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
- 65 Years Of Progress!
- El Nino To The Rescue?
- Worst March Drought On Record
- ChartGL Process Control Demo
- The Biggest Money Laundering Scam
- Drought In The Headwaters Of Lake Powell
- Unrealistic Expectations Of Water Availability
- Did Bill Gates Do This?
- Worst March Drought On Record In The US
- The Real Hockey Stick Graph
- Analyzing The Western Water Crisis
- Gaslighting 1924
- “Why Do You Resist?”
- Climate Attribution Model
- Fact Checking NASA
- Fact Checking Grok
- Fact Checking The New York Times
- New Visitech Features
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2014
- Debt-Free US Treasury Forecast
- Analyzing Big City Crime (Part 2)
- Analyzing Big City Crime
- UK Migration Caused By Global Warming
- Climate Attribution In Greece
- “Brown: ’50 days to save world'”
Recent Comments
- Bob G on 65 Years Of Progress!
- Gordon Vigurs on 65 Years Of Progress!
- Bob G on 65 Years Of Progress!
- Bob G on 65 Years Of Progress!
- Mike Peinsipp on El Nino To The Rescue?
- Mike Peinsipp on El Nino To The Rescue?
- Robertvd on El Nino To The Rescue?
- arn on El Nino To The Rescue?
- Bob G on El Nino To The Rescue?
- Bob G on El Nino To The Rescue?
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!