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.

(Yahoo) NewsFlash Susan Rice withdraws her name from consideration for Secretary of State. Is Benghazi a scandal yet?   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 614
    More: NewsFlash, Susan Rice, Republican Sen, Janet Napolitano, obama, Yahoo News, Malia, CFR, Member states of the United Nations  
•       •       •

1463 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Dec 2012 at 5:20 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

614 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
 
2012-12-13 06:48:50 PM

Silly Jesus: BKITU: Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 512x325]

That's not moving the goalposts. I'm maintaining that he wasn't referring to the Benghazi mess as a terrorist attack. How logical would it be to give a speech addressing a just occurred terrorist attack and not mention that it was terrorism until the very end? Wouldn't that sort of be in the opening statement?


How logical is it to say that mentioning it as an act of terror, in a speech about the attack is anything but calling it a terrorist attack?

Please proceed, governor.
 
2012-12-13 06:49:00 PM

Silly Jesus: Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.

"An act of terror" is the most vague way to refer to it? And halfof33 rants about ME being the one who spins and fibs.

If you were addressing the nation about a terrorist attack that just occurred, and your speech was 12 paragraphs long, would you put the one and only mention of terror in the tenth paragraph? It's sort of the topic. That's how you learn to write papers in the second grade. You open with the topic. It was a throw away line toward the end of a fluff piece.


What should he have done? Screamed "TERRORISTS! AMERICANS DEAD! TERRORISTS! GOD IS ANGRY!" every other line? He farking called the attacks an act of terror, and you're upset that he didn't do it until near the end instead of where you think he should have.
 
2012-12-13 06:50:02 PM

TheOther: Nominate John McCain.

Confirmation!

Fire him on his first day.


Bwahaha!!! farking brilliant. McCain wouldn't take it though. Too much real work involved.
 
2012-12-13 06:50:21 PM

halfof33: Keizer_Ghidorah: And halfof33 rants about ME being the one who spins and fibs.

Rants? Hmm. Not a rant:

halfof33: Gee, you called me a liar, and now you are spinning.

A rant:

Keizer_Ghidorah: Yet neither you nor anyone else has ever shown any proof of this "fact". All you do is scream debunked talking points and outright lies.

/say is it hard to pat yourself on the back while you are up on your cross?


*snrk* And here I thought you couldn't project any harder. Now I'M the one up on a cross.
 
2012-12-13 06:50:27 PM

Silly Jesus: BKITU: Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 512x325]

That's not moving the goalposts. I'm maintaining that he wasn't referring to the Benghazi mess as a terrorist attack. How logical would it be to give a speech addressing a just occurred terrorist attack and not mention that it was terrorism until the very end? Wouldn't that sort of be in the opening statement?


"He never said!"

*links indicating otherwise*

"He never said to this totally different level that I'm just now making up to try and cover my ass!"

Yes. You moved the goalposts. Stand up like a man and own it. To do otherwise is cowardice.
 
2012-12-13 06:50:58 PM

Hobodeluxe: Silly Jesus: Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.

"An act of terror" is the most vague way to refer to it? And halfof33 rants about ME being the one who spins and fibs.

If you were addressing the nation about a terrorist attack that just occurred, and your speech was 12 paragraphs long, would you put the one and only mention of terror in the tenth paragraph? It's sort of the topic. That's how you learn to write papers in the second grade. You open with the topic. It was a throw away line toward the end of a fluff piece.

so now all you got is that he didn't place enough emphasis on it? that's weak sauce


If you're giving a speech on something...pick anything...and your speech is 12 paragraphs long, under what circumstances would you put the topic of that speech in the 10th paragraph?
 
2012-12-13 06:51:49 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: You haven't been able to prove it's a scandal, and neither has any other anti-Obama crackpot. You can't tell us how the "lie" harmed us, every time someone asks you to you either ignore it or scream :It's so OBVIOUS, why do you trolls ignore it?!" or personally attack the person asking.


You claim that I "scream" a lot. You got voices in your head?

"All you do is scream debunked talking points and outright lies."

That shiat right there is gold.
 
2012-12-13 06:52:29 PM

Halli: Silly Jesus: Halli: Silly Jesus: BKITU: Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 512x325]

That's not moving the goalposts. I'm maintaining that he wasn't referring to the Benghazi mess as a terrorist attack. How logical would it be to give a speech addressing a just occurred terrorist attack and not mention that it was terrorism until the very end? Wouldn't that sort of be in the opening statement?

Man this troll is still on fark? I thought it left because of embarrassment.

You live in Iceland.

And you got outed some time ago.


Oh, funny. I saved the link to the comment he outed himself on. "Comment has been removed".

Mod alt ahoy.
 
2012-12-13 06:52:49 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.

"An act of terror" is the most vague way to refer to it? And halfof33 rants about ME being the one who spins and fibs.

If you were addressing the nation about a terrorist attack that just occurred, and your speech was 12 paragraphs long, would you put the one and only mention of terror in the tenth paragraph? It's sort of the topic. That's how you learn to write papers in the second grade. You open with the topic. It was a throw away line toward the end of a fluff piece.

What should he have done? Screamed "TERRORISTS! AMERICANS DEAD! TERRORISTS! GOD IS ANGRY!" every other line? He farking called the attacks an act of terror, and you're upset that he didn't do it until near the end instead of where you think he should have.


I'm saying that it was a vague throw away line stating our general views as a nation. He wasn't calling it an act of terror.

As I asked another person...under what circumstances would you put the only mention of the topic of your speech in the 10th of 12 paragraphs? This isn't kindergarten. He has educated speech writers. It clearly wasn't the topic of his speech.
 
2012-12-13 06:53:06 PM
Well that settles it for me. By the end of his second term the Republicans will have impeached Obama, and it will be over something even pettier than a blowjob.
 
2012-12-13 06:53:32 PM
Now she and her hubby don't have to divest from the XL Pipeline...

bu bu bu but she's a Democrat
 
2012-12-13 06:53:48 PM

propasaurus: Obama should do something like appoint her WH Chief of Staff. Make the Republicans go through her if they want to talk to the President.


affordablehousinginstitute.org
Trolololo. This needs to happen.
 
2012-12-13 06:54:33 PM

BKITU: Silly Jesus: BKITU: Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 512x325]

That's not moving the goalposts. I'm maintaining that he wasn't referring to the Benghazi mess as a terrorist attack. How logical would it be to give a speech addressing a just occurred terrorist attack and not mention that it was terrorism until the very end? Wouldn't that sort of be in the opening statement?

"He never said!"

*links indicating otherwise*

"He never said to this totally different level that I'm just now making up to try and cover my ass!"

Yes. You moved the goalposts. Stand up like a man and own it. To do otherwise is cowardice.


The links didn't indicate otherwise. That's my entire point. He said the word terror, duh, but that's not the same as calling the Benghazi attacks terrorist attacks. It was a throw away line describing general sentiments of the nation.

No goal posts moved.

Your reading comprehension is lacking severely. Own it.
 
2012-12-13 06:55:08 PM

LordJiro: Halli: Silly Jesus: Halli: Silly Jesus: BKITU: Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 512x325]

That's not moving the goalposts. I'm maintaining that he wasn't referring to the Benghazi mess as a terrorist attack. How logical would it be to give a speech addressing a just occurred terrorist attack and not mention that it was terrorism until the very end? Wouldn't that sort of be in the opening statement?

Man this troll is still on fark? I thought it left because of embarrassment.

You live in Iceland.

And you got outed some time ago.

Oh, funny. I saved the link to the comment he outed himself on. "Comment has been removed".

Mod alt ahoy.


Oh, you!
 
2012-12-13 06:55:19 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: DamnYankees: Thigvald the Big-Balled: propasaurus: Obama should do something like appoint her WH Chief of Staff. Make the Republicans go through her if they want to talk to the President.

THIS.

And Obama should take advice offered in earlier FARK threads: nominate a Republican for the position, one who would be replaced by a Democrat. Watch the Republicans tear apart one of their own in order to prevent the seat from falling into Democratic hands.

That actually would be fantastic. Like, Susan Collins or something.

It wouldn't work. There isn't a Republican left who would put service to the nation above partisan politics and accept the nomination.


Richard Lugar
 
2012-12-13 06:55:59 PM

Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.


You suck at this.
 
2012-12-13 06:56:15 PM

ariseatex: Mind you, my theory and Propasaurus/Marcus Aurelius's aren't mutually exclusive.


... If that happens, I'm going to personally owe Obama a beer, because that would be the greatest political troll move ever.
 
2012-12-13 06:56:36 PM

Goetz: Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.

You suck at this.


Your opinion matters to me a great deal.
 
2012-12-13 06:57:11 PM

Silly Jesus: BKITU: Silly Jesus: BKITU: Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 512x325]

That's not moving the goalposts. I'm maintaining that he wasn't referring to the Benghazi mess as a terrorist attack. How logical would it be to give a speech addressing a just occurred terrorist attack and not mention that it was terrorism until the very end? Wouldn't that sort of be in the opening statement?

"He never said!"

*links indicating otherwise*

"He never said to this totally different level that I'm just now making up to try and cover my ass!"

Yes. You moved the goalposts. Stand up like a man and own it. To do otherwise is cowardice.

The links didn't indicate otherwise. That's my entire point. He said the word terror, duh, but that's not the same as calling the Benghazi attacks terrorist attacks. It was a throw away line describing general sentiments of the nation.

No goal posts moved.

Your reading comprehension is lacking severely. Own it.


Here is your moved goalpost. Your statement that it was "a throw away line" is a false bare assertion you're using to try and cover your ass. Everything in the context of the statement clearly indicates that he was referring to the incident that had just farking happened.

You coward.
 
2012-12-13 06:57:43 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.

"An act of terror" is the most vague way to refer to it? And halfof33 rants about ME being the one who spins and fibs.

If you were addressing the nation about a terrorist attack that just occurred, and your speech was 12 paragraphs long, would you put the one and only mention of terror in the tenth paragraph? It's sort of the topic. That's how you learn to write papers in the second grade. You open with the topic. It was a throw away line toward the end of a fluff piece.

What should he have done? Screamed "TERRORISTS! AMERICANS DEAD! TERRORISTS! GOD IS ANGRY!" every other line? He farking called the attacks an act of terror, and you're upset that he didn't do it until near the end instead of where you think he should have.


The very fist thing Obama should have done is to stop being so blah. He could start there, couldn't he?
 
2012-12-13 06:59:13 PM

BKITU: Silly Jesus: BKITU: Silly Jesus: BKITU: Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 512x325]

That's not moving the goalposts. I'm maintaining that he wasn't referring to the Benghazi mess as a terrorist attack. How logical would it be to give a speech addressing a just occurred terrorist attack and not mention that it was terrorism until the very end? Wouldn't that sort of be in the opening statement?

"He never said!"

*links indicating otherwise*

"He never said to this totally different level that I'm just now making up to try and cover my ass!"

Yes. You moved the goalposts. Stand up like a man and own it. To do otherwise is cowardice.

The links didn't indicate otherwise. That's my entire point. He said the word terror, duh, but that's not the same as calling the Benghazi attacks terrorist attacks. It was a throw away line describing general sentiments of the nation.

No goal posts moved.

Your reading comprehension is lacking severely. Own it.

Here is your moved goalpost. Your statement that it was "a throw away line" is a false bare assertion you're using to try and cover your ass. Everything in the context of the statement clearly indicates that he was referring to the incident that had just farking happened.

You coward.


So your contention is that it's normal to put the topic of a speech in the 10th of 12 paragraphs?

I didn't move anything, you are very potato and being farkied as such. I will take that into consideration when deciding whether or not to engage you in the future. It is tiresome.
 
2012-12-13 06:59:49 PM
The scandal is that she is black and the Republicans harassed her out of a job that she deserved.
That is the shameful scandal.
 
2012-12-13 07:00:00 PM

Silly Jesus: Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.

"An act of terror" is the most vague way to refer to it? And halfof33 rants about ME being the one who spins and fibs.

If you were addressing the nation about a terrorist attack that just occurred, and your speech was 12 paragraphs long, would you put the one and only mention of terror in the tenth paragraph? It's sort of the topic. That's how you learn to write papers in the second grade. You open with the topic. It was a throw away line toward the end of a fluff piece.

What should he have done? Screamed "TERRORISTS! AMERICANS DEAD! TERRORISTS! GOD IS ANGRY!" every other line? He farking called the attacks an act of terror, and you're upset that he didn't do it until near the end instead of where you think he should have.

I'm saying that it was a vague throw away line stating our general views as a nation. He wasn't calling it an act of terror.

As I asked another person...under what circumstances would you put the only mention of the topic of your speech in the 10th of 12 paragraphs? This isn't kindergarten. He has educated speech writers. It clearly wasn't the topic of his speech.


If it wasn't the reason he made the speech, like you keep insisting, then why'd he make it in the first place?
 
2012-12-13 07:00:06 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.

"An act of terror" is the most vague way to refer to it? And halfof33 rants about ME being the one who spins and fibs.

If you were addressing the nation about a terrorist attack that just occurred, and your speech was 12 paragraphs long, would you put the one and only mention of terror in the tenth paragraph? It's sort of the topic. That's how you learn to write papers in the second grade. You open with the topic. It was a throw away line toward the end of a fluff piece.

What should he have done? Screamed "TERRORISTS! AMERICANS DEAD! TERRORISTS! GOD IS ANGRY!" every other line? He farking called the attacks an act of terror, and you're upset that he didn't do it until near the end instead of where you think he should have.

The very fist thing Obama should have done is to stop being so blah. He could start there, couldn't he?


Lulz
 
2012-12-13 07:00:35 PM
Wow. I finally hit "ignore" on one silly guy, and the comment count drops by fifty.

ah, refreshed.
 
2012-12-13 07:00:46 PM

Silly Jesus: Goetz: Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.

You suck at this.

Your opinion matters to me a great deal.


It shouldn't, but OK.

You still suck at this.
 
2012-12-13 07:00:56 PM

halfof33: Keizer_Ghidorah: You haven't been able to prove it's a scandal, and neither has any other anti-Obama crackpot. You can't tell us how the "lie" harmed us, every time someone asks you to you either ignore it or scream :It's so OBVIOUS, why do you trolls ignore it?!" or personally attack the person asking.

You claim that I "scream" a lot. You got voices in your head?

"All you do is scream debunked talking points and outright lies."

That shiat right there is gold.


All of the !'s you keep using indicate yelling, yes. As does your very emotional tone, and how you never seem to answer anything.
 
2012-12-13 07:01:30 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.

"An act of terror" is the most vague way to refer to it? And halfof33 rants about ME being the one who spins and fibs.

If you were addressing the nation about a terrorist attack that just occurred, and your speech was 12 paragraphs long, would you put the one and only mention of terror in the tenth paragraph? It's sort of the topic. That's how you learn to write papers in the second grade. You open with the topic. It was a throw away line toward the end of a fluff piece.

What should he have done? Screamed "TERRORISTS! AMERICANS DEAD! TERRORISTS! GOD IS ANGRY!" every other line? He farking called the attacks an act of terror, and you're upset that he didn't do it until near the end instead of where you think he should have.

I'm saying that it was a vague throw away line stating our general views as a nation. He wasn't calling it an act of terror.

As I asked another person...under what circumstances would you put the only mention of the topic of your speech in the 10th of 12 paragraphs? This isn't kindergarten. He has educated speech writers. It clearly wasn't the topic of his speech.

If it wasn't the reason he made the speech, like you keep insisting, then why'd he make it in the first place?


Read the speech. All of the other stuff that he said that wasn't in any way calling it a terrorist attack...THAT was why he made the speech. The nonsense that you're desperately reading into it is not the reason that he made the speech.
 
2012-12-13 07:02:21 PM

Silly Jesus: BKITU: Silly Jesus: BKITU: Silly Jesus: BKITU: Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 512x325]

That's not moving the goalposts. I'm maintaining that he wasn't referring to the Benghazi mess as a terrorist attack. How logical would it be to give a speech addressing a just occurred terrorist attack and not mention that it was terrorism until the very end? Wouldn't that sort of be in the opening statement?

"He never said!"

*links indicating otherwise*

"He never said to this totally different level that I'm just now making up to try and cover my ass!"

Yes. You moved the goalposts. Stand up like a man and own it. To do otherwise is cowardice.

The links didn't indicate otherwise. That's my entire point. He said the word terror, duh, but that's not the same as calling the Benghazi attacks terrorist attacks. It was a throw away line describing general sentiments of the nation.

No goal posts moved.

Your reading comprehension is lacking severely. Own it.

Here is your moved goalpost. Your statement that it was "a throw away line" is a false bare assertion you're using to try and cover your ass. Everything in the context of the statement clearly indicates that he was referring to the incident that had just farking happened.

You coward.

So your contention is that it's normal to put the topic of a speech in the 10th of 12 paragraphs?

I didn't move anything, you are very potato and being farkied as such. I will take that into consideration when deciding whether or not to engage you in the future. It is tiresome.


It's your contention that because he didn't say it as the very first words, Obama hates America and everything is a scandal. Either you're an idiot or a mod alt drumming up hits.
 
2012-12-13 07:03:04 PM

Therion: Wow. I finally hit "ignore" on one silly guy, and the comment count drops by fifty.

ah, refreshed.


Trolling/harassing other Fark members: Unfortunately, disagreements can and will happen - but there is no need for them to become personal. Don't harass other users with your posts, parody links/threads, or create accounts to harass them with.
Fark accounts come with a handy Ignore Feature. Use it to filter out those posters whose comments you'd prefer not to read. Keep in mind that discussing who's on your ignore list is the opposite of ignoring. It crosses the line into trolling of other Fark members and may result in a suspension of posting privileges.
 
2012-12-13 07:03:36 PM

Silly Jesus: Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.

"An act of terror" is the most vague way to refer to it? And halfof33 rants about ME being the one who spins and fibs.

If you were addressing the nation about a terrorist attack that just occurred, and your speech was 12 paragraphs long, would you put the one and only mention of terror in the tenth paragraph? It's sort of the topic. That's how you learn to write papers in the second grade. You open with the topic. It was a throw away line toward the end of a fluff piece.

What should he have done? Screamed "TERRORISTS! AMERICANS DEAD! TERRORISTS! GOD IS ANGRY!" every other line? He farking called the attacks an act of terror, and you're upset that he didn't do it until near the end instead of where you think he should have.

I'm saying that it was a vague throw away line stating our general views as a nation. He wasn't calling it an act of terror.

As I asked another person...under what circumstances would you put the only mention of the topic of your speech in the 10th of 12 paragraphs? This isn't kindergarten. He has educated speech writers. It clearly wasn't the topic of his speech.

If it wasn't the reason he made the speech, like you keep insisting, then why'd he make it in the first place?

Read the speech. All of the other stuff that he said that wasn't in any way calling it a terrorist attack...THAT was why he made the speech. The nonsense that you're desperately reading into it is not the reason that he made the speech.


Keep telling yourself that, champ. You dumbfarks are so desperate to hate Obama you have to manufacture obvious bullshiat to maintain your retarded rage.
 
2012-12-13 07:03:58 PM

Goetz: Silly Jesus: Goetz: Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.

You suck at this.

Your opinion matters to me a great deal.

It shouldn't, but OK.

You still suck at this.


Thanks for letting me know twice. What's 2x0?
 
2012-12-13 07:04:48 PM

Silly Jesus: Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.

"An act of terror" is the most vague way to refer to it? And halfof33 rants about ME being the one who spins and fibs.

If you were addressing the nation about a terrorist attack that just occurred, and your speech was 12 paragraphs long, would you put the one and only mention of terror in the tenth paragraph? It's sort of the topic. That's how you learn to write papers in the second grade. You open with the topic. It was a throw away line toward the end of a fluff piece.

What should he have done? Screamed "TERRORISTS! AMERICANS DEAD! TERRORISTS! GOD IS ANGRY!" every other line? He farking called the attacks an act of terror, and you're upset that he didn't do it until near the end instead of where you think he should have.

I'm saying that it was a vague throw away line stating our general views as a nation. He wasn't calling it an act of terror.

As I asked another person...under what circumstances would you put the only mention of the topic of your speech in the 10th of 12 paragraphs? This isn't kindergarten. He has educated speech writers. It clearly wasn't the topic of his speech.


IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. - Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. - And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
 
2012-12-13 07:05:04 PM
Why is everybody arguing with an outed mod alt?
 
2012-12-13 07:05:40 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.

"An act of terror" is the most vague way to refer to it? And halfof33 rants about ME being the one who spins and fibs.

If you were addressing the nation about a terrorist attack that just occurred, and your speech was 12 paragraphs long, would you put the one and only mention of terror in the tenth paragraph? It's sort of the topic. That's how you learn to write papers in the second grade. You open with the topic. It was a throw away line toward the end of a fluff piece.

What should he have done? Screamed "TERRORISTS! AMERICANS DEAD! TERRORISTS! GOD IS ANGRY!" every other line? He farking called the attacks an act of terror, and you're upset that he didn't do it until near the end instead of where you think he should have.

I'm saying that it was a vague throw away line stating our general views as a nation. He wasn't calling it an act of terror.

As I asked another person...under what circumstances would you put the only mention of the topic of your speech in the 10th of 12 paragraphs? This isn't kindergarten. He has educated speech writers. It clearly wasn't the topic of his speech.

If it wasn't the reason he made the speech, like you keep insisting, then why'd he make it in the first place?

Read the speech. All of the other stuff that he said that wasn't in any way calling it a terrorist attack...THAT was why he made the speech. The nonsense that you're desperately reading into it is not the reason that he made the speech.

Keep telling yourself that, champ. You dumbfarks are so desperate to hate Obama you have to manu ...


No, wait, I'm sure he was just as outraged at all the previous terrorist attacks on our embassies.

OK, so he wasn't.

I bet he can't even tell you the names of the perpetrators.
 
2012-12-13 07:06:03 PM

LordJiro: We've captured or killed almost all of the attackers. If she'd said "We know exactly who attacked us and we're retaliating", the terrorists would've been a LOT more cautious, and probably would've gotten the hell out of Dodge before we could capture them.


We haven't captured or killed anyone responsible for the attack.
 
2012-12-13 07:06:04 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: All of the !'s you keep using indicate yelling, yes. As does your very emotional tone, and how you never seem to answer anything.


Well, I never answer anything, I mean other than quoting and linking the proof in this thread, hmm, chief?

Call me a liar again, talk to me about debunked things again, you seem smart.

/"!" equals yelling? That is the dumbest god damn thing I ever heard.
 
2012-12-13 07:06:28 PM

Marcus Aurelius: JerseyTim: I didn't really care for her and I think the Benghazi scandal was bullpucky. I hope Obama doesn't pick Kerry.

Wouldn't THAT frost their freezers.

What's wrong with Kerry as Secretary of State?


The Republicans were gang-raping Susan Rice because if Kerry is chosen, a Republican will replace him in the senate. It's that bad.
 
2012-12-13 07:06:40 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: BKITU: Silly Jesus: BKITU: Silly Jesus: BKITU: Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 512x325]

That's not moving the goalposts. I'm maintaining that he wasn't referring to the Benghazi mess as a terrorist attack. How logical would it be to give a speech addressing a just occurred terrorist attack and not mention that it was terrorism until the very end? Wouldn't that sort of be in the opening statement?

"He never said!"

*links indicating otherwise*

"He never said to this totally different level that I'm just now making up to try and cover my ass!"

Yes. You moved the goalposts. Stand up like a man and own it. To do otherwise is cowardice.

The links didn't indicate otherwise. That's my entire point. He said the word terror, duh, but that's not the same as calling the Benghazi attacks terrorist attacks. It was a throw away line describing general sentiments of the nation.

No goal posts moved.

Your reading comprehension is lacking severely. Own it.

Here is your moved goalpost. Your statement that it was "a throw away line" is a false bare assertion you're using to try and cover your ass. Everything in the context of the statement clearly indicates that he was referring to the incident that had just farking happened.

You coward.

So your contention is that it's normal to put the topic of a speech in the 10th of 12 paragraphs?

I didn't move anything, you are very potato and being farkied as such. I will take that into consideration when deciding whether or not to engage you in the future. It is tiresome.

It's your contention that because he didn't say it as the very first words, Obama hates America and everyth ...


That's a bit of a leap. I reluctantly voted for Obama. My contention that his speech wasn't about calling it a terrorist attack is not in any way an indication that I believe he hates America or that everything is a scandal. These are second grade writing skills....your desperate attempt to contort what he said is asinine and sad.
 
2012-12-13 07:07:38 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.

"An act of terror" is the most vague way to refer to it? And halfof33 rants about ME being the one who spins and fibs.

If you were addressing the nation about a terrorist attack that just occurred, and your speech was 12 paragraphs long, would you put the one and only mention of terror in the tenth paragraph? It's sort of the topic. That's how you learn to write papers in the second grade. You open with the topic. It was a throw away line toward the end of a fluff piece.

What should he have done? Screamed "TERRORISTS! AMERICANS DEAD! TERRORISTS! GOD IS ANGRY!" every other line? He farking called the attacks an act of terror, and you're upset that he didn't do it until near the end instead of where you think he should have.

I'm saying that it was a vague throw away line stating our general views as a nation. He wasn't calling it an act of terror.

As I asked another person...under what circumstances would you put the only mention of the topic of your speech in the 10th of 12 paragraphs? This isn't kindergarten. He has educated speech writers. It clearly wasn't the topic of his speech.

If it wasn't the reason he made the speech, like you keep insisting, then why'd he make it in the first place?

Read the speech. All of the other stuff that he said that wasn't in any way calling it a terrorist attack...THAT was why he made the speech. The nonsense that you're desperately reading into it is not the reason that he made the speech.

Keep telling yourself that, champ. You dumbfarks are so desperate to hate Obama you have to manu ...


You're an odd person. I hope that you can find some happiness in life and not remain so mad. It is not good for your spirit.
 
2012-12-13 07:08:04 PM
On Sept. 12, the day after the attacks, Obama said: "Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe. No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

On September 13, at a campaign event in Las Vegas, Obama said: "No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America."

This, according to the farklib narrative, is Obama acknowledging that terrorists attacked the consulate in Benghazi.

He did know that to be the case because the CIA had reported to the White House almost immediately it was a premeditated, coordinated attack by what was strongly believed to be elements of al Qaida.

Days later, Rice is sent on the news talk show circuit with known bogus talking points, where on five occasions she said the best information was that the attacks were the product of spontaneous demonstrations in response to that most hateful youtube video. That those demonstrations were an offshoot of similar demonstrations earlier in Cairo.

After it became clear her comments were bullshiat and there actually were no demonstrations in Benghaazi, we are to believe it was so as to not let the perpetrators know we were on to them, or something like that. Even though we also simultaneously are expected to believe Obama ever-so-clearly called them terrorist attacks in his double proclamations of "no act of terror ... will shake the resolve."

Conclusion: Rice was hung out to dry. For whatever reason they allowed her to pitch a bunch of crap to the American people.

This is irritating to some. A scandal to others. Completely OK to some. A manufactured scandal by vile Republicans to others.

I don't like being lied to. If I am, please explain why. And try to make it logical.
 
2012-12-13 07:09:04 PM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: Silly Jesus: Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.

"An act of terror" is the most vague way to refer to it? And halfof33 rants about ME being the one who spins and fibs.

If you were addressing the nation about a terrorist attack that just occurred, and your speech was 12 paragraphs long, would you put the one and only mention of terror in the tenth paragraph? It's sort of the topic. That's how you learn to write papers in the second grade. You open with the topic. It was a throw away line toward the end of a fluff piece.

What should he have done? Screamed "TERRORISTS! AMERICANS DEAD! TERRORISTS! GOD IS ANGRY!" every other line? He farking called the attacks an act of terror, and you're upset that he didn't do it until near the end instead of where you think he should have.

I'm saying that it was a vague throw away line stating our general views as a nation. He wasn't calling it an act of terror.

As I asked another person...under what circumstances would you put the only mention of the topic of your speech in the 10th of 12 paragraphs? This isn't kindergarten. He has educated speech writers. It clearly wasn't the topic of his speech.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the se ...


Lol 9/10. Subject was in the first paragraph though.
 
2012-12-13 07:09:39 PM

Kevin72: Marcus Aurelius: JerseyTim: I didn't really care for her and I think the Benghazi scandal was bullpucky. I hope Obama doesn't pick Kerry.

Wouldn't THAT frost their freezers.

What's wrong with Kerry as Secretary of State?

The Republicans were gang-raping Susan Rice because if Kerry is chosen, a Republican will replace him in the senate. It's that bad.


That can't be true, because I was gang raping Susan Rice at the time.

/loves me some smart sexy powerful wimmen
 
2012-12-13 07:09:39 PM

Fluorescent Testicle: Why is everybody arguing with an outed mod alt?


You sound....concerned.
 
2012-12-13 07:13:29 PM

halfof33: Keizer_Ghidorah: All of the !'s you keep using indicate yelling, yes. As does your very emotional tone, and how you never seem to answer anything.

Well, I never answer anything, I mean other than quoting and linking the proof in this thread, hmm, chief?

Call me a liar again, talk to me about debunked things again, you seem smart.

/"!" equals yelling? That is the dumbest god damn thing I ever heard.


Silly Jesus: You're an odd person. I hope that you can find some happiness in life and not remain so mad. It is not good for your spirit.


Yeah, back to ignore for both of you.

Cletus C.: On Sept. 12, the day after the attacks, Obama said: "Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe. No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

On September 13, at a campaign event in Las Vegas, Obama said: "No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America."

This, according to the farklib narrative, is Obama acknowledging that terrorists attacked the consulate in Benghazi.

He did know that to be the case because the CIA had reported to the White House almost immediately it was a premeditated, coordinated attack by what was strongly believed to be elements of al Qaida.

Days later, Rice is sent on the news talk show circuit with known bogus talking points, where on five occasions she said the best information was that the attacks were the product of spontaneous demonstrations in response to that most hateful youtube video. That those demonstrations were an offshoot of similar demonstrations earlier in Cairo.

After it became clear her comments were bullshiat and there actually were no demonstrations in Benghaazi, we are to believe it was so as to not let the perpetrators know we were on to them, or something like that. Even though we also simultaneously are expected to believe Obama ever-so-clearly called them terrorist attacks in his double proclamations of "no act of terror ... will shake the resolve."

Conclusion: Rice was hung out to dry. For whatever reason they allowed her to pitch a bunch of crap to the American ...


People have, many times. And you either ignore them or accuse them of being in on whatever conspiracy you think is happening.
 
2012-12-13 07:13:59 PM

Silly Jesus: Therion: Wow. I finally hit "ignore" on one silly guy, and the comment count drops by fifty.

ah, refreshed.

Trolling/harassing other Fark members: Unfortunately, disagreements can and will happen - but there is no need for them to become personal. Don't harass other users with your posts, parody links/threads, or create accounts to harass them with.
Fark accounts come with a handy Ignore Feature. Use it to filter out those posters whose comments you'd prefer not to read. Keep in mind that discussing who's on your ignore list is the opposite of ignoring. It crosses the line into trolling of other Fark members and may result in a suspension of posting privileges.


Oh. How nice of the troll to tell us that we should not share who we are putting on our ignore list. Everyone has the right to say or hint who is on our ignore list. We can make up our own minds whether to follow or not. It is especially helpful when an old troll comes back with a new alt which happens too often .
 
2012-12-13 07:15:24 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: halfof33: Keizer_Ghidorah: All of the !'s you keep using indicate yelling, yes. As does your very emotional tone, and how you never seem to answer anything.

Well, I never answer anything, I mean other than quoting and linking the proof in this thread, hmm, chief?

Call me a liar again, talk to me about debunked things again, you seem smart.

/"!" equals yelling? That is the dumbest god damn thing I ever heard.

Silly Jesus: You're an odd person. I hope that you can find some happiness in life and not remain so mad. It is not good for your spirit.

Yeah, back to ignore for both of you.

Cletus C.: On Sept. 12, the day after the attacks, Obama said: "Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe. No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

On September 13, at a campaign event in Las Vegas, Obama said: "No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America."

This, according to the farklib narrative, is Obama acknowledging that terrorists attacked the consulate in Benghazi.

He did know that to be the case because the CIA had reported to the White House almost immediately it was a premeditated, coordinated attack by what was strongly believed to be elements of al Qaida.

Days later, Rice is sent on the news talk show circuit with known bogus talking points, where on five occasions she said the best information was that the attacks were the product of spontaneous demonstrations in response to that most hateful youtube video. Th ...


But politicians LIED to me! They LIED! And here I trusted them, I thought to myself, "A politician would never LIE to me. SURELY not."

My world is now shattered, and lies broken in a million tiny pieces.
 
2012-12-13 07:16:55 PM

Silly Jesus: The Jami Turman Fan Club: Silly Jesus:IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes ...

Lol 9/10. Subject was in the first paragraph though.


Sure, in the same way that...

I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America's commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives.

mentions Benghazi. The Declaration of Independence does not mention splitting from England or a new country until the last paragraph, and the Benghazi speech does not mention the act of terror until near the end.

Sorry, mod alt. You lose.
 
2012-12-13 07:16:56 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Yeah, back to ignore for both of you.


That way you will always believe that there was a protest outside the Embassy in Benghazi!

Uncle Obammy told you so. And mean old 16.5 was mean!

! yelling! hee hee!
 
2012-12-13 07:16:58 PM

Kevin72: Silly Jesus: Therion: Wow. I finally hit "ignore" on one silly guy, and the comment count drops by fifty.

ah, refreshed.

Trolling/harassing other Fark members: Unfortunately, disagreements can and will happen - but there is no need for them to become personal. Don't harass other users with your posts, parody links/threads, or create accounts to harass them with.
Fark accounts come with a handy Ignore Feature. Use it to filter out those posters whose comments you'd prefer not to read. Keep in mind that discussing who's on your ignore list is the opposite of ignoring. It crosses the line into trolling of other Fark members and may result in a suspension of posting privileges.

Oh. How nice of the troll to tell us that we should not share who we are putting on our ignore list. Everyone has the right to say or hint who is on our ignore list. We can make up our own minds whether to follow or not. It is especially helpful when an old troll comes back with a new alt which happens too often .


The Benghazi thing must be reaching a climax, because I'm about to put both these trolls on ignore. I haven't had anyone on my ignore list in over five years.
 
Displayed 50 of 614 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 »






Report