And once again, the purpose of these hearings was to determine if anything was done wrong in regards to Benghazi. They were a fact-finding mission by Congress. If everything was done as it was supposed to be, that should be self-evident (and for the record, I think Hillary Clinton did a great job defending herself, minus the outbursts). I don’t think you (or anyone) is in a position to state beyond a reasonable doubt that nothing wrong happened; that’s why Congress has the power to question government officials. So forgive me for not taking your word as gospel.

The White House didn’t do anything wrong when it used the Justice Department to justify torture? Or it didn’t do anything wrong in Benghazi? If the latter, the point of these hearings was to determine if any wrongdoing occurred. And that partisan knife cuts both ways guy; just look at how fawning the Democrats were during the hearings over Clinton, and how they enabled her obfuscation. Don’t use the errors of Republicans to justify wrongdoing for the Democrats, or vice-versa. It’s going to happen regardless. And when that self-serving partisanship actually leads to more transparency, I’m all for it.

Yes I noticed. It’s just like when Obama released the Bush torture memos after he got elected, but has done a complete 180 on “transparency” in the executive branch when it comes to defending his own administration. Republican or Democrat administration, the Executive is NOT going to give up its outrageous powers by itself; it’s up to Congress to rein it in. I don’t care who controls Congress when it does happen, or who’s in the White House, so long as somebody finally nuts up and does it!

Uh… it’s exactly BECAUSE four Americans are dead that Republicans are seeking accountability. Is it 1984 again already? I’m sorry, I disagree with Republicans a lot of the time, but demanding accountability for a terrorist attack is NOT a waste of time and is not political posturing. Even if it is, the American public, and the families of those killed, still deserve answers.

People pay water bills because they don’t want to drink saltwater, which is 98% of water on earth. They also don’t want to have to walk to a body of water to drink it, and pipes aren’t free. There! It wasn’t that hard of a question, MLK!

I think it’s patently ridiculous that the choice is completely the woman’s. Yes, she is the one who must carry it to term, but if a man does not want the child and she “chooses” to have it anyway, then the man is on the hook for child support for 18 years with huge legal repercussions should he falter. And if a man wants to keep the child, there is nothing he can do if the woman chooses to abort it. But of course, no one believes that men can be disenfranchised, so these arguments are largely ignored in the discourse of reproductive rights.

Romney wasn’t trying to pry liberal Jews away from Obama. He was trying to pry the billions nutjobs like Sheldon Adelson are willing to shell out for presidential campaigns that put Israeli interests above American ones.