When will the press and the Democratic party wake up and smell the coffee? Do they really not know how this can come back to bite them?

Do they have any idea of how they are screwing up any chance of Hillary becoming the nations first woman president in 2016?

I guess not.

The Benghazi story is not going away.

The president did know about a planned attack BEFORE it happened. And he received the correct intellegence info about the attack soon AFTER it happened.

Hillary asked the Libyan government permission for fly overs BEFORE it happened. The Libyan leadership knew it was coming, so they gave permission for fly overs and for extra security and any other precautions we needed to take to insure the safety of our people... but OUR president said no.

Both Hillary and Obama knew about a planned attack before it happened, and both of them knew why there was an attack after it happened. Both of them KNEW it did not happen because of a protest over a youtube video. They knew from the start this wasn't true, and now we know this wasn't true... so what are they saying about it now?

Artful Dodger: Bush's fault? No, Bush was just the fall guy for someone who came earlier. If you trace it back far enough you will find it was actually FDR's fault... but FDR wasn't acting alone, there were shadowy figures in the background whispering in his ear and telling him what to do.

I would like to know whose brilliant idea it was to blame the Benghazi attack on a youtube video. Was that Obama's idea, or was it someone else who came up with that idea? I wonder who (if anyone) will take "credit" for that one?

By the way, when I said the president was a quick study I meant after the fact. He learns very quickly how bad an idea is after he tries it out, but it appears he still hasn't figured out how to anticipate real world consequences.

Artful Dodger: Remember when Canada was invaded by liberals "escaping" the US when Reagan was first elected? I remember reading a story about a farmer finding a bunch of them sleeping in his field. Our press had already done a fine job of scaring the crap out of those folks, so no one was too surprised by this mass exodus.

In 1984 Reagan carried 49 states and got 58.8 % of the popular vote. Oregon and Washington gave their votes to Reagan that time as well.

It was a landslide RE-election.

Artful Dodger: Here it is Reagan carried 44 states (out of 57) and got 50.7% of the popular vote. Both Oregon and Washington gave their electoral votes to Reagan. Wow. So it IS possible (not impossible) that Oregon could do it again. Only have to wait two more weeks to see what happens.

TGI almost November.

Artful Dodger: This morning I learned my state went from "safe" (electoral votes secure for Obama) to "leaning towards" (Obama). Oregon has always (in my memory) thrown its support to the Democratic candidate. We were one of the few states who supported Carter's re-election. I'm not sure if Washinton was one of those few states or not, but I wouldn't bet against that. I'll have to look this up to be certain of it, but I think only three states gave their electoral votes to Carter. (Carter vs Reagan)

Bwild: Obama looked to me more like an angry sullen student looking at his teacher, but not really listening to him. Every once in a while it seemed like he actually heard what Romney was saying. I could see both of their faces on split screen. When Obama talked his face cycled through the same expressions, angry then concerned then thoughtful then angry etc etc... but sometimes he looked lost, like he forgot where his own narrative was heading.

On split screen, Romney was always looking at Obama like he knew who he was listening to. But when Romney talked it seemed like Obama was trying to drill a hole in Romney with his patented jedi death stare. Romney must have had his shields up though, because Obama's death stare didn't faze him.

The Col: I didn't say "during the three" debates. I was talking about last night's debate. If you were "paying attention" you would have noticed that.

Mitt came prepared for a real debate, and it was obvious Obama thought he would have the same advantage going in that he enjoyed in the first two debates. I understand that you saw something else, I get that. But I don't need you to tell me what I saw or heard because I'm able to do that for myself. So thanks for trying, but no thanks. Me big boy, me can think for myself now. LoL

Bwild: Mitt impressed me right from the start of the debate. He was the first to talk, and Obama wasted no time interrupting him and cutting into Mitts two minute time limit. Mitt wasn't a bit fazed by this, almost as though he was expecting it. He let it go on for a few seconds before "interrupting" the interruption and continued to talk as though nothing had happened. Losing a few seconds of his two minute time limit didn't hurt him, because it served to showed Obama's utter lack of respect and a penchant for breaking the rules. Obama is a quick study, but I think he realised too late that this last debate would be by the book.

Iamon lyme: Correction, I meant to say:

"...is far enough behind him for it to NOT be too great of an embarrassment..."

Artful Dodger: I wonder the same thing. I think he does believe that no one really builds up his own business, because he personally has been propped up and helped along the way. His choice of ideology, party affiliation, church, the city he chose to live in and what state he represented, what he wanted people to think of him when writing his books, etc etc ... even going back to when he first got a social securty card so he could apply for his first job... it shows a clear pattern of how he was able to get things done for himself.

Anyway, the whole truth will eventually come out, but not before his presidency is far enough behind him for it to be too great of an embarassment for the Democratic party. Like say, oh, maybe a hundred years from now?

Artful Dodger: I managed to see most of the debate this time. Romney did better, Obama about the same as last time. I appreciated the fact that in this debate it didn't look as much like a free for all, with the moderator and Obama on one side and Romney on the other. The first two debates were a joke, but tonight's debate looked more like a real debate.

I've become so used to hearing the president lie that it doesn't bother me anymore... I was more interested in hearing what Romney had to say, and watching the expression on Obama's face as Romney was talking.

(V): [ Not around... through. Some of it relates to your certificate. Don't worry, everyone in the civilised world has one. It doesn't make you special!! ]

say what?

[ The Banks.. I can agree with that. ]

Me wasn't talking about "The Banks". You no know what me say?

[ Satan.... You mean our animal nature, or some strange man made construct...]

No, me no mean what you say me say, me mean say what me say me say. You no know what me say by the way? What you know me not say and what you say me say is no same as me say what me say. No, me not buy that... me say you know me not say same as you say me say... so there.

(V): Still trying to run end plays around what I say. Mindset and methodology... most revealing.

(V): [ Yes, they'd be comparing him to Mr Charlie Chaplin ]

Maybe, but I have no doubt that Social Service agencies would investigate to determine whether or not the children should become wards of the state or given to a younger couple.

In India they are being honored. But if they lived in the US, they would undoubtedly be criticised by the same people who try running end plays around parents to gain control of their children. How do I know this? Because I've seen it happen to real people, in real time, and not on some internet page. And in spite of your clever *cough* attempt to make what I say appear to mean something else, the same group of people who attempt to gain access to other people's money are the ones most actively involved in disrupting other people homes and families.

(V): [ Noooooo the oldest dad is non flesh!! ]

I was talking about the world's oldest (currently known) human dad. God can only be our father if we so choose. Jesus made that clear when he told some religious leaders that Satan was their father. Do you need for me to show you where in the Bible it says that?

(V): The worlds oldest dad is not made of wicker. He is a flesh and blood human being, and his wife and two sons are real people too. Can you imagine what might happen if this family lived in the US (or in the UK) and the media got wind of this story?

Artful Dodger: I've suddenly lost my appetite for pumpkin pie.

Artful Dodger: "And what if the scans showed a perfectly healthy baby girl?"

I've been discovered as being liberal, so there's really no point in pretending anymore. And so the answer to your point is a girl is not a woman. Doesn't matter whether she is a baby or a 12 year old girl, a girl is simply a girl... period. Girls are females, they are not women. We respect women, but this does not necessarily mean we respect females.

Only we liberals are able to understand this.

(V): Well played! My straw men salute your straw men.

(V): [ At the moment you and Art are saying you want access to their children, under a law you want. Are you a liberal? ]

Okay (V), ya got me... I am really a liberal posing as a conservative and saying what I think a conservative would say. I managed to fool everyone else, but not you. What tipped you off?

(V): The crime happened in the real world. There was no rape. No rape, no baby. No baby, no abortion. And no one will be able to run an end play around the mother to make the girl do anything, one way or the other.

That's not to say it can't happen. In some places adults not related to a child are legally able to influence and make decisions for that child without a parents knowledge or permission. This means an adult outside the family (not related to the child) could legally have a right traditionally reserved only for the parents, and at the same time not be held responsible for the child or anything the child does. At the same time, and in spite of parental rights slowly eroding away, a parent nevertheless continues to be held fully responsible for their child.

In our country it has not been conservatives who work to run end plays around parents and attempt to gain access to their children. The people who are doing this is the same group of people who attempt to gain access to other peoples money.
In our country, we call them liberals.

(V): Don't you mean to her parent's face? She is 12 years old.

Artful Dodger: I don't know about that, but Cow Ard is a term that aptly describes one of our political parties... the party that fears Islamic terrorism but is fearless in the face of critics who cluster bomb them with words... ouch, that really hurts us Mr Republican, why can't you be nice to us?

Artful Dodger: [ Obama is done. He will lose big in Monday night's debate. ]

Whoa, not so fast... let's not get ahead of ourselves! Obama still has time to pull an October surprise.

For example, he could demand to see Romney's birth certificate. Romney should be ready to show that if he has any hope of holding the highest office in this land... and by "this land" I'm refering only to the US. (Sorry UK and Canada, this is our election, not yours) The presidency is a position of enormous power and responsibility, and can't be taken lightly by any Republican hoping to occupy that position. We can't allow some egghead to simply shmooze his way past the people in charge of making sure this election is on the up and up... we can't just let any smooth talking joker talk his way into power without anything to back up his story... can we?

Artful Dodger: [ ...the pro abortion lobby would still find excuses to kill the unborn. ]

The pro abortion lobby originally insisted it would only be used in cases of rape and incest. Some people didn't believe that and said it would open the door to abortion on demand. Those people were branded by the left as being right wing extremists.

This is how liberals get what they want and continue to get what they want. They lie to get what they want, and then open the door to something worse when they get it. They are doing it now. Just ask yourself, what are the Obama care critics saying, and what are liberals saying about the critics? History is repeating itself.

The Col: [ As Obama said to Romney "continue" ]

Oh no, does this mean my poll numbers will drop like Romney's? LoL



oh no, I'm doomed!

(V): "Show me in the rules where I'm not allowed to include a reply from anyone else on the same topic."

I shouldn't have to quote myself and say that again. But I will, and I did... and you will avoid it again.

In your world you feel sorry for the poor struggling abortionist who can barely make ends meet because fewer women are being raped.

The Col: You clearly read into the story something that wasn't there.

It's not my place to be throwing cold water on anyone's rape fantasies, but the topic had to do with someone defending herself. There was no rape or mention of rape, so speculating over what the straw men of my world would do is meaningless.

Iamon lyme: I meant to say "Your world", not "You're world". At the last second I decided to moderate myself and edited the post before sending, or it would have (not might have) been moderated for me.

(V): [ .. in your world you'd make her have it. ]

You're world is inhabited by straw men who say whatever you want them to say.

(V): [ Dude.. your reply was for the Col... ]

No Dude, it wasn't.. I replied to AD. The reply included The Co's obvious concern over whether a 12 year old girl might have been raped or not. He chose to reply in his usual respectful manner and is simply demonstrating his profound respect for all women... of all ages. Show me in the rules where I'm not allowed to include a reply from anyone else on the same topic.

But since the girl was NOT raped, and there was no mention of that possibility in the story, then there really is no reason to speculate about it or to be throwing cold water on anyones speculation about an abortion that could have happened later. We must respect The Co as well, because he is entitled to his opinion whether anyone agrees with it or not.

Artful Dodger: No one died that day, and no one else will die later because no one was raped. But maybe the guy who broke into her home respects women, and made it a point to bring a condom just in case the opportunity presented itself. Oh well, I guess we will never know what could have happended...

The truth behind this politically charged issue has been uncovered! How should Obama deal with this new information so close to election day?

(V): "I'm looking forward to an honest reply."

[ I've answered your questions but you are not lis-ten-ing. ]

Look again. I did not say I'm looking forward to an honest reply from you.

(V): I can see how that question might be misinterpreted, so I will rephrase it:


1) Why are liberals afraid to offend Islamists?

2) Why are liberals not afraid to offend Christians?


Again, you said "..lets be correct instead of over dramatic."

I'm looking forward to an honest reply.

(V): Why are liberals afraid of offending Islamists but not afraid of offending Christians?

You said "..lets be correct instead of over dramatic." Does that mean I can look forward to seeing an honest answer to the above question?

(V): [ That you are saying those who attacked and do attack are peace loving is contradictory.. ]

No, what I'm saying (the meaning of what I said) is the behavior of liberals is contradictory.

(V): [ .. ok, you say a cross in urine is bad... ]

Didn't say that either.


You said "We make the sign of a cross as a joke.."

So I said "...now I'm supposed to believe liberals feel free to make fun of violent hateful Christians, but fear reprisal from peace loving Islamists? This seems somewhat contradictory in light of what liberals have been saying of both religions."

How hard can it be to respond to what is actually being said?

(V): [ You want special privileges for Christianity here.. ]

Didn't say that.

(V): [ Did you read/see/hear that last bit anywhere? ]

Yes, I did. Did you read/see/hear how our (not your) president lied about what caused the Benghazi attack? I remember seeing something about that at this (the politics) board. My memory is sometimes faulty and I could be wrong, so I will do a word search to see if anyone here mentioned it or not.

(V): So now I'm supposed to believe liberals feel free to make fun of violent hateful Christians, but fear reprisal from peace loving Islamists? This seems somewhat contradictory in light of what liberals have been saying of both religions.

I must have forgotten how different things are for you ... and how different your laws are from ours. *cough* Nevertheless( or alwaysthemore) the ideology and reasoning of liberalism there sounds identical to the liberalism here. This is just an observation, nothing to get defensive about. This isn't a game of dodge ball unless that is what you want it to be.

Artful Dodger: It made me laugh too... brevity is the soul of wit.

Artful Dodger: I see your point.