It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Lies,Lies, and Damn lies: Obama blames Benghazi on Congress

page: 12
51
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
1.) Could the Benghazi murders be avoided?

No. Because America does not control the terrorists, nor does the Libyan govt.


2. ) If America had opted out of UN resolution to wage war upon Gaddafi, would the ambassador's life be saved?

No. Radical militants will always blame USA either for helping or NOT helping, and targetting america, as it is the most powerful nation on Earth. Challenge the top, and those below will bow. Terrorists are only animals and think like animats that they are.


3.) Is Congress to be blamed for the continued farce about Benghazi when the country has more CRITICAL issues to resolve?

Most definately. It's a hell of a time to get moving on. Focus on finding the murderers, not trying to hope for a scandal to tear down the presidency whom was elected by the Majority. There are far more PRESSING issues upon americans, than an event that had already occured and can no longer be changed.

I can understand the extremist Tea party whom will put President Obama on the rack if he so much as accidently took a pen from a student seeking autographs when suddenly he had to attend to a major incident, with that pen.

'It's the principle, not the value' - the extremist Tea party will rant, and Republican join in as they are a vote bank and the opposition. Only human nature at work.

But the republicans CANNOT BE FORGIVEN if it continues on this destructive egoistical path to destroy the opposition - democrats, when there are far more critical issues to be resolved such as the economy and social expenditure to put every american back on his/her feet.

Elected representatives have an obligation to its elected and the majority of the american people, not to the party alone.

The Tea party are extremists and are only idiots well known by the majority. The Tea party hates the President and will do anything, even lie through their mouth to fool others, if it can get President Obama off his seat. This INSANITY has got to end. Tea party members are americans too, and need not go down this destructive path, out of petty emotions when the nation needs everyone to work together to resolve for more bigger issues than personal petty ones.


No wonder you're still seeking the truth, as you fail to see it when it's right in front of your nose.

It's been admitted to, by people who hold the State Dept's purse strings, that funding was not the reason for not increasing the size of the embassy security detail. Who refused to increase that detail, several times over? Not republicans. Who refused to sent help during the attack? Not republicans. Who completely rewrote the CIA's assessment of the attack to put blame on a video? Not republicans.

Face it. All you seek is to hate Republicans, especially the Tea Party, for all YOUR ills. Your desire to increase 'social expenditures' tells us that you're one of the lazy ones that want the government to pay your way thought life.

Maybe you can live with a President that lies while Americans die. Most of the rest of us can't.




posted on May, 17 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 



We were not prepared for defending the ambassador in Benghazi, even though:



1.We knew AQ was there.


Is it Al Qaeda or Ansar al-Sharia? You all do get those two groups confused. They are completely different groups.


2. We knew there were protests in other countries.


Oh
there were protests in the middle east? OMFG! That's unprecedented! Alert the news media!
There are demonstrations and protests in middle eastern countries nearly every day.


3. We knew that Sept. 11th should be a day of increased security


Shoulda, coulda, woulda. Hindsight is 20/20


Put those all together and what would you do?????


I don't know, seems to me that the video sparked protests. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. I don't know. Without all the facts (and god knows Conservatives cant be trusted with reliable facts, for gods sake most of you still think that Obama was born in Kenya, is the anti-christ, is simultaneously fascist and socialist somehow, and is secretly a Muslim.) There's a number of things that could and maybe should have went differently.

Did things go wrong? Obviously.

Is it deserving of the hate and accusations spewed out in this thread? No.

The way you guys are acting, it makes it sound like you all believe that Obama personally sent whatever militant group into the embassy himself and was personally there to shoot the Ambassador.

The rage is just a little over the top.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by cholo
reply to post by neo96
 


Seems to be pretty convienent that the GOP cuts funding to security and then uses a lack of security as a reason to hammer Obama.

That sounds like they designed the entire strategy.


Epic fail.

How many times has it been testified to, by members of the State Dept., that funding was not an issue?

Designing strategies? This was a gunrunning operation. 'Fast and Furious' on steroids. It's been widely reported that Chris Stevens met with a Turkish diplomat on the day he died. He met to negotiate a weapons transfer to a Turkish freighter for distribution to Syrian rebels.

Chris Stevens, as we know, was appointed by Obama. Hillary Clinton was always quite outspoken that America should arm the Syrian rebels.

Who designed what?



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
Not true.

Anyone that has ever been involved with military actions, knows that is not true.

A QRF could have been deployed to at least work on securing the compound. Use of SOFs have and could pick apart those terrorists.
Now, to secure the location for stable use, a battalion push could be used. But, to at least rescue those on teh ground, there are many other choices.



Either your military experiences are gained through the gunsights or a pen in some HQ, or as a civilian clown like Hicks when it comes to military matters and deserved to be chewed up by the military authorities there when he panic and tried to flee Tripoli.

Spec Ops are small teams can can only be used for springing surprise - raids and ambushes upon a large enemy force, and NEVER to be used as conventional forces when the springing is done by the enemies and be overwelhemed sucidically and tragically.

They are not superman, more so in the face of war hardened vets jihadist terrorists by the hundreds. You need a battalion of marines to take them out effectively, and another diversion of troops to conduct room to room searches in Benghazi alone to flush out the actual culprits whom are never in uniform and blend in well hiding amongst the civilian population.

None knew what exactly happened during the first attack, as it coincided with mass protests in the arab world over the inflammatory video, and thus most presumed it must had been a violent religious anger that toppled the embassy and staff, until reports and evidences of a heavily armed assualt upon the embassy surfaced that more got a clearer picture. 'Pics or it didn't happened' applies in the real world just as here on ATS.

There was only a small spec ops team in Libya. It was a UN air cover support, and not invasion, and thus no country had or allowed 'thousands of boots on the ground' as the republican and their supporters hope to mislead.

The air support was miles away, and even then, who were the targets when the dead are already dead and terrorists hiding amongst civilians? Slaughter the civilian population with indiscriminate bombings? Are you nuts?

Send the small team uniformed spec ops to save the other 2 men still alive? And get them all slaughtered by the heavily armed terrorists hiding behind windows, even if the spec ops knew exactly where those 2 men were?

It is a dead horse. No sense in flogging it for unconscionable republican partisan BS. Realities speak for itself.

The most rational decision was made and more lives were saved than if Hicks was in charge. Civilians never made good battle commanders, as the peanut farmer Carter screwed up in the Iranian hostage debacle back in the 80s.

May the republicans and their supporters end the partisan BS, and focus on the ecomony and the american people instead. Such petty tactics will only hurt their re-election into the presidential and congress race. Not every american is an idiot to fall for or support such smear attempts.

Their continued voting record in Congress only shows they pushed only for party agendas, and not majority americans' interests as they are voted for. May they remember their vows to the majority, and the majority did vote for a democrat president by both electoral and popular vote. Logic, not loyalty to party, must rule, to help and uplift american people.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by cholo

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by cholo
 



It seems to be all about partisanship... Between 2000-2008 there were over 50 embassy attacks and over ten personell deaths, yet we did not here about them. Now, low and behold this one case is being used to propagate a political witch hunt.


I love to see you start a thread all your own and detail those 50 embassy attacks you spent a whole thread talking about the other night...before bailing off and vanishing. (?)

However, those happened under a different President. While I would love to see them investigated as well, they aren't the matter at hand ..today, and right now. Benghazi is. Perhaps they even tie in, at some point? The people working INSIDE the State Department are the same under Obama as they were under Bush. Civil servants don't change as Presidents do...and that IS the problem at the core of it, IMO.

Investigation needs to happen to determine who, outside the elected leaders, did what which caused good men to die. The questions of help denied, security refused and reinforcement requests simply ignored, all come into this as well. The hunt for WHO precisely made the decisions which caused this to happen are first and foremost though.

......and the majority of those people don't hold Office. They weren't elected.


Yes they happened under a different president, exactly why the GOP had zero interest in
Investigating or politicizing the events. You proved my point very well!



Between 2000-2008, we were in what used to be called the 'War on Terror'. What's it called now? The 'ongoing military operations throughout the world?'

Who declared Al-Qaeda on the run? But hey, Chevy's alive.

Those many embassy attacks were indeed reported on and investigated. They were also stopped at the gates/walls. Why? Because there was adequate security. Sure, people died, but think how much worse it would have been had Obama been in office, and Hillary in State, with their ideas of how to secure those facilities.

Also... 50 attacks, 10 deaths. 1 attack, 4 deaths. Odds aren't in Obama's favor if he keeps this up.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
You're among a growing minority who believes that. As time goes on, the numbers continue to shift and it's not supportive to that line of thinking. The only way to begin to justify any of this is to point to other leaders like Bush....which is pointing to bad behavior in justifying one's own bad behavior. Relativism at it's worst.

A nation of law can't slide things that result in deaths by incompetence simply because other scumbags have managed to get away with it before. The problem then is going BACK to see those issues brought to light as well....not to whitewash what happens now and, presumably by that logic, whatever follows in the future.

Anarchy or Tyranny lay down that path...and in that context? They're equally bad places to go.
edit on 16-5-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)


You belong to the LOUD and VOCAL but MINORITY that concerns itself with partisan potitics as evident by your continued rants over the democrats and the president, regardless of what he had done.

YOu may hope that your foolish kind grows, but there are MORE americans whom are a heck lot more discerning, and have a wider perspective over events than the narrow ones that your kind possess.

The Benghazi case was an opened book, of unprecedented levels unheard of by other presidents. National security info is even allowed to be used in the Congress when it could have compromised the lives of agents, their methods and even the safety of the nation to enemies, all thanks to the continued time wasting by the unconscionable partisan republicans and the likes of you in USA.

THere is NO point in further slogging a dead horse. Lessons had been learnt over this issue that no american could have prevented. This is not the watergate scandal as the tea party had hoped. YOu are an american and your enemies - the terrorists whom had slaughtered the americans in Benghazi, are LAUGHING OUT LOUD at your kind as you focus on your leaders instead of on them. How more stupid do you want to be?

And yet, it is still not enough. It is never enough until your kind see the President toppled and the nation destroyed, all because of partisan motives, fooling the masses to NOT to think about the economy thanks to the belligerance of the republican party, when the economy is the MOST CRITICAL issue facing the nation today.

Cheers and continue with your foolish ranting and feign righteousness over the dead americans in blaming the administration while your enemies the terrorists are laughing behind your back at your kind's stupidity and harbor hopes that your kind continues to be stupid as they seek out more americans to slaughter.



It's odd that someone who lambasts others for partisan politics, is so very partisan.

It also seems that you may be one of those terrorists that are 'laughing out loud', or at least someone who has something to personally lose if the truth comes out.

Interesting.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by soundguy
Am I the only one that will be glad when these ill informed delicate flowers on the right move on to the next over hyped made up crises?


edit on 16-5-2013 by soundguy because: Edited so I don't offend the most delicate among us.


Hyped up? For two weeks, Obama... "It was the video." Clinton... "It was the video." Jay Carney... "It was the video."

For two weeks they 'hyped up' that video as the cause of this 'crisis'. The crisis was not made up. The 'hype' was, by this administration.

Sounds like some are a bit 'delicate' when their dear leader is questioned.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 03:51 PM
link   
i wonder if obama is going to make it to the end of his term?

thanks for posting.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok
Do you know who really is to blame for Benghazi? Who REALLY is to blame?

THE MILITANTS THAT ATTACKED THE EMBASSY AND KILLED THE PEOPLE!

Good lord, you people act as if the president himself went and shot them.

Stop listening to Sean Hannity and FOX News. Think for yourself. You all are supposed to be free thinkers right? How come I log on here every day to see Sean Hannity's words used as threads? These aren't the threads of free thinkers and people who are intelligent, these are the threads of parrots, trained parrots who use the words of others and the rage of others as their own.

You all have muddied the waters in this matter to the point of insanity.




edit on 16-5-2013 by HauntWok because: (no reason given)


Another fail. NO ONE is questioning who killed the 4 in Benghazi. The questions surround the FACT of the attempted coverup by this administration. The FACT that for 2 weeks they blamed a video for the attack, when they KNEW it was a lie. No one needs to listen to Hannity to discern this.

It's the constant attempts of deflection that are muddying the waters.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by neo96
 




So then 8 months after the fact why are they still walking around instead of 6 feet under?

Because blaming people, and things are more 'important'.


Isn't that exactly what you are doing? Blaming the President for something instead of demanding Congress do something about it?


Congress IS doing something about it. They're holding hearings, trying to get to the truth of why those men were killed. Not who did it. We know that. But why. A video? BS. we know now that was a lie all along.

Didn't Obama say he was going to make sure those responsible would be brought to justice? How's that working out? Anything?



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   
President Obama did not kill anyone in Benghazi, nor did his actions or inactions directly or indirectly affect the situation in any way. Accusing him of such is like accusing the Postmaster General for the death of postmen held-up in a robbery. The President is an **EXECUTIVE** level leader who does not deal in day to day intricacies of State Department issues. Further, the intricacies and red-tape between State Dept and Defense Dept is what prevented security from being there in time. It was a SYSTEMIC failure, not a Presidential one. Blaming Hilary Clinton and/or Pres. Obama is a failure to recognize how the United States conducts business.

President Obama does not run or meddle with IRS affairs. This is like stating the Surgeon General directly oversees the finance department for a hospital in southern Chicago. The President is an **EXECUTIVE** level leader who does not deal in teh day to day operations of the IRS, and until this incident happened, probably did not directly communicate with anyone other than the head of the IRS. President Obama has more pressing concerns than tax law, tax enforcement, etc. Thinking that the leader of the free world would mire himself in tax schemes borders on silly, ridiculous and ignorance.

President Obama does not spy on AP reporters. Reporters are going to report, and there is no stopping them short of permanently silencing them. Elements of the government probably surveil email and all cell phone conversations already --everyone's, not just AP reporters. Elements of the government probably did spy on the reporters, but the President probably did not initiate this. Being as objective as I can be, I would make an educated guess and say "No." The reason is that I have no personal bias for or against President Obama. People with other agendas and a possible hatred of the man would probably disagree with froth on their mouths, for they are ready to assign blame on a trip-wire when it comes to the man.

These attacks against the President are people grasping at straws, trying to create scandals they feel will assist them during the next election because they are AFRAID they have no candidate who is able to defeat Hilary Clinton when (if) she runs for office.

If President Obama takes action and meets with success, the people attacking him minimize his involvment and/or state that he did too much. If President Obama takes little or no action in a situation, then he did not do enough. No matter what option he chooses in any given situation requiring an executive decision, these people have proven that he can do no right in their eyes, and they assault him with fervent, hateful and rabid dialogue. It is wrong and unfair. People might have disagreed with George W. Bush, but he was not met with the same level of vehement hatred that has been projected toward President Obama. Clinton never faced such vehemence. One reason may be apparent as to why so many people have found minor excuses with which to channel their hatred toward the man.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Treasury Knew of I.R.S. Inquiry in 2012, Official Says
By JONATHAN WEISMAN
WASHINGTON — The Treasury Department’s inspector general told senior Treasury officials in June 2012 he was auditing the Internal Revenue Service’s screening of politically active organizations seeking tax exemptions, disclosing for the first time on Friday that Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.
At the first Congressional hearing into the I.R.S. scandal, J. Russell George, the Treasury inspector general for tax administration, told members of the House Ways and Means Committee that he informed the Treasury’s general counsel of his audit on June 4, and Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin “shortly thereafter.”
It remained unclear how much the disclosure would affect the broader debate over the I.R.S.'s problems. Complaints from Tea Party groups that the I.R.S. was singling them out became public in 2012, through media accounts.
Mr. George told Treasury officials about the allegation as part of a routine briefing about ongoing audits he would be conducting in the coming year, and he did not tell the officials of his conclusions that the targeting had been improper, he said.
www.nytimes.com...[]



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


First the obvious...He didn't blame the Benghazi attack on congress.. He called the GOP hearing a political circus..and now that thier claims have been proven false and they have been outed as actually inventing evidence...mocked up emails...i think he is right.

Congress, specifically the GOP were also the ones who cut 300 M from Embassy Security...it was there way of saying eff you to Hilary Clinton and innocent folks went without proper security as a result.

Lastly...the WH appears to have been actually hunting for those to blame...and while the GOP plays politics, apparently Pres. Obama has been playing...find the effen terrorists who attacked us!! Which as his aim with OBL proved, he is pretty good at.




U.S. options to 'capture or kill' Benghazi suspects


The U.S. military has updated plans to "capture or kill" alleged perpetrators of the deadly terror attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, CNN has learned.

security.blogs.cnn.com...

I suggest folks respond with bumper sticker rhetoric, bankrupt of substance and littered with debunked falsehoods...

Gotta love the haters..
edit on 17-5-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101

Originally posted by macman
Not true.

Anyone that has ever been involved with military actions, knows that is not true.

A QRF could have been deployed to at least work on securing the compound. Use of SOFs have and could pick apart those terrorists.
Now, to secure the location for stable use, a battalion push could be used. But, to at least rescue those on teh ground, there are many other choices.



Either your military experiences are gained through the gunsights or a pen in some HQ, or as a civilian clown like Hicks when it comes to military matters and deserved to be chewed up by the military authorities there when he panic and tried to flee Tripoli.

Spec Ops are small teams can can only be used for springing surprise - raids and ambushes upon a large enemy force, and NEVER to be used as conventional forces when the springing is done by the enemies and be overwelhemed sucidically and tragically.

They are not superman, more so in the face of war hardened vets jihadist terrorists by the hundreds. You need a battalion of marines to take them out effectively, and another diversion of troops to conduct room to room searches in Benghazi alone to flush out the actual culprits whom are never in uniform and blend in well hiding amongst the civilian population.

None knew what exactly happened during the first attack, as it coincided with mass protests in the arab world over the inflammatory video, and thus most presumed it must had been a violent religious anger that toppled the embassy and staff, until reports and evidences of a heavily armed assualt upon the embassy surfaced that more got a clearer picture. 'Pics or it didn't happened' applies in the real world just as here on ATS.

There was only a small spec ops team in Libya. It was a UN air cover support, and not invasion, and thus no country had or allowed 'thousands of boots on the ground' as the republican and their supporters hope to mislead.

The air support was miles away, and even then, who were the targets when the dead are already dead and terrorists hiding amongst civilians? Slaughter the civilian population with indiscriminate bombings? Are you nuts?

Send the small team uniformed spec ops to save the other 2 men still alive? And get them all slaughtered by the heavily armed terrorists hiding behind windows, even if the spec ops knew exactly where those 2 men were?

It is a dead horse. No sense in flogging it for unconscionable republican partisan BS. Realities speak for itself.

The most rational decision was made and more lives were saved than if Hicks was in charge. Civilians never made good battle commanders, as the peanut farmer Carter screwed up in the Iranian hostage debacle back in the 80s.

May the republicans and their supporters end the partisan BS, and focus on the ecomony and the american people instead. Such petty tactics will only hurt their re-election into the presidential and congress race. Not every american is an idiot to fall for or support such smear attempts.

Their continued voting record in Congress only shows they pushed only for party agendas, and not majority americans' interests as they are voted for. May they remember their vows to the majority, and the majority did vote for a democrat president by both electoral and popular vote. Logic, not loyalty to party, must rule, to help and uplift american people.





You are quite incorrect. Special forces have, as a primary mission, rescue operations--which this was and exactly was why the quick reaction teams were placed in Italy. They were quite capable and, in fact trained to, come in, suppress the enemy with CAS, establish a perimeter, secure the principles, and leave. They would not be expected for sustained operations against a division, but a quick action against an under strength company sized force. You are honestly criticizing someone else's military knowledge saying silly stuff like that above?
edit on 17-5-2013 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)


Obviously you do not understand that jets could close those "miles" in 20 to 40 minutes and the reaction team could have saved everyone had they been permitted to go at first call. Also what you forget is that our men are quite willing to sacrifice themselves for our fellow men, in contrast to the current CIC.
edit on 17-5-2013 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by neo96
 


Excuse me but the refueling plane was not their. So in relation to the issue of what the difference is between BS and the bottom line? Why was the aircraft not available???

The rest is


Congress killed those people by cutting funding as sure as they has pulled the trigger.

Any thoughts?
edit on 16-5-2013 by Kashai because: (no reason given)


Question. Which budget cuts? DOD cuts, instigated by Dems over the past decades? Or was it the cuts because of the sequestration? Was it the cuts in 2012 for FUTURE spending?

Again. As has been pointed out several times, it's been testified to, in Congress and under oath, that money was not the issue.



edit on 17-5-2013 by 2ndthought because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 





Congress, specifically the GOP were also the ones who cut 300 M from Embassy Security.


Absolutely lie.



www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 17-5-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 



Your quote(But the republicans CANNOT BE FORGIVEN if it continues on this destructive egoistical path to destroy the opposition - democrats, when there are far more critical issues to be resolved such as the economy and social expenditure to put every american back on his/her feet.) This is just ridicules!

That is all crap and you know it. It is not the responsibility of the government to take care of the people. It is the responsibility of the people to take care of them selves. When people rely on the government to take care of them you end up like ( Just like the damn mess we are in now). A frikkin welfare state. moronic progressives . Then they blame everyone else for their mess. You can't feed everyone who won't get off their butts and work. The real problem is people who want a free ride and the leaders who promote it! Grow up and get a job.


edit on 17-5-2013 by Diisenchanted because: edit to add your quote



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Diisenchanted
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 



Your quote(But the republicans CANNOT BE FORGIVEN if it continues on this destructive egoistical path to destroy the opposition - democrats, when there are far more critical issues to be resolved such as the economy and social expenditure to put every american back on his/her feet.) This is just ridicules!

That is all crap and you know it. It is not the responsibility of the government to take care of the people. It is the responsibility of the people to take care of them selves. When people rely on the government to take care of them you end up like ( Just like the damn mess we are in now). A frikkin welfare state. moronic progressives . Then they blame everyone else for their mess. You can't feed everyone who won't get off their butts and work. The real problem is people who want a free ride and the leaders who promote it! Grow up and get a job.


edit on 17-5-2013 by Diisenchanted because: edit to add your quote


Most people don't enjoy being on welfare or having to work 2-3 part time jobs just to get bye, but they do what they do. You implying people enjoy it and that democrats actually care about the people, or even better are progressives, is totally wrong.

The welfare state is over-bloated because of wall street outsourcing and automation. Both big parties are 100% responsible for the current mess and I suspect it will get much worse. Anyway the topic of the thread is benghazi and not welfare.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Diisenchanted
 

In that case,If you're young now don't collect that social security check when you retire..If you are retired then you're a hypocrite.In any case that's a government program that you rail against..

edit on 17-5-2013 by greydaze because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by greydaze
 


First of all social security has nothing to do with government. I will never get back all that I have paid into it. I am not a hypocrite. I personally know people at the age of 26 that are on social security for dyslexia. They don't deserve a free ride. Neither do you and yes I can tell by your senseless comment that you are a liberal.



new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join