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.

(CNN) NewsFlash Obama administration prevents terror attack at Federal Reserve Bank. Romney to blame Obama for not calling it a terror attack soon enough. RON PAUL to blame Obama for interfering   (news.blogs.cnn.com ) divider line
    More: NewsFlash, Joint Terrorism Task Force, Susan Candiotti, United States  
•       •       •

23169 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Oct 2012 at 5:19 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-10-17 09:44:32 PM  

garron: Subby and his friends in this thread appear to have a very child-like understanding of the problems surrounding the Libya attack.

Let me help you guys a little. Please follow these facts very carefully:

1. There was a gross lack of security for our ambassador
2. There was Intelligence suggesting an attack was imminent
3. Libyan officials and our own intelligence services knew very quickly it was a terror attack
4. The Obama administration, not wanting to assume responsibility for the blame they rightly deserved, tried to characterize this as a
random event provoked by an anti-Islamic film - despite what they knew to be the truth

I know I used some big words in there, but if you guys read carefully - you might be able to understand.


Maybe. I do recall George W. Bush madly fellating Ken Lay while his advisers were trying to get him to read some alarmist nonsense to distract him. They mostly used small words, though: OSAMA BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATTACK INSIDE U.S. Maybe if only those elitist intelligence types had used something smaller than "determined". Maybe "Schiavo", or "stem cell", or "gay".
 
2012-10-17 09:44:40 PM  

splat the whale: False flag.


You don't know shiat about bees.
 
2012-10-17 09:46:45 PM  

bhcompy: Tor_Eckman: If you told an undercover cop that you would like to hire him to kill your wife but you didn't have enough money, would that be ok?

What crime did I commit?


I am a few credits short of my GED in law, but I believe that conspiracy to commit murder is a no-no.
 
2012-10-17 09:48:32 PM  
Right target, wrong method.
 
2012-10-17 09:50:28 PM  

nmemkha: Right target, wrong method.


Hate is a method.

So is birth.

You do the math.

*)
 
2012-10-17 09:51:09 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Somacandra: This thread proves there is no crime in existence that some Farker won't call either 1) entrapment or 2) thoughtcrime. It should get its own name, like Godwin's Law or Poe's Law or Cole's Law.

Fark's law.


What's wrong with "Somacandra's Law"?
 
2012-10-17 09:53:02 PM  
Cool!
This one thwarted plot is one more than the previous administration was able to thwart.

Thwart
 
2012-10-17 09:53:07 PM  

MisterTweak: Maybe. I do recall George W. Bush madly fellating Ken Lay while his advisers were trying to get him to read some alarmist nonsense to distract him. They mostly used small words, though: OSAMA BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATTACK INSIDE U.S.


Mustn't forget President Bush's reply: "OK, you've covered your ass."
 
2012-10-17 09:54:20 PM  

sweet jeez: Why dosent obamada just run on his record ..........o yea about that


yes-and my retirement fund is doing much better as a result.

and when your done you can blame the liberal media, gays, immigrants, global warming, a hairy ass, and 180 degree index finger that can't point the right way.
 
2012-10-17 09:55:43 PM  

Tor_Eckman: bhcompy: Tor_Eckman: If you told an undercover cop that you would like to hire him to kill your wife but you didn't have enough money, would that be ok?

What crime did I commit?

I am a few credits short of my GED in law, but I believe that conspiracy to commit murder is a no-no.


Okay, here's the law in California for conspiracy:

563. Conspiracy to Commit Murder

(The defendant[s]/Defendant[s] ) (is/ are) charged [in Count ______] with conspiracy to commit murder.

To prove that (the/a) defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must prove that:

1. The defendant intended to agree and did agree with [one or more of] (the other defendant[s]/ [or] ) to commit murder;

2. At the time of the agreement, the defendant and [one or more of] the other alleged member[s] of the conspiracy intended that one or more of them would commit murder;

3. (The/One of the) defendant[s][,] [or ][,] [or (both/ all) of them] committed [at least one of] the overt act[s] alleged to accomplish the murder;

AND

4. At least one of these overt acts was committed in California.

To decide whether the defendant and [one or more of] the other alleged member[s] of the conspiracy intended to commit murder, please refer to Instructions , which define that crime.

The People must prove that the members of the alleged conspiracy had an agreement and intent to commit murder. The People do not have to prove that any of the members of the alleged conspiracy actually met or came to a detailed or formal agreement to commit that crime. An agreement may be inferred from conduct if you conclude that members of the alleged conspiracy acted with a common purpose to commit the crime.

An overt act is an act by one or more of the members of the conspiracy that is done to help accomplish the agreed upon crime. The overt act must happen after the defendant has agreed to commit the crime. The overt act must be more than the act of agreeing or planning to commit the crime, but it does not have to be a criminal act itself.
 
2012-10-17 09:57:03 PM  
You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie!
 
2012-10-17 10:01:19 PM  
You know, if you assholes keep saying october surprise I'm going to assume it's a salad dressing.
 
2012-10-17 10:01:22 PM  

bhcompy: legalese


Ok then, how about this: You tell an undercover cop that you would shoot your wife, but you don't have enough money to buy a gun. He fronts you a gun, but it it has no firing pin. You go point it at your wife and pull the trigger. She calls the cops and they arrest you.

How about that? Because that is closer to what this guy actually did.
 
2012-10-17 10:06:10 PM  

MisterTweak:

Maybe. I do recall George W. Bush madly fellating Ken Lay while his advisers were trying to get him to read some alarmist nonsense to distract him. They mostly used small words, though: OSAMA BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATTACK INSIDE U.S. Maybe if only those elitist intelligence types had used something smaller than "determined". Maybe "Schiavo", or "stem cell", or "gay".


I'm sorry - I missed the part where George Bush is running for President again. I swore I thought it was Romney. Silly me.
 
2012-10-17 10:07:25 PM  

garron: MisterTweak:

Maybe. I do recall George W. Bush madly fellating Ken Lay while his advisers were trying to get him to read some alarmist nonsense to distract him. They mostly used small words, though: OSAMA BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATTACK INSIDE U.S. Maybe if only those elitist intelligence types had used something smaller than "determined". Maybe "Schiavo", or "stem cell", or "gay".

I'm sorry - I missed the part where George Bush is running for President again. I swore I thought it was Romney. Silly me.


Please explain the major differences between Bush and Romney. Or any differences, for that matter.
 
2012-10-17 10:12:23 PM  

Tor_Eckman: garron: MisterTweak:

Maybe. I do recall George W. Bush madly fellating Ken Lay while his advisers were trying to get him to read some alarmist nonsense to distract him. They mostly used small words, though: OSAMA BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATTACK INSIDE U.S. Maybe if only those elitist intelligence types had used something smaller than "determined". Maybe "Schiavo", or "stem cell", or "gay".

I'm sorry - I missed the part where George Bush is running for President again. I swore I thought it was Romney. Silly me.

Please explain the major differences between Bush and Romney. Or any differences, for that matter.


Ah - that's a fun game. You go first. Please explain the differences between Obama and Jimmy Carter.
 
2012-10-17 10:13:10 PM  

garron: Tor_Eckman: garron: MisterTweak:

Maybe. I do recall George W. Bush madly fellating Ken Lay while his advisers were trying to get him to read some alarmist nonsense to distract him. They mostly used small words, though: OSAMA BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATTACK INSIDE U.S. Maybe if only those elitist intelligence types had used something smaller than "determined". Maybe "Schiavo", or "stem cell", or "gay".

I'm sorry - I missed the part where George Bush is running for President again. I swore I thought it was Romney. Silly me.

Please explain the major differences between Bush and Romney. Or any differences, for that matter.

Ah - that's a fun game. You go first. Please explain the differences between Obama and Jimmy Carter.


You.
 
2012-10-17 10:14:16 PM  

Tor_Eckman: bhcompy: legalese

Ok then, how about this: You tell an undercover cop that you would shoot your wife, but you don't have enough money to buy a gun. He fronts you a gun, but it it has no firing pin. You go point it at your wife and pull the trigger. She calls the cops and they arrest you.

How about that? Because that is closer to what this guy actually did.


For the sake of consistency, here is the California law on entrapment(via Justia):

3408. Entrapment

Entrapment is a defense. The defendant has the burden of proving this defense by a preponderance of the evidence. This is a different standard from proof beyond a reasonable doubt. To meet this burden, the defendant must prove that it is more likely than not that (he/she) was entrapped.

A person is entrapped if a law enforcement officer [or (his/her) agent] engaged in conduct that would cause a normally law-abiding person to commit the crime.

Some examples of entrapment might include conduct like badgering, persuasion by flattery or coaxing, repeated and insistent requests, or an appeal to friendship or sympathy.

Another example of entrapment would be conduct that would make commission of the crime unusually attractive to a normally law-abiding person. Such conduct might include a guarantee that the act is not illegal or that the offense would go undetected, an offer of extraordinary benefit, or other similar conduct.

If an officer [or (his/her) agent] simply gave the defendant an opportunity to commit the crime or merely tried to gain the defendant's confidence through reasonable and restrained steps, that conduct is not entrapment.

In evaluating this defense, you should focus primarily on the conduct of the officer. However, in deciding whether the officer's conduct was likely to cause a normally law-abiding person to commit this crime, also consider other relevant circumstances, including events that happened before the crime, the defendant's responses to the officer's urging, the seriousness of the crime, and how difficult it would have been for law enforcement officers to discover that the crime had been committed.

When deciding whether the defendant was entrapped, consider what a normally law-abiding person would have done in this situation. Do not consider the defendant's particular intentions or character, or whether the defendant had a predisposition to commit the crime.


Basically, it depends on if it is interpreted as an opportunity or an unusually attractive offer. I would say a free gun is an unusually attractive offer. People just don't give guns away for free to strangers, and, in fact, it is illegal to do so in California without various pieces of paperwork being filed, which again goes towards unusual attractiveness as you're getting a gun with no record of acquiring one. A gun for sale at a reasonable price with or perhaps without proper documentation, is an opportunity. These are the same questions I have for the case in TFA, which I mentioned earlier.
 
2012-10-17 10:15:02 PM  
Entrapment? No.

This is giving him enough rope to hang himself with.
 
2012-10-17 10:21:30 PM  
Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis is an odd name for a teabagger.
 
2012-10-17 10:21:58 PM  
I don't think being handed a free gun is what they would consider "unusually attractive" in terms of shooting your wife. Likewise, being given or sold the components to make a bomb isn't enough to make a normally law-abiding person just go "fark yeah, let's blow up some buildings, yo!"

There's a serious criminal element to a person who would decide that blowing up a building full of innocent people is OK in any way, shape, or form. A normal, law abiding person would tell Mr. Undercover FBI Agent to go fark himself if the subject was broached. Most normal, law abiding people would likely call the authorities on a person that was persuading them to commit an act of terrorism against a federal building.

"However, in deciding whether the officer's conduct was likely to cause a normally law-abiding person to commit this crime, also consider other relevant circumstances, including events that happened before the crime, the defendant's responses to the officer's urging, the seriousness of the crime, and how difficult it would have been for law enforcement officers to discover that the crime had been committed.

When deciding whether the defendant was entrapped, consider what a normally law-abiding person would have done in this situation. Do not consider the defendant's particular intentions or character, or whether the defendant had a predisposition to commit the crime."

The bolded parts are where the entrapment idea really falls apart. His response to the theoretical coaxing was "hell yeah, gimme dat bomb" and the seriousness of the crime was an act of terrorism against a federal building that no normal law abiding person would ever consider.
 
2012-10-17 10:24:05 PM  

bhcompy: Tor_Eckman: bhcompy: legalese

Ok then, how about this: You tell an undercover cop that you would shoot your wife, but you don't have enough money to buy a gun. He fronts you a gun, but it it has no firing pin. You go point it at your wife and pull the trigger. She calls the cops and they arrest you.

How about that? Because that is closer to what this guy actually did.

For the sake of consistency, here is the California law on entrapment(via Justia):

3408. Entrapment

Entrapment is a defense. The defendant has the burden of proving this defense by a preponderance of the evidence. This is a different standard from proof beyond a reasonable doubt. To meet this burden, the defendant must prove that it is more likely than not that (he/she) was entrapped.

A person is entrapped if a law enforcement officer [or (his/her) agent] engaged in conduct that would cause a normally law-abiding person to commit the crime.

Some examples of entrapment might include conduct like badgering, persuasion by flattery or coaxing, repeated and insistent requests, or an appeal to friendship or sympathy.

Another example of entrapment would be conduct that would make commission of the crime unusually attractive to a normally law-abiding person. Such conduct might include a guarantee that the act is not illegal or that the offense would go undetected, an offer of extraordinary benefit, or other similar conduct.

If an officer [or (his/her) agent] simply gave the defendant an opportunity to commit the crime or merely tried to gain the defendant's confidence through reasonable and restrained steps, that conduct is not entrapment.

In evaluating this defense, you should focus primarily on the conduct of the officer. However, in deciding whether the officer's conduct was likely to cause a normally law-abiding person to commit this crime, also consider other relevant circumstances, including events that happened before the crime, the defendant's responses to the officer's urging, the seri ...


OK, entrapment in your scenario would be this:

You're in a bar, and muttering about your wife. The cop sidles up to you and says "You should kill your wife. No, you should REALLY kill your wife. In fact, here's a gun you can kill her with, and I'll drive you back home to do it." He then takes you by the arm and hustles you outside, pushes you into his car, and drives you home. Then he pushes the free gun into your hand and says "Go on, go kill your wife, I'll wait."

Then you go inside and pull the trigger; but the firing pin has been disabled, and so of course your wife doesn't die. Then you're arrested for attempted murder, and you claim entrapment. Your defense is that you were put into a position where you committed a crime you normally wouldn't have attempted. The idea didn't originate with you; you didn't go looking for the gun; you didn't take it home with you; and you didn't voluntarily conceive the idea of going inside the house with the altered gun. Since NONE of those ideas were yours, you were entrapped into committing the crime.

Now, attempted murder is harder to claim entrapment with, because at the final moment you could have not pulled the trigger; just as in the instant case here, all douchebag had to do was not attempt to blow up the building. That's why entrapment as a defense usually fails--because the perpetrator usually had the option to not commit the crime and failed to do so. Entrapment is generally only successful with conspiracy crimes, where the defendant didn't have to be present at the final act to still be culpable.
 
2012-10-17 10:24:19 PM  

Vectron: Are you saying this 21 year old Arab kid could get his hands on explosives?


Are you saying Indians are Arab?
 
2012-10-17 10:32:15 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: randomizetimer: Liberal Fascism smells like Conservative fascism.

[demonocracy.info image 850x1460]


122.1 Trillion Dollars

$122,100,000,000,000. - US unfunded liabilities by Dec 31, 2012.
Abovet you can see the pillar of cold hard $100 bills that dwarfs the
WTC & Empire State Building - both at one point world's tallest buildings.
If you look carefully you can see the Statue of Liberty.

The 122.1 Trillion dollar super-skyscraper wall is the amount of money the U.S. Government
knows it does not have to fully fund the Medicare, Medicare Prescription Drug Program,
Social Security, Military and civil servant pensions. It is the money USA knows it will not
have to pay all its bills.
If you live in USA this is also your personal credit card bill; you are responsible along with
everyone else to pay this back. The citizens of USA created the U.S. Government to serve
them, this is what the U.S. Government has done while serving The People.

The unfunded liability is calculated on current tax and funding inputs, and future demographic
shifts in US Population.

Note: On the above 122.1T image the size of the bases of the money stacks are $10 billion, and 400 stories @ $4 trillion

"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world." - Thomas Jefferson

Everyone needs to see this.

Source: Federal Reserve & www.USdebtclock.org - visit it to see the debt in real time and get a better grasp of this amazing number.

Above graphic and info found at http://demonocracy.info/infographics/usa/us_debt/us_debt.html

Wait, you're telling me that the government doesn't get enough in taxes in one year to pay for social security and medicare for 100 years? I'm voting for Romney now.


Try that is only the next 30 years. Not the next 100.
 
2012-10-17 10:39:31 PM  

Sticky Hands: You asked for miracles, Theo, I give you the FBI.


Just like Saigon! Eh, Slick?
 
2012-10-17 10:41:42 PM  
Has anyone chimed in on thank goodness another lunatic is off the streets? I don't honestly care what his motives are, dude was willing to kill a lot of people. We caught a mental case BEFORE he hurt people. That't a win for everyone!
 
2012-10-17 10:43:17 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Entrapment is generally only successful with conspiracy crimes, where the defendant didn't have to be present at the final act to still be culpable.


Yet it's a valid defense even when you do commit the action(Bradley v Duncan). The fact is that it is arguable. Whether or not the jury accepts it is something else, but by the letter of the law, varying by jurisdiction probably, you can definitely make a case out of it. Realistically, you're probably better waiving a jury trial and going to a bench trial in that instance, since regular people have a hard time disassociating the law from what they wish the law was in this case. There aren't 12 angry men in every jury box that are willing to actually discuss matters reasonably and detached from emotion while rejecting any preconceived notions they may have.

I don't like these situations because they introduce the ambiguity of potential entrapment in to the process of the crime. It's dirty crime fighting. The fact that people will ask the question is enough to question the act itself. It's not what our law and justice systems are built upon.
 
2012-10-17 10:44:32 PM  

All2morrowsparTs: Treygreen13: Counter_Intelligent: Treygreen13: The FBI is now the Obama Administration?

Isn't the FBI part of the executive branch, at least?

I guess now that the Navy Seals are part of the Executive Branch, why not the FBI as well?

Um, The FBI is part of the Justice department which is part of the executive Branch.

The Navy Seals report up to the Department of the Navy which reports to the Secretary of the Navy which reports to the Defence secretary which is part of the executive branch.

There are 3 branches of Government not 5.


What about the goddamn Batman?
 
xcv
2012-10-17 10:44:34 PM  

Happy Hours: Vectron: Are you saying this 21 year old Arab kid could get his hands on explosives?

Are you saying Indians Native Americans are Arab?


Fixed
 
2012-10-17 10:45:10 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: And for all the "omg..its entrapment" retards.



The FBI goes around asking people if they want to carry out attacks, posing as terrorists themselves. So they bring people in to start with.
 
2012-10-17 10:45:54 PM  

Tor_Eckman: garron: MisterTweak:

Maybe. I do recall George W. Bush madly fellating Ken Lay while his advisers were trying to get him to read some alarmist nonsense to distract him. They mostly used small words, though: OSAMA BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATTACK INSIDE U.S. Maybe if only those elitist intelligence types had used something smaller than "determined". Maybe "Schiavo", or "stem cell", or "gay".

I'm sorry - I missed the part where George Bush is running for President again. I swore I thought it was Romney. Silly me.

Please explain the major differences between Bush and Romney. Or any differences, for that matter.


Pretty much this. Republicans march in lockstep, whereas getting Democrats together is like herding cats. If you've see one "R", you've seen 'em all.
 
2012-10-17 11:00:02 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: Tor_Eckman: garron: MisterTweak:

Maybe. I do recall George W. Bush madly fellating Ken Lay while his advisers were trying to get him to read some alarmist nonsense to distract him. They mostly used small words, though: OSAMA BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATTACK INSIDE U.S. Maybe if only those elitist intelligence types had used something smaller than "determined". Maybe "Schiavo", or "stem cell", or "gay".

I'm sorry - I missed the part where George Bush is running for President again. I swore I thought it was Romney. Silly me.

Please explain the major differences between Bush and Romney. Or any differences, for that matter.

Pretty much this. Republicans march in lockstep, whereas getting Democrats together is like herding cats. If you've see one "R", you've seen 'em all.


Yep, Arnold and Santorum, totally the same person. I mean, one is okay with gay marriage and the other isn't. One is a puritan and one farked a whole bunch of biatches and did drugs. One pushed for tax hikes and the other didn't. Totally the same.
 
2012-10-17 11:00:05 PM  
♪♫ "I see you driving round town with a van full of bombs, and I say fark yooooouuu'!" ♪♫
 
2012-10-17 11:10:52 PM  

TheBigJerk: LoneVVolf: Funny how all these terrorist attacks that get thwarted end up being some schlub the FBI conned into buying fake explosives and pressing a button. Seems to happen every time citizens get uppity about sacrificing more and more individual freedoms in the name of security. The real disturbing question here, is when people stop buying into the soft scare tactics, are they going to let one of these go further to keep us ducking for cover?

I don't have a problem with stings. This was a sting.

And when it comes to giving up freedoms we don't NEED terrorists, scary (insert other race here) and "the drug dealers" work just fine.


The nice thing about this method of thwarting plots: It doesn't require or even suggest giving up ANY civil liberties.

Unless there are significant details I'm missing, warrantless wiretapping, the TSA, torture, etc. all did jack shiat in this case.

Some undercover FBI agents put the word out amongst some criminal networks "hey, if anyone wants to make bombs, I can hook them up" and waited for rocket surgeons like this to show up. You don't even need a Patriot Act to do that.
 
2012-10-17 11:10:55 PM  

bhcompy: Yep, Arnold and Santorum, totally the same person. I mean, one is okay with gay marriage and the other isn't. One is a puritan and one farked a whole bunch of biatches and did drugs. One pushed for tax hikes and the other didn't. Totally the same.


Oh come on. You know that the only reason Arnold married Maria Schriver is because they were trying to make a bulletproof Kennedy.
 
2012-10-17 11:27:28 PM  

hairywoogit: This is essentially why terrorists don't really scare me. The vast majority of them are uneducated idiots. The really smart ones direct the idiots, and end up with Bond-Villain-esque results half the time.


QFT

I travel for work and I make it a point to fly on Sep 11. Why? Because I'm not afraid of a bunch of guys that can't blow their own underwear up
 
2012-10-17 11:30:14 PM  

LucklessWonder: bhcompy: It wasn't really prevention. This guy was given a fake bomb to "detonate" to prove guilt. It would be prevention if the FBI Jack Bauer'd the bomb with 3 seconds left.

Jack Bauer'd isn't appropriate. Instead the fed would have to "subject the bomb to enhanced interrogation techniques" such as waterboarding with 3 seconds left.


Work one of these into the routine somehow.
www.texcigars.com
 
2012-10-17 11:49:19 PM  
I saw this on "Law and Order" a while back, so Obama had plenty of warning . . ..
 
2012-10-17 11:50:48 PM  
It appears to be another one of many terrorist attacks masterminded by the FBI, planned by the FBI, financed by the FBI, and carried out by an FBI-recruited patsy who, on his own, would never have the means or opportunity (and he was probably coerced into motive). If I was on the jury he'd walk out a free man. Since I probably won't be, he'll spend the rest of his life in prison.
 
2012-10-17 11:52:58 PM  

vpb: Marcus Aurelius: The defendant thought he was striking a blow to the American economy. He thought he was directing confederates and fellow believers. At every turn, he was wrong, and his extensive efforts to strike at the heart of the nation's financial system were foiled by effective law enforcement

Translation: "We trolled this stupid loser mofo for all he was worth. He fell for the whole thing from start to finish."

That's fine. The intent is what matters.


I'm sure the FBI manufactured the intent, too. The so-called Sears Tower (non) Bomber was harassed by the feds for A YEAR, and they finally got him to go along with the plot after THREATENING HIS FAMILY. The only people who should be in prison are the feds.
 
2012-10-17 11:57:35 PM  

DrPainMD: It appears to be another one of many terrorist attacks masterminded by the FBI, planned by the FBI, financed by the FBI, and carried out by an FBI-recruited patsy who, on his own, would never have the means or opportunity (and he was probably coerced into motive). If I was on the jury he'd walk out a free man. Since I probably won't be, he'll spend the rest of his life in prison.



He provided this country a great service. Continued funding for the war on terror.
 
2012-10-18 12:25:02 AM  

Why Would I Read the Article: In before "The Republicans will just say it was staged because herp a derp derp."

Oh.....too late.


By about three years.
 
2012-10-18 01:16:05 AM  
Gyrfalcon: The flaw in the reasoning

girl, I hope you were backing me up on that one; you know I know better.
 
2012-10-18 01:16:45 AM  

garron: 1. There was a gross lack of security for our ambassador



Remind me again who cut funding for security?
 
2012-10-18 01:36:49 AM  

mizchief: Spaced Cowboy: I would suggest you wear a helmet when you post, but seems as though the damage has already been done.

You asked, in the most mindfarkingly stupid way, what the difference between thoughts and actual crimes were. Literally, that is exactly what you asked. You were summarily dismissed as a farking moron. It's too late for you to act like you have a clue now, sorry bud. Too little, too late.

So still nothing but personal attacks and now trying to make yourself feel like less of an asshole.

You asked a stunningly stupid question and got treated like an idiot for it. Welcome to Fark.

In the future, think before posting and this can all be avoided. Also, it would behoove you to put your detailed questions in the Boobies you make instead of scribbling with crayons for half a dozen posts before finally getting to your semi-coherent point and expecting everyone to know what the fark you were blabbering in the first place.

No I asked you a very simple question to prove a point, you couldn't answer it so you just blew smoke out of your ass. So i figured i would just egg you on for awhile and have some fun.


The only point you proved was that I'm far too easily amused by dolts. I mean, you actually asked me what the difference is between thinking about a crime and committing a crime and I humored you with a sarcastic response that you still failed to understand.

Your question:
25.media.tumblr.com

To which I replied:
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-10-18 03:22:37 AM  

digitalrain: [papundits.files.wordpress.com image 300x339]

Shhh... [whispers] October surprise!


should have killed "Bin Laden" that would be a real surprise.
 
2012-10-18 03:52:31 AM  
I got about twenty comments in and had this thought:

I am glad no one in NY (that I know of) died of a terrorist attack today (yesterday now, I suppose).

It was a good day, despite all the random idiots who tried my patience repeatedly.
 
2012-10-18 04:51:39 AM  

garron: Tor_Eckman: garron: MisterTweak:

Maybe. I do recall George W. Bush madly fellating Ken Lay while his advisers were trying to get him to read some alarmist nonsense to distract him. They mostly used small words, though: OSAMA BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATTACK INSIDE U.S. Maybe if only those elitist intelligence types had used something smaller than "determined". Maybe "Schiavo", or "stem cell", or "gay".

I'm sorry - I missed the part where George Bush is running for President again. I swore I thought it was Romney. Silly me.

Please explain the major differences between Bush and Romney. Or any differences, for that matter.

Ah - that's a fun game. You go first. Please explain the differences between Obama and Jimmy Carter.


In other words, you cannot even give me one difference between Bush and Romney.

I figured.
 
2012-10-18 06:53:55 AM  
A bunch of cabinet members along with Obama spent days and weeks doing undercover work and extensive planning to stop this? Those FBI agents just sat around right?

"Oh no Mr. President you go on this stakeout, I'll stay here and hang out in the Oval Office"
 
2012-10-18 07:07:29 AM  

bhcompy: I would say a free gun is an unusually attractive offer.


Only if volunteered. If the defendant asked an undercover officer "how can I get a free gun so I can shoot my wife" and the officer responded "I know a guy" that is not entrapment. From the facts we have seen so far, this man came to the US intent on carrying out a terror attack and was actively seeking confederates before the police agencies trolled him. There might be some grey areas that we haven't seen yet that could change my opinion, but right now this looks like a clean sting, and those are quite legal.

We will probably never know all of the details, however, since dumbass is being represented by a public defender and has the full weight and fury of the Justice Department being aimed at his pointy head. I would bet that in the end, he ends up pleading.
 
Displayed 50 of 460 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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