House panel finds Obama and Clinton responsible for Benghazi errors

Is this guy for real?!!!! I thought CBJ7, Eva and Little Stevie were the dunces of this board. But this guy is in a class all by himself. LMFAO! Originally Posted by NiceGuy53

theres your basic problem ... you thought

theres your basic problem ... you thought Originally Posted by CJ7

Hey Buddy. I was giving you a compliment. You are not the dumbest poster on this board. There is someone even dumber than you. LOL.

A late aside for WTF; I served, I went to war twice, you cannot call me a chickenhawk you little piece of shit. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

JD, I also served and went to war but I did not take WTF's "chickenhawk" remark as a slap. I took it as a reference to the Bush Administration's response to 9/11, especially as it relates to Iraq.

I am sure he will correct me if I'm wrong!

I think you're missing the shit that WTF puts in most of his posts.

A late aside for WTF; I served, I went to war twice, you cannot call me a chickenhawk you little piece of shit. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I can and I did. If you were for sending troops to Iraq but did not go, chickenhawk. Bush connected 9/11 with Saddam and you fell for it.

It's amazing how IBH and others will defend Bush or give Bush and his adminstration a free pass.

Again Both were GUN RUNNING PROGRAMS.
There were differences, so the programs are not identical, but according to Websters definition of same, Operation Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious can be considered the same. IBH asked how are they the same. I provided an explanation. Originally Posted by flghtr65

Boy are you looking at the world through Kool Aid colored glasses! How is declaiming a FAILED Bush program a "defense" of Bush? The Bush program FAILED! There, it's posted again for your edification!

You're the zombie who wants to champion Odumbo's lie that "Fast and Furious" started under Bush! You're the one who WRONGLY argued that the Bush program and Odumbo's "Fast and Furious" were the SAME program -- and that is a demonstrable, bald face distortion of the truth.

Further, your new tack of arguing the two programs are "similar", while a noticeable retreat from your earlier stance that they were the "same" program, is a very weak concession that you were proved wrong. Nevertheless, you still persist in championing Odumbo's dumb-ass. Just a note, no matter how you twist your "current" argument, you cannot explain away or justify the idiocy behind the Odumbo administration's decision to reconstitute a program based on a moribund, FAILED Bush program!?!

Just an FYI, the two DIFFERENT programs are as alike as a 1968 Ford Mustang compared to a 2009 Kia: the Bush program ENDED before any Americans were killed and BEFORE Odumbo was even elected!

Are you sure Roosevent didn't have anything to do with this?

And, ladies and gentlemen, back from his tour of the High Colonic... CORPY!

Poopy boy!

The definition of the word "same" as taken from Merriam-Webster:

1
a: resembling in every relevant respect
b: conforming in every respect —used with as

2
a: being one without addition, change, or discontinuance : identical
b: being the one under discussion or already referred to

3
: corresponding so closely as to be indistinguishable

4
: equal in size, shape, value, or importance —usually used with the or a demonstrative (as that, those) in all senses



You left out the other definitions: 1b; 2a; 2b; 3; 4. Instead, you thought you would try your luck by cherry picking 1a as your defintion of the word "same". Well guess what, you are still shit out of luck. The 2 programs are not "resembling in every relevant respect". There were major differences between the 2 programs as has been pointed out in previous posts. You yourself have again referenced some of the differences. You need to go back to the drawing board chump.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/same Originally Posted by NiceGuy53

NG53, you left out the definition of resemblence - Point of likeness, similiarty. So the two programs are resembling in every relevant respect, just not identical. Back to the drawing board for you chump.

Hey Buddy. I was giving you a compliment. You are not the dumbest poster on this board. There is someone even dumber than you. LOL. Originally Posted by NiceGuy53

Yes there is fuckface you lmao

NG53, you left out the definition of resemblence - Point of likeness, similiarty. So the two programs are resembling in every relevant respect, just not identical. Back to the drawing board for you chump. Originally Posted by flghtr65

Damn son. Quit doubling down on your ignorance. The 2 programs are not resembling in every relevant respect. In your idiotic post #101, you said "there were differences, so the programs are not identical" before you went on to conclude that based on definition 1a, the 2 progams "can be considered the same". If there were major differences, which you yourself have acknowledged, the programs are not the same. Quit embarrassing yourself!

Yes there is fuckface you lmao Originally Posted by i'va biggen

You used to be one of the dumbest fuckers on this board. But I think this other guy has even you beat. You should be proud of yourself, Eva. You are moving on up!

Damn son. Quit doubling down on your ignorance. The 2 programs are not resembling in every relevant respect. In your idiotic post #101, you said "there were differences, so the programs are not identical" before you went on to conclude that based on definition 1a, the 2 progams "can be considered the same". If there were major differences, which you yourself have acknowledged, the programs are not the same. Quit embarrassing yourself! Originally Posted by NiceGuy53

NG53, do you have trouble comprehending the word resemblence? - Point of likeness similiarity. You can have differences and and still be similiar. I never wrote the word major in any post. One more time if you go by Websters and the definition of same and resemblence, the programs are the same despite having differences. Your problem is you won't accept the definiton of resemblence.

!

You're the zombie who wants to champion Odumbo's lie that "Fast and Furious" started under Bush! You're the one who WRONGLY argued that the Bush program and Odumbo's "Fast and Furious" were the SAME program -- and that is a demonstrable, bald face distortion of the truth.

Further, your new tack of arguing the two programs are "similar", while a noticeable retreat from your earlier stance that they were the "same" program, is a very weak concession that you were proved wrong. Nevertheless, you still persist in championing Odumbo's dumb-ass. Just a note, no matter how you twist your "current" argument, you cannot explain away or justify the idiocy behind the Odumbo administration's decision to reconstitute a program based on a moribund, FAILED Bush program!?!

Just an FYI, the two DIFFERENT programs are as alike as a 1968 Ford Mustang compared to a 2009 Kia: the Bush program ENDED before any Americans were killed and BEFORE Odumbo was even elected! Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The programs are the same like a BMW330I and BMW530I. If you can't accept Websters definitions of words same and resemblence, then I can't help you. Why the ATF agents in the Phoenix field office wanted to try Fast and Furious, you will have to ask them. One last time the concept of "Gun Running" started under Bush!

NG53, do you have trouble comprehending the word resemblence? - Point of likeness similiarity. You can have differences and and still be similiar. I never wrote the word major in any post. One more time if you go by Websters and the definition of same and resemblence, the programs are the same despite having differences. Your problem is you won't accept the definiton of resemblence. Originally Posted by flghtr65

So now you are arguing that they are not the same but just similiar? LOL. Yes there were some similiarities (which I have said all along).

And I don't think I have to tell you what "your problem" is.

The programs are the same like a BMW330I and BMW530I. If you can't accept Websters definitions of words same and resemblence, then I can't help you. Why the ATF agents in the Phoenix field office wanted to try Fast and Furious, you will have to ask them. One last time the concept of "Gun Running" started under Bush! Originally Posted by flghtr65

You've already admitted the Bush policy was a stupid, failed project. The fact that you continue to try to justify the Odumbo administration's subsequent double-down attempt on stupid and failed -- with the enhanced stupidity of not using tracking devices -- is incredible. The net sum of your argument is that Odumbo was somehow entitled to be more stupid than Bush. While you're correct in your argument that Odumbo was MORE stupid, it's wrong of you to argue that he had a "right" to be more stupid: Americans died.