?
>>>>
>>>> Why do you keep snipping this? "What are her numbers today? Her
>>>> numbers are dropping.Why? Because she's un-trustable. But no one
>>>> would have known any of that had happened had we not fought and made
>>>> that happen"
>>>
>>> Mike, the whole point of the campaign was to make her seem less
>>> trustworthy to voters.
>>
>> No, the whole point was to find out who masterminded this fuck up.
>> During the investigation, is when it was found out that Hillary is a
>> lying and untrustworthy.
>
> No. He claimed it was an example of their "strategy to fight and win"
> that the committee was even formed.

Mike. This is an actual statement. From a Republican. On Fox. Gowdy didn't
come up with enough for an indictment. It's dead.

[Carbon]

A trend that will continue going into the election. By the time November
goes around a big percentage of Republicans are going to be good and sick
of Trump.

[Moderate]

Missed that cite.

1. What percentage of the increase was employer based insurance
and what percentage was Obamacare?

2. Are you and BK going out for drinks later? I am pretty sure he
is buying.


--

[Carbon]

Do you honestly think your bullshit fools anybody?

[Carbon]

On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 08:57:51 -0500, MNMikeW wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
>>

>>>> Why do you keep snipping this? "What are her numbers today? Her
>>>> numbers are dropping.Why? Because she's un-trustable. But no one

>>>> would have known any of that had happened had we not fought and made
>>>> that happen"
>>>

>>> Her numbers are getting bigger in the polls. She's picked up about
>>> half a dozen on average vs.Trump and that's what counts
>>
>> What Mikey has now clearly run from is that that:
>>
>> I stated that Republicans had admitted that they wanted to use Benghazi
>> for political purposes.
>

> They didnt.

Can you not read?

[Carbon]

Mike. Jesus. Of COURSE it was a political strategy. That much was
blindingly obvious from the start. If it makes you feel any better, I have
no problem imagining the Democrats pulling the same kind of crap.

[Alan Baker]

On 2016-06-30 4:24 PM, Moderate wrote:
> BobbyK <bkn...@Conramp.net> Wrote in message:
>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 17:34:28 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@nomail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> So none.
>
>> I'll give you a response that you'll recognize since you have used it
>> more often than anyone.
>>
>> It was posted several times. Look it up yourself.
>>
>> We aren't your secretaries.
>>
>
> So none from you or your boyfriend.

So you've just deliberately lied...

...or have you not read my last post on this subject?

[Alan Baker]

Sure you did.

>
> 1. What percentage of the increase was employer based insurance
> and what percentage was Obamacare?

Better question: will you admit you were wrong?

[Alan Baker]

For the record, neither do I.

But to pretend that McCarthy was talking about something other than a
political strategy when he said about his hoped-for role as speaker that
they would "fight and win" is just ludicrous...

...and Mikey knows that too.

[Moderate]

How is that a better question? My point was, and has been that
Obamacare is unsustainable.

My cite was outdated, but even the more recent poll shows that
employer based healthcare is by far the most significant reason
fewer people are without healthcare.

>> 2. Are you and BK going out for drinks later? I am pretty sure he
>> is buying.

--

[Alan Baker]

On 2016-06-30 7:01 PM, Moderate wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>> On 2016-06-30 5:04 PM, Moderate wrote:
>>>
>>> Missed that cite.
>>
>> Sure you did.
>>
>>>
>>> 1. What percentage of the increase was employer based insurance
>>> and what percentage was Obamacare?
>>
>> Better question: will you admit you were wrong?
>
> How is that a better question? My point was, and has been that
> Obamacare is unsustainable.

But the "proof" you offered was wrong.

Why not simply admit it: you were bested... ...again.

:-)

>
> My cite was outdated, but even the more recent poll shows that
> employer based healthcare is by far the most significant reason
> fewer people are without healthcare.

And now the goalpost shift!

[MNMikeW]

Your fantasy life is as rich as Bakers.

[MNMikeW]

Carbon wrote:

>>>> trustworthy to voters.
>>>
>>> No, the whole point was to find out who masterminded this fuck up.
>>> During the investigation, is when it was found out that Hillary is a
>>> lying and untrustworthy.
>>
>> No. He claimed it was an example of their "strategy to fight and win"
>> that the committee was even formed.
>
> Mike. This is an actual statement. From a Republican. On Fox. Gowdy didn't
> come up with enough for an indictment. It's dead.

Gowdy was not conducting a criminal probe.

[Carbon]

On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 09:02:43 -0500, MNMikeW wrote:
> Carbon wrote:
>
>> Mike. This is an actual statement. From a Republican. On Fox. Gowdy
>> didn't come up with enough for an indictment. It's dead.
>
> Gowdy was not conducting a criminal probe.

...and now the alleged criminal probe is done.

[Carbon]

Soo, how about that indictment?