I just saw some of his Fox News interview while I was at the gym. He isn’t fit to be a used car salesman.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Back To The Future
- “records going back to 1961”
- Analyzing Rainfall At Asheville
- Historical Weather Analysis With Visitech
- “American Summers Are Starting to Feel Like Winter”
- Joker And Midnight Toker
- Cheering Crowds
- Understanding Flood Mechanisms
- Extreme Weather
- 70C At Lisbon
- Grok Defending The Climate Scam
- “Earlier Than Usual”
- Perfect Correlation
- Elon’s Hockey Stick
- Latest Climate News
- “Climate dread is everywhere”
- “The Atmosphere Is ‘Thirstier.’”
- Skynet Becomes Self Aware
- “We Have To Vote For It So That You Can See What’s In It”
- Diversity Is Our Strength
- “even within the lifetime of our children”
- 60 Years Of Progress in London
- The Anti-Greta
- “a persistent concern”
- Deadliest US Tornado Days
Recent Comments
- Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic) on Back To The Future
- Tel on Back To The Future
- arn on Back To The Future
- Walter on Joker And Midnight Toker
- Bob G on Back To The Future
- Disillusioned on Analyzing Rainfall At Asheville
- Disillusioned on Analyzing Rainfall At Asheville
- conrad ziefle on Back To The Future
- Brodirt on Back To The Future
- conrad ziefle on Back To The Future
Right you are… But-
Occasionally a used car salesman tells the truth.
BO …. never.
Which explains why he is not fit to be one.
The answer to Bill’s question was a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Anything else was a lie.
Obama tries his best to conflate the terms “act of terror” and “crime.” He calls everyday murder and rape “acts of terror” and “crime,” and he calls Benghazi an “act of terror” and “crime.” However, he won’t call anyone a “terrorist” or any event “terrorism”. He doesn’t believe in terrorism. He thinks what most call terrorist acts do not require any extraordinary attention or legal consideration than everyday crime. His use of “act of terror” about Benghazi allowed him to later, during the debate, to wiggle around the accusation that he wouldn’t call the Benghazi attack a terrorist attack. “I called it an ‘act of terror’ he proudly proclaims.
I wish someone would have briefed Romney, before the debate moderated by Candy, about Obama’s word play, so that he could have pressed on why he wouldn’t call the attackers or anyone terrorists–or why he wouldn’t call any event terrorism.
Actually Obama didn’t wiggle in the debate. Candy Cowley did.
I sincerely hope this is nothing more then Obama covering up his huge failure in Benghaz so it didn’t interfere with his reelection. The coverup is still a crime but at least that is all of it. My fear is there is something more that is being covered up.
Or alternatively he’s the ideal used car salesman. Just depends if you’re on the side of the seller or the poor schmuck who’s buying.
D’oh, sorry I missed the point – I withdraw my comment! The guy would clearly make a shit used car salesman, whichever way you look at it!
What O’Reilly and the rest of the press should be asking BHO, HC and Susan Rice et al, is where did you get the intelligence that said Benghazi attack was the result of a video. Who was this person that first said this to these people? What intelligence? That is the first question that needs to be asked. That sets up everything after that and should uncover all the other lies!