Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   The new GOP super-secret "October Surprise" plan to defeat Obama is out and online. In true GOP fashion they fail at the whole "super-secret" part as well as the "surprise" part. Hey, at least it IS October   (salon.com) divider line 647
    More: Dumbass, October Surprise, GOP, Obama administration, human beings, President Carter, Bob Corker, Dan Senor  
•       •       •

11702 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Oct 2012 at 6:59 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



647 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-01 10:05:16 PM  
Romney's best chance is to just show 30 second ads of blondes with low necklines and big tits.
 
2012-10-01 10:05:17 PM  
See this is why Obama should have had the SEAL team bring back Bin Laden's severed head. I would have love to have seen him toss it on the stage during the debates when this came up.
 
2012-10-01 10:05:22 PM  

cman: Yes, and you on the left constantly remember and understand the Iraqi body count that we kept and Bush constantly denied because of "strategy". You dont lie to the American people, you just no comment them.


See, you just can't keep the derp bottled up, can you? You were doing so well for a while.

/Oh and false equivalencies are false
 
2012-10-01 10:06:12 PM  

eddiesocket: Legroom: All those quotes saying from Jay Carney were preceded with "Based on the information that we have", which was the point I was trying to make. Again, what would you have them do instead and what are you accusing them of?

I think it's beyond clear that I'm accusing them of being weasely and misleading. "Based on the information we have" on Sept 19th to "It is, I think, self-evident" the exact opposite on Sept 20th, (after testimony at a Homeland Security Committee) is deceptive. Or do you really think they got new info on Sept 19th after Carney said that? Is this really so difficult to admit? I mean, do you really think there's no possible way the administration would ever lie to us?


Oh no, I totally believe this administration and any administration would lie to us without hesitation. I just don't understand why would they lie about this one. What would they have to gain out of this? And if it was a lie, why did they only keep it live for 8 days? Again, wouldn't it have been more politically advantageous to say it was a terrorist attack?
 
2012-10-01 10:07:05 PM  

Legroom: eddiesocket: Legroom: All those quotes saying from Jay Carney were preceded with "Based on the information that we have", which was the point I was trying to make. Again, what would you have them do instead and what are you accusing them of?

I think it's beyond clear that I'm accusing them of being weasely and misleading. "Based on the information we have" on Sept 19th to "It is, I think, self-evident" the exact opposite on Sept 20th, (after testimony at a Homeland Security Committee) is deceptive. Or do you really think they got new info on Sept 19th after Carney said that? Is this really so difficult to admit? I mean, do you really think there's no possible way the administration would ever lie to us?

Oh no, I totally believe this administration and any administration would lie to us without hesitation. I just don't understand why would they lie about this one. What would they have to gain out of this? And if it was a lie, why did they only keep it live for 8 days? Again, wouldn't it have been more politically advantageous to say it was a terrorist attack?


Because SOSHULISM, duh
 
2012-10-01 10:07:08 PM  

ghare: cman: Yes, and you on the left constantly remember and understand the Iraqi body count that we kept and Bush constantly denied because of "strategy". You dont lie to the American people, you just no comment them.

See, you just can't keep the derp bottled up, can you? You were doing so well for a while.

/Oh and false equivalencies are false


What was the strategic reason for lying about this being a terrorist attack? Why couldn't the Obama admin say "No comment" or "we are currently looking into the matter"?
 
2012-10-01 10:07:10 PM  

eggrolls: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 480x325]


Figures. Both the GOP and Al Q. are a bunch of religious zealots.
 
2012-10-01 10:07:14 PM  

CynicalLA: Teufelaffe: eddiesocket: 9/18
"Our belief based on the information we had was that it was the video that caused the unrest in Cairo and the video that - and the unrest in Cairo that helped - that precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi and elsewhere."--Jay Carney

9/19
"Based on the information that we had at the time and have to this day, we do not have evidence that it was premeditated."--Jay Carney

"Yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy." "We are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda's affiliates; in particular, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb."
Matthew Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, at the hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee

9/20
"It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack."--Jay Carney.

That is weasely, period.

You must be a farking blast to go out to restaurants with.

eddiesocket: "Hmmm...do you have Chilean Sea Bass?"
Server: "As far as I know, we do."
eddiesocket: "Maybe I want something else though...but Chilean Sea Bass sounds so good."
Server: "I'm pretty sure we have the Sea Bass."
eddiesocket: "Yeah, I think the Sea Bass sounds just about right."
*moments later*
Server: "I'm sorry, we are actually out of Chilean Sea Bass. We do have Tilapia though."
eddiesocket: "Damn this weasly waitstaff!"

At this point he would rather defend his stupid statement than admit he was wrong. I'm sure tenpoundsofcheese has his back.


In what way was I wrong? I've not said one incorrect thing. You believe that the administration really thought that it was a spontaneous attack until Sept 19th and then after being contradicted by Homeland security Senate testimony magically learned exact opposite on Sept 20th. I suppose you can believe that, (even though several farkers on here already admitted to "knowing" it was a terrorist attack on day one).
I don't believe that. I think it's absurdly naive to believe that. I think that if it were Bush, none of you would believe it either.
 
2012-10-01 10:08:08 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Legroom: Honest question: would it have been more preferable for Obama to come out and say it was a terrorist attack, but then the facts turned out that it was just a random mob? Because I think that would've been an even worse option and they decided they had to say something quick, and without all the facts, they went with what seemed to be the obvious.

Give it up. He lives in Republican Bizarro World, wherein the ONLY acceptable response would have been an all-out nuclear strike within minutes of the riots and damn any subsequent consequences.

The idea that the DEMONSTRATION was spontaneous and the ATTACK was planned--and that they were two separate events--is just too complex and nuanced a thought for the denizens of Bizarro World.


The funny part is, if Barack and Hillary had lied to us, I wouldn't have minded a bit. We had an ally who had a new and weak government, and this attack more than anything was to fracture our relationship with them. I don't care if they were making shiat up. The top priority had to be to keep Libya from fracturing, and they succeeded. Telling us what was going on was a distant third or fourth on the priority list.
 
2012-10-01 10:08:44 PM  

CynicalLA: eddiesocket: I think it's beyond clear that I'm accusing them of being weasely and misleading.

And most people here think you are wrong.


Yes. Most people here believe there's nothing at all strange about Jay Carney's 24 hour total reversal. I think it's strange most people here don't think that's strange.
 
2012-10-01 10:09:45 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Romney's best chance is to just show 30 second ads of blondes with low necklines and big tits.


soo... Fox?
 
2012-10-01 10:09:51 PM  

eddiesocket: CynicalLA: Teufelaffe: eddiesocket: 9/18
"Our belief based on the information we had was that it was the video that caused the unrest in Cairo and the video that - and the unrest in Cairo that helped - that precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi and elsewhere."--Jay Carney

9/19
"Based on the information that we had at the time and have to this day, we do not have evidence that it was premeditated."--Jay Carney

"Yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy." "We are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda's affiliates; in particular, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb."
Matthew Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, at the hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee

9/20
"It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack."--Jay Carney.

That is weasely, period.

You must be a farking blast to go out to restaurants with.

eddiesocket: "Hmmm...do you have Chilean Sea Bass?"
Server: "As far as I know, we do."
eddiesocket: "Maybe I want something else though...but Chilean Sea Bass sounds so good."
Server: "I'm pretty sure we have the Sea Bass."
eddiesocket: "Yeah, I think the Sea Bass sounds just about right."
*moments later*
Server: "I'm sorry, we are actually out of Chilean Sea Bass. We do have Tilapia though."
eddiesocket: "Damn this weasly waitstaff!"

At this point he would rather defend his stupid statement than admit he was wrong. I'm sure tenpoundsofcheese has his back.

In what way was I wrong? I've not said one incorrect thing. You believe that the administration really thought that it was a spontaneous attack until Sept 19th and then after being contradicted by Homeland security Senate testimony magically learned exact opposite on Sept 20th. I suppose you can believe that, (even though several farkers on here already admitted to "knowing" it was a terrorist attack on day one).
I don't believe that. I think it's absurdly naive to believe that. I think that if it were Bush, none of you would believe it either.


No, if it was Bush he would've called it a terrorist attack right away and then send our troops to Iraq to look for weapons of mass destruction.
 
2012-10-01 10:10:03 PM  

eddiesocket: Mentat: eddiesocket: I think a lot of Dems here are being silly dismissing this out of hand. The fact is, the administration quite weasely misled everyone, implying (without quite saying outright) that the attacks were spontaneous as a result of the movie. That doesn't appear to be the case. The administration lied (without quite lying). Now, does that mean they had evidence ahead of time that an attack was imminent? No, of course not. And so far, there's no proof of that. But if the GOP has any such evidence, this week will probably be the time they'll reveal it. And yeah, I think that could indeed hurt Obama if true.

When did they ever say that? Within a day, the media was reporting that intelligence officials believed the attack was too organized to have been spontaneous. What exactly did the Administration do that constitutes lying, and why in the world would they be motivated to lie about something like this anyway?

Failing to prevent a planned terrorist attack looks worse and hurts our credibility a lot more than failing to prevent a spontaneous, unpredictable event. And no, no intelligence officials said any such thing "within a day" or within eight days.


Why? A planned attack is, by definition, planned, meaning it should be harder to thwart because thought has gone into trying to make the attack harder to defend. If an attack is planned, the attackers have time to gather weapons, scout positions, plan where the weak points in the defense is, choice the best time to attack and make sure that they have all necessary people and equipment to accomplish their goal.

Spontaneous attacks, are, by definition, not planned. They are slipshod, the participants may not all have the same goals, training, or the equipment needed to do damage in an attack. They have no idea where to attack, when to attack, what to expect if they attack. They should be as easier to repel or defend against.

The only thing that makes a planned attack able to be disrupted is if you have a person on the inside of the conspiracy willing to give information. But it is insane to assume we should have secret agents in position in every group which might be willing to do the U.S. harm.

And, guess what? For all the talk about how this was a planned terror attack, no one has ever explained how we know this, or, knowing this, how we missed a chance to disrupt it. Try it. Tell me the following:

When was the first day the attack was planned?
Where was the first meeting?
How many meetings did it take to finalize the plan?
How long did the planning take place?
Who was involved in the planning?
Who procured the weapons?
Who scouted out the location?
Why was the location chosen?
How many were involved in the actual attack?
What happened to them after the attack?

Now, since you don't know shiat about any of the above, how in the hell are you going to assume that there was ever a way to thwart the attack? For all you know, the attack was planned by one man, two days prior, he had all the weapons in his car, all the other attackers were told two hours before the attack.

The whole thing is ridiculous.
 
2012-10-01 10:10:07 PM  
Any body want to bet AGAINST this on news tomorrow night: low light video of seal team 6 raiding the camp of the guys who killed our people in Libya. And getting them all. Game set match. You were saying something mittens?
 
2012-10-01 10:10:56 PM  

CynicalLA: eddiesocket: I think it's beyond clear that I'm accusing them of being weasely and misleading.

And most people here think you are wrong.


If you are indicative of the "most people" you refer too, it's pretty much guaranteed that eddie is right
 
2012-10-01 10:11:43 PM  

mr intrepid: Any body want to bet AGAINST this on news tomorrow night: low light video of seal team 6 raiding the camp of the guys who killed our people in Libya. And getting them all. Game set match. You were saying something mittens?


In the event that such a raid occurred, President Obama would be accused of using military assets for political gain.
 
2012-10-01 10:12:42 PM  

eddiesocket: CynicalLA: Teufelaffe: eddiesocket: 9/18
"Our belief based on the information we had was that it was the video that caused the unrest in Cairo and the video that - and the unrest in Cairo that helped - that precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi and elsewhere."--Jay Carney

9/19
"Based on the information that we had at the time and have to this day, we do not have evidence that it was premeditated."--Jay Carney

"Yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy." "We are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda's affiliates; in particular, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb."
Matthew Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, at the hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee

9/20
"It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack."--Jay Carney.

That is weasely, period.

You must be a farking blast to go out to restaurants with.

eddiesocket: "Hmmm...do you have Chilean Sea Bass?"
Server: "As far as I know, we do."
eddiesocket: "Maybe I want something else though...but Chilean Sea Bass sounds so good."
Server: "I'm pretty sure we have the Sea Bass."
eddiesocket: "Yeah, I think the Sea Bass sounds just about right."
*moments later*
Server: "I'm sorry, we are actually out of Chilean Sea Bass. We do have Tilapia though."
eddiesocket: "Damn this weasly waitstaff!"

At this point he would rather defend his stupid statement than admit he was wrong. I'm sure tenpoundsofcheese has his back.

In what way was I wrong? I've not said one incorrect thing. You believe that the administration really thought that it was a spontaneous attack until Sept 19th and then after being contradicted by Homeland security Senate testimony magically learned exact opposite on Sept 20th. I suppose you can believe that, (even though several farkers on here already admitted to "knowing" it was a terrorist attack on day o ...


That's your opinion and good for you. I don't see it the way you do and don't think there is some big coverup.
 
2012-10-01 10:12:48 PM  

Legroom: eddiesocket: Legroom: All those quotes saying from Jay Carney were preceded with "Based on the information that we have", which was the point I was trying to make. Again, what would you have them do instead and what are you accusing them of?

I think it's beyond clear that I'm accusing them of being weasely and misleading. "Based on the information we have" on Sept 19th to "It is, I think, self-evident" the exact opposite on Sept 20th, (after testimony at a Homeland Security Committee) is deceptive. Or do you really think they got new info on Sept 19th after Carney said that? Is this really so difficult to admit? I mean, do you really think there's no possible way the administration would ever lie to us?

Oh no, I totally believe this administration and any administration would lie to us without hesitation. I just don't understand why would they lie about this one. What would they have to gain out of this? And if it was a lie, why did they only keep it live for 8 days? Again, wouldn't it have been more politically advantageous to say it was a terrorist attack?


No. The administration can't be expected to prevent a spontaneous event. If it was a planned attack, they're vulnerable to accusations (forthcoming, no doubt) that they should've stopped it. Especially, if they were warned ahead of time, as many on the right believe. Though as of yet, there's no evidence of that part, save for anonymous "sources" leaking to right-wing rags, which is probably all bullshiat. \
 
2012-10-01 10:14:58 PM  

eddiesocket: CynicalLA: eddiesocket: I think it's beyond clear that I'm accusing them of being weasely and misleading.

And most people here think you are wrong.

Yes. Most people here believe there's nothing at all strange about Jay Carney's 24 hour total reversal. I think it's strange most people here don't think that's strange.


Too me it sounds like a party trying to make this a lot more important than it really is in reality.
 
2012-10-01 10:16:16 PM  
"My understanding is that they have come up with evidence that the Obama administration had positive intelligence that there was going to be a terrorist attack on the intelligence."

That sentence is a terrorist attack on intelligence.

I wonder where Mitt Romney got this information? Could it be that he got it from the president's national security briefing he recently gained access to? If so is this legal? Weren't they just whining about Obama possibly doing something similar for political gain?
 
2012-10-01 10:17:11 PM  

skullkrusher: CynicalLA: eddiesocket: I think it's beyond clear that I'm accusing them of being weasely and misleading.

And most people here think you are wrong.

If you are indicative of the "most people" you refer too, it's pretty much guaranteed that eddie is right


Not really, thanks for playing though.
 
2012-10-01 10:18:00 PM  

eddiesocket: CynicalLA: eddiesocket: I think it's beyond clear that I'm accusing them of being weasely and misleading.

And most people here think you are wrong.

Yes. Most people here believe there's nothing at all strange about Jay Carney's 24 hour total reversal. I think it's strange most people here don't think that's strange.


Why do you find it so completely beyond the realm of possibility that Carney didn't know before his "total reversal"? Have you ever worked with government agencies? I have, and I can tell you that information can completely go 180 overnight. For example, I work for a government contractor. We have thousands of workers in the field. For years, the official policy of one of the agencies we contract with was that the field workers were absolutely, 100% forbidden from connecting to a wireless network because it was a "security issue." Then, one day, the agency tells us wireless is just fine, workers in the field can use it all they want. So, day before the policy change if someone asked me, "Can I use wireless?" my answer would have been, "Absolutely not. The government agency whose contract you work specifically prohibits it." 24 hours later, the answer becomes *GASP* a "total reversal", "Why yes, you can use wireless to connect."

Why do you find that concept so strange?
 
2012-10-01 10:19:24 PM  

eddiesocket: Legroom: eddiesocket: Legroom: All those quotes saying from Jay Carney were preceded with "Based on the information that we have", which was the point I was trying to make. Again, what would you have them do instead and what are you accusing them of?

I think it's beyond clear that I'm accusing them of being weasely and misleading. "Based on the information we have" on Sept 19th to "It is, I think, self-evident" the exact opposite on Sept 20th, (after testimony at a Homeland Security Committee) is deceptive. Or do you really think they got new info on Sept 19th after Carney said that? Is this really so difficult to admit? I mean, do you really think there's no possible way the administration would ever lie to us?

Oh no, I totally believe this administration and any administration would lie to us without hesitation. I just don't understand why would they lie about this one. What would they have to gain out of this? And if it was a lie, why did they only keep it live for 8 days? Again, wouldn't it have been more politically advantageous to say it was a terrorist attack?

No. The administration can't be expected to prevent a spontaneous event. If it was a planned attack, they're vulnerable to accusations (forthcoming, no doubt) that they should've stopped it. Especially, if they were warned ahead of time, as many on the right believe. Though as of yet, there's no evidence of that part, save for anonymous "sources" leaking to right-wing rags, which is probably all bullshiat. \


Ok, this is where I agree with you. IF the Administration knew about the attack beforehand and did nothing to prevent it, then yes I would agree that they totally farked up on this one. As it stands, there is no evidence to support that accusation, so why are we even having this conversation?

P.S. even if its proven that they knew about it beforehand, there's no griffin way I'd want to hand the nuclear football to some rich asshat who thinks the "soviet union" is our biggest threat and can't even go visit our strongest ally without insulting them.
 
2012-10-01 10:19:59 PM  

heavymetal: "My understanding is that they have come up with evidence that the Obama administration had positive intelligence that there was going to be a terrorist attack on the intelligence."

That sentence is a terrorist attack on intelligence.

I wonder where Mitt Romney got this information? Could it be that he got it from the president's national security briefing he recently gained access to? If so is this legal? Weren't they just whining about Obama possibly doing something similar for political gain?


I assume that's a typo, and Salon meant "attack on the embassy".
At any rate, it's put up or shut up for Romney. If there was intelligence ahead of time, Romney needs to prove that before making the accusations. Time will tell, I guess.
 
2012-10-01 10:20:29 PM  

CynicalLA: skullkrusher: CynicalLA: eddiesocket: I think it's beyond clear that I'm accusing them of being weasely and misleading.

And most people here think you are wrong.

If you are indicative of the "most people" you refer too, it's pretty much guaranteed that eddie is right

Not really, thanks for playing though.


no, seriously, you are one of the least insightful people on this site. Truly. If you are arguing it then it is no doubt a pile on since you lack the sack and the wit to take undertake it yourself

*checks thread*

yep, wonderfully typical. Jumping on the stupid wagon, as usual, without actually making any arguments yourself
 
2012-10-01 10:21:28 PM  

Legroom: Ok, this is where I agree with you. IF the Administration knew about the attack beforehand and did nothing to prevent it, then yes I would agree that they totally farked up on this one. As it stands, there is no evidence to support that accusation, so why are we even having this conversation?


Well said.
 
2012-10-01 10:21:30 PM  

skullkrusher: no, seriously, you are one of the least insightful people on this site. Truly. If you are arguing it then it is no doubt a pile on since you lack the sack and the wit to take undertake it yourself

*checks thread*

yep, wonderfully typical. Jumping on the stupid wagon, as usual, without actually making any arguments yourself


just wanted to take the obvious response away from you
 
2012-10-01 10:22:18 PM  

cman: ghare: cman: Yes, and you on the left constantly remember and understand the Iraqi body count that we kept and Bush constantly denied because of "strategy". You dont lie to the American people, you just no comment them.

See, you just can't keep the derp bottled up, can you? You were doing so well for a while.

/Oh and false equivalencies are false

What was the strategic reason for lying about this being a terrorist attack? Why couldn't the Obama admin say "No comment" or "we are currently looking into the matter"?


Because the Libyan government was on the doorstep of the group responsible and any hint that the administration did not believe that the attack was spontaneous would have caused the group to flee.

The better question is, since the Libyan government has already arrested 50 of the people involved in the attack, why the hell are you second guessing the strategy that apparently allowed the arrests to occur? Do you want the terrorists to escape next time
 
2012-10-01 10:23:02 PM  

skullkrusher: CynicalLA: skullkrusher: CynicalLA: eddiesocket: I think it's beyond clear that I'm accusing them of being weasely and misleading.

And most people here think you are wrong.

If you are indicative of the "most people" you refer too, it's pretty much guaranteed that eddie is right

Not really, thanks for playing though.

no, seriously, you are one of the least insightful people on this site. Truly. If you are arguing it then it is no doubt a pile on since you lack the sack and the wit to take undertake it yourself

*checks thread*

yep, wonderfully typical. Jumping on the stupid wagon, as usual, without actually making any arguments yourself


Hey man, if I may be so bold, you might need to have a smoke or a quick shower to cool off.
 
2012-10-01 10:24:03 PM  

RyogaM: cman: ghare: cman: Yes, and you on the left constantly remember and understand the Iraqi body count that we kept and Bush constantly denied because of "strategy". You dont lie to the American people, you just no comment them.

See, you just can't keep the derp bottled up, can you? You were doing so well for a while.

/Oh and false equivalencies are false

What was the strategic reason for lying about this being a terrorist attack? Why couldn't the Obama admin say "No comment" or "we are currently looking into the matter"?

Because the Libyan government was on the doorstep of the group responsible and any hint that the administration did not believe that the attack was spontaneous would have caused the group to flee.

The better question is, since the Libyan government has already arrested 50 of the people involved in the attack, why the hell are you second guessing the strategy that apparently allowed the arrests to occur? Do you want the terrorists to escape next time


How do we even know that was the strategy? Is this all speculation?
 
2012-10-01 10:24:06 PM  

Brick-House: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 661x517]


That is hilariously bad. Who showed grandma how to work MSPaint?
 
2012-10-01 10:24:13 PM  

Teufelaffe: eddiesocket: CynicalLA: eddiesocket: I think it's beyond clear that I'm accusing them of being weasely and misleading.

And most people here think you are wrong.

Yes. Most people here believe there's nothing at all strange about Jay Carney's 24 hour total reversal. I think it's strange most people here don't think that's strange.

Why do you find it so completely beyond the realm of possibility that Carney didn't know before his "total reversal"? Have you ever worked with government agencies? I have, and I can tell you that information can completely go 180 overnight. For example, I work for a government contractor. We have thousands of workers in the field. For years, the official policy of one of the agencies we contract with was that the field workers were absolutely, 100% forbidden from connecting to a wireless network because it was a "security issue." Then, one day, the agency tells us wireless is just fine, workers in the field can use it all they want. So, day before the policy change if someone asked me, "Can I use wireless?" my answer would have been, "Absolutely not. The government agency whose contract you work specifically prohibits it." 24 hours later, the answer becomes *GASP* a "total reversal", "Why yes, you can use wireless to connect."

Why do you find that concept so strange?


Because he didn't say "I was wrong less than 24 hours ago, sorry", he said it was "self-evident" that what he said less than 24 hours ago was totally wrong. And he didn't say it unprovoked. He said it only after official senate testimony contradicted him
 
2012-10-01 10:24:51 PM  

skullkrusher: CynicalLA: skullkrusher: CynicalLA: eddiesocket: I think it's beyond clear that I'm accusing them of being weasely and misleading.

And most people here think you are wrong.

If you are indicative of the "most people" you refer too, it's pretty much guaranteed that eddie is right

Not really, thanks for playing though.

no, seriously, you are one of the least insightful people on this site. Truly. If you are arguing it then it is no doubt a pile on since you lack the sack and the wit to take undertake it yourself

*checks thread*

yep, wonderfully typical. Jumping on the stupid wagon, as usual, without actually making any arguments yourself


Blah, blah, blah. No cares what you think skullcrusher and you have been put in your place many times. You never admit you are wrong and turn to name calling when you are losing. You are a immature old man that can't take being wrong. Fark off.
 
2012-10-01 10:25:22 PM  

cman: skullkrusher: CynicalLA: skullkrusher: CynicalLA: eddiesocket: I think it's beyond clear that I'm accusing them of being weasely and misleading.

And most people here think you are wrong.

If you are indicative of the "most people" you refer too, it's pretty much guaranteed that eddie is right

Not really, thanks for playing though.

no, seriously, you are one of the least insightful people on this site. Truly. If you are arguing it then it is no doubt a pile on since you lack the sack and the wit to take undertake it yourself

*checks thread*

yep, wonderfully typical. Jumping on the stupid wagon, as usual, without actually making any arguments yourself

Hey man, if I may be so bold, you might need to have a smoke or a quick shower to cool off.


hehe I am not even involved in this conversation. It's just typical CynicalLA. Quite cool.
 
2012-10-01 10:26:21 PM  

CynicalLA: skullkrusher: CynicalLA: skullkrusher: CynicalLA: eddiesocket: I think it's beyond clear that I'm accusing them of being weasely and misleading.

And most people here think you are wrong.

If you are indicative of the "most people" you refer too, it's pretty much guaranteed that eddie is right

Not really, thanks for playing though.

no, seriously, you are one of the least insightful people on this site. Truly. If you are arguing it then it is no doubt a pile on since you lack the sack and the wit to take undertake it yourself

*checks thread*

yep, wonderfully typical. Jumping on the stupid wagon, as usual, without actually making any arguments yourself

Blah, blah, blah. No cares what you think skullcrusher and you have been put in your place many times. You never admit you are wrong and turn to name calling when you are losing. You are a immature old man that can't take being wrong. Fark off.


Dude, easy there.

Have a smoke, have a drink. Dont say something that you might not mean to say if you were thinking clearly on a whim.
 
2012-10-01 10:26:56 PM  

eddiesocket: Because he didn't say "I was wrong less than 24 hours ago, sorry", he said it was "self-evident" that what he said less than 24 hours ago was totally wrong. And he didn't say it unprovoked. He said it only after official senate testimony contradicted him


So, have you been buying stock in Reynolds Wrap, or what?
 
2012-10-01 10:27:18 PM  

Dimensio: mr intrepid: Any body want to bet AGAINST this on news tomorrow night: low light video of seal team 6 raiding the camp of the guys who killed our people in Libya. And getting them all. Game set match. You were saying something mittens?

In the event that such a raid occurred, President Obama would be accused of using military assets for political gain.


And/Or the Military did it on their ow initiative and barry had nothing to do with it.
 
2012-10-01 10:27:46 PM  

skullkrusher: cman: skullkrusher: CynicalLA: skullkrusher: CynicalLA: eddiesocket: I think it's beyond clear that I'm accusing them of being weasely and misleading.

And most people here think you are wrong.

If you are indicative of the "most people" you refer too, it's pretty much guaranteed that eddie is right

Not really, thanks for playing though.

no, seriously, you are one of the least insightful people on this site. Truly. If you are arguing it then it is no doubt a pile on since you lack the sack and the wit to take undertake it yourself

*checks thread*

yep, wonderfully typical. Jumping on the stupid wagon, as usual, without actually making any arguments yourself

Hey man, if I may be so bold, you might need to have a smoke or a quick shower to cool off.

hehe I am not even involved in this conversation. It's just typical CynicalLA. Quite cool.


I have been known to lose my cool at times here. I like it when someone reminds me about it, which is why I speak up whenever I see some potential problems brewing.
 
2012-10-01 10:28:21 PM  

Gdiguy: I'm sure they'd never actually do this, but I'd absolutely love if the whole thing was a canary trap - have the CIA brief the Romney campaign on something completely made up but embarrassing to Obama, and see how long it takes them to lead classified info in order to help themselves politically


This has got to be it. Wasn't there an announcement that Romney and Ryan would start being briefed on intelligence matters right before the Bengazi attack? I wouldn't put it past Romney to be just stupid enough to walk into such a trap.
 
2012-10-01 10:28:54 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: eddiesocket: Because he didn't say "I was wrong less than 24 hours ago, sorry", he said it was "self-evident" that what he said less than 24 hours ago was totally wrong. And he didn't say it unprovoked. He said it only after official senate testimony contradicted him

So, have you been buying stock in Reynolds Wrap, or what?


I see we've reached the non-sequitur portion of the evening.
 
2012-10-01 10:29:01 PM  

CynicalLA: No cares what you think skullcrusher and you have been put in your place many times


that's the thing... I have never been put in my place by you. Ever.
See my point?

CynicalLA: You never admit you are wrong and turn to name calling when you are losing. You are a immature old man that can't take being wrong. Fark off.


hehe, those are some big words from the peanut gallery. Just get involved in the conversation in a thread for once. Put yourself out there, state an opinion, argue a point. Problem is, you prefer jumping on the bandwagon regardless of how stupid that wagon is. Hitching yourself to the popular stupid makes you feel like a winner. Then you're not smart enough to get off. I get it.
 
2012-10-01 10:29:50 PM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Gdiguy: I'm sure they'd never actually do this, but I'd absolutely love if the whole thing was a canary trap - have the CIA brief the Romney campaign on something completely made up but embarrassing to Obama, and see how long it takes them to lead classified info in order to help themselves politically

This has got to be it. Wasn't there an announcement that Romney and Ryan would start being briefed on intelligence matters right before the Bengazi attack? I wouldn't put it past Romney to be just stupid enough to walk into such a trap.


Is that true? How could that be legal? He's just a private citizen at this point.
 
2012-10-01 10:30:38 PM  

cman: skullkrusher: cman: skullkrusher: CynicalLA: skullkrusher: CynicalLA: eddiesocket: I think it's beyond clear that I'm accusing them of being weasely and misleading.

And most people here think you are wrong.

If you are indicative of the "most people" you refer too, it's pretty much guaranteed that eddie is right

Not really, thanks for playing though.

no, seriously, you are one of the least insightful people on this site. Truly. If you are arguing it then it is no doubt a pile on since you lack the sack and the wit to take undertake it yourself

*checks thread*

yep, wonderfully typical. Jumping on the stupid wagon, as usual, without actually making any arguments yourself

Hey man, if I may be so bold, you might need to have a smoke or a quick shower to cool off.

hehe I am not even involved in this conversation. It's just typical CynicalLA. Quite cool.

I have been known to lose my cool at times here. I like it when someone reminds me about it, which is why I speak up whenever I see some potential problems brewing.


hehe I appreciate it but don't worry about it.
 
2012-10-01 10:34:28 PM  

Somacandra: Funny. I knew it was a terrorist group using the protests for cover. It was obvious. I saw discussion of that on news sites too after the first day or so.


I think you need to look up the word "terrorism". Using an eventt "for cover" sort of negates the point of it being terrorism.
"
 
2012-10-01 10:35:43 PM  

eddiesocket: Because he didn't say "I was wrong less than 24 hours ago, sorry", he said it was "self-evident" that what he said less than 24 hours ago was totally wrong. And he didn't say it unprovoked. He said it only after official senate testimony contradicted him


So you seem to be unhappy that he wasn't contrite, and pretty much just went with, "Well, there's senate testimony that completely contradicts what I said yesterday, so yeah it's pretty obvious (a.k.a. "self evident:") that it was a planned attack."

I swear, you're approaching this like you actually expect anybody in politics to think or act like normal people.
 
2012-10-01 10:36:02 PM  

Brick-House: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 661x517]


imageshack.us
 
2012-10-01 10:36:07 PM  

cman: DeltaPunch: I will be tough on terror like President Bush, instead of ignoring intel that could have prevented an attack, like President Bush.

You are ignoring the greatest failure of preventing the 9/11 attacks: complete incompetence of civil servants and cabinet members. A President is only as good as his advisors, and Bush had pretty shiatty advisors.


Too bad ad president you can't choose your own advisors.
 
2012-10-01 10:36:09 PM  

spongeboob: Dimensio: mr intrepid: Any body want to bet AGAINST this on news tomorrow night: low light video of seal team 6 raiding the camp of the guys who killed our people in Libya. And getting them all. Game set match. You were saying something mittens?

In the event that such a raid occurred, President Obama would be accused of using military assets for political gain.

And/Or the Military did it on their ow initiative and barry had nothing to do with it.


Could both scenarios not be true simultaneously?
 
2012-10-01 10:36:37 PM  

eddiesocket: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Gdiguy: I'm sure they'd never actually do this, but I'd absolutely love if the whole thing was a canary trap - have the CIA brief the Romney campaign on something completely made up but embarrassing to Obama, and see how long it takes them to lead classified info in order to help themselves politically

This has got to be it. Wasn't there an announcement that Romney and Ryan would start being briefed on intelligence matters right before the Bengazi attack? I wouldn't put it past Romney to be just stupid enough to walk into such a trap.

Is that true? How could that be legal? He's just a private citizen at this point.


If he's just a private citizen without access to intelligence briefings, how the FARK does he find the balls to go toe to toe with Obama on foreign policy?

As far as I know, its standard procedure for the presidential candidate to get regular intelligence briefings. Obama got those too in 2008.
 
2012-10-01 10:36:39 PM  

Dimensio: mr intrepid: Any body want to bet AGAINST this on news tomorrow night: low light video of seal team 6 raiding the camp of the guys who killed our people in Libya. And getting them all. Game set match. You were saying something mittens?

In the event that such a raid occurred, President Obama would be accused of using military assets for political gain.


Dude, they've spent the last year accusing Obama of killing Osama for political gain.
 
Displayed 50 of 647 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report