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
 
2012-12-13 04:17:40 PM
that's a shame. she had ZERO to do with the benghazi attack. she gave talking points dictated to her by the CIA. this is her only crime. would john mccain and lindsay graham have gone against the CIA were they in her position?
 
2012-12-13 04:21:08 PM
"While I deeply regret the unfair and misleading attacks on Susan Rice in recent weeks, her decision demonstrates the strength of her character, and an admirable commitment to rise above the politics of the moment to put our national interests first."

Is Obama the biggest troll in America, or what?

And don't forget what happened after the GOP torpedoed Elisabeth Warren for the Consumer Protection department. She ended up on the Senate banking committee. Something tells me the GOP didn't think their cunning plan all the way through.
 
2012-12-13 04:21:43 PM
I liked her. *sigh*
 
2012-12-13 04:24:27 PM

rotsky: I liked her. *sigh*


My feeling for her go wayyyy beyond "like..."
 
2012-12-13 04:25:41 PM
scottystarnes.files.wordpress.com

"There can be only one Rice at State!"
 
2012-12-13 04:26:03 PM
This is all about the filibuster negotiations.
 
2012-12-13 04:26:44 PM
Does this mean we are done with this?

/sitting at a bar
//watching Telemundo
///does not speak Mexican
////drinking a Budweiser!
/slashies
 
2012-12-13 04:28:55 PM

Jon H: Does this mean we are done with this?

/sitting at a bar
//watching Telemundo
///does not speak Mexican
////drinking a Budweiser!
/slashies


I'd say that depends entirely on whether FOX News can stir up another fake scandal targeting that blah man in the White House. If not, we're stuck with Benghazi for the time being.
 
2012-12-13 04:29:39 PM

Jon H: Does this mean we are done with this?

/sitting at a bar
//watching Telemundo
///does not speak Mexican
////drinking a Budweiser!
/slashies


Probably not, although that poor chicken hopes so.
 
2012-12-13 04:29:56 PM

Jon H: Does this mean we are done with this?

/sitting at a bar
//watching Telemundo
///does not speak Mexican
////drinking a Budweiser!
/slashies


And you just reminded me to put some beer on ice. Thanks!

/real beer that is
//Theakston's Old Peculier
///for dinner!
 
2012-12-13 04:30:06 PM

Marcus Aurelius: "While I deeply regret the unfair and misleading attacks on Susan Rice in recent weeks, her decision demonstrates the strength of her character, and an admirable commitment to rise above the politics of the moment to put our national interests first."

Is Obama the biggest troll in America, or what?

And don't forget what happened after the GOP torpedoed Elisabeth Warren for the Consumer Protection department. She ended up on the Senate banking committee. Something tells me the GOP didn't think their cunning plan all the way through.


When have they ever?
 
2012-12-13 04:31:45 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Marcus Aurelius: "While I deeply regret the unfair and misleading attacks on Susan Rice in recent weeks, her decision demonstrates the strength of her character, and an admirable commitment to rise above the politics of the moment to put our national interests first."

Is Obama the biggest troll in America, or what?

And don't forget what happened after the GOP torpedoed Elisabeth Warren for the Consumer Protection department. She ended up on the Senate banking committee. Something tells me the GOP didn't think their cunning plan all the way through.

When have they ever?


I guess it's the nature of their opponent that's changed more than anything.
 
2012-12-13 04:31:53 PM
Probably just feeds fuel into the fire
 
2012-12-13 04:32:17 PM
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.
 
2012-12-13 04:33:37 PM
I didn't really care for her and I think the Benghazi scandal was bullpucky. I hope Obama doesn't pick Kerry.
 
2012-12-13 04:34:05 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.


I LIKE this idea
 
2012-12-13 04:34:37 PM
Need a new SecState? Why not Zoidberg?
 
2012-12-13 04:35:32 PM

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?
 
2012-12-13 04:36:06 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.


timstvshowcase.com
 
2012-12-13 04:36:42 PM

NowhereMon: This is all about the filibuster negotiations.


I doubt it. The GOP won't give anything in any negotiation. You can't negotiate with fanatics.
 
2012-12-13 04:37:43 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?


It opens up his seat for Scott Brown.
 
2012-12-13 04:38:20 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 GOP would love to see Scott Walker appointed to his senate seat should Kerry up and go.
 
2012-12-13 04:38:56 PM
Arg. Scott Brown.
 
2012-12-13 04:39:20 PM

JerseyTim: 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?

It opens up his seat for Scott Brown Deval Patrick.

 
2012-12-13 04:41:12 PM
I think this means Sarah Palin gets to fart on Obama's tongue for 10-15 minutes
 
2012-12-13 04:44:02 PM

Nadie_AZ: 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 GOP would love to see Scott Walker appointed to his senate seat should Kerry up and go.


Scott Walker was actually not a horrible elected representative.
 
2012-12-13 04:44:26 PM
Well what the hell is McCain going to shake his fist at now?
 
2012-12-13 04:45:07 PM

ToxicMunkee: Well what the hell is McCain going to shake his fist at now?


There's still plenty of clouds
 
2012-12-13 04:45:10 PM
somebody has to fall on the sword.

now we can all move on.

wait...

Isn't Hillary supposed to be up on the Hill playing 20 questions on Benghazi in seven days?

it will never die!
 
2012-12-13 04:46:13 PM

JerseyTim: 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?

It opens up his seat for Scott Brown.


True. Kerry's got a lot of seniority in the Senate. Obama can't be absolutely sure who the Governor would replace him with, either. That's a good point.
 
2012-12-13 04:47:07 PM

propasaurus: JerseyTim: 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?

It opens up his seat for Scott Brown Deval Patrick.


Now THAT'S funny.
 
2012-12-13 04:47:26 PM
This makes McCain come off like the d-bad he is.
 
2012-12-13 04:48:21 PM
Jackson Herring: I think this means Sarah Palin gets to fart on Obama's tongue for 10-15 minutes

.
Well, it was a mistake for Obongo to nominate in the first place a woman who, based on what I read on my favorite conservative websites, walked into the Libyan Embassy and massacred the staff while sporting a Pam Grier-style afro. You get what you deserve in life, that's what Jesus said
 
2012-12-13 04:50:05 PM

Nadie_AZ: 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 GOP would love to see Scott Walker appointed to his senate seat should Kerry up and go.


Mass governor is a Dem. Like Propasaur said, he's likely to up and appoint himself.

/as blagoyovich said, a senate seat is a valuable gotdamned thing
 
2012-12-13 04:50:16 PM
farking disgusting. Here's some tweets:

Jamelle Bouie @jbouie
RT @7im: White male South Carolina senator torpedoes unquestionably qualified African American woman's bid to become Secretary of State.

@davidfrum: It's confirmed: lying to David Gregory a bigger offense than lying to Congress.

Matt Yglesias @mattyglesias
Obama rarely misses an opportunity to show adversaries that irrational hostility will be catered too rather than punished.
 
2012-12-13 04:50:59 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Nadie_AZ: 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 GOP would love to see Scott Walker appointed to his senate seat should Kerry up and go.

Mass governor is a Dem. Like Propasaur said, he's likely to up and appoint himself.

/as blagoyovich said, a senate seat is a valuable gotdamned thing


I thought Mass. doesn't do appointments, just special elections, which is why Brown got in in the first place.
 
2012-12-13 04:52:07 PM

BunkoSquad: Jackson Herring: I think this means Sarah Palin gets to fart on Obama's tongue for 10-15 minutes

.
Well, it was a mistake for Obongo to nominate in the first place a woman who, based on what I read on my favorite conservative websites, walked into the Libyan Embassy and massacred the staff while sporting a Pam Grier-style afro. You get what you deserve in life, that's what Jesus said


Which is why he DIDN'T nominate her. She was just another piece of trollbait to Fartbongo. He used her up like a cheap bait shiner and tossed her overboard when she got bitten in half. DAMN YOU OBONGHIT!
 
2012-12-13 04:53:19 PM

DamnYankees: Marcus Aurelius: Nadie_AZ: 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 GOP would love to see Scott Walker appointed to his senate seat should Kerry up and go.

Mass governor is a Dem. Like Propasaur said, he's likely to up and appoint himself.

/as blagoyovich said, a senate seat is a valuable gotdamned thing

I thought Mass. doesn't do appointments, just special elections, which is why Brown got in in the first place.


You may be correct. I try not to think about Massachusetts, they're crazy up there.
 
2012-12-13 04:54:23 PM
Any bets on who the next target for GOP outrage will be? It seems they target the most likely person just to warm up for the actual confirmation hearings.

I wonder if Obama selected someone and the confirmation hearings were the next day, how would the GOP know what to be pissed off about? It's not like they know how to use the google.
 
2012-12-13 04:55:22 PM

FlashHarry: would john mccain and lindsay graham have gone against the CIA were they in her position?


Valerie Plame what?
 
2012-12-13 04:55:42 PM

DamnYankees: Marcus Aurelius: Nadie_AZ: 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 GOP would love to see Scott Walker appointed to his senate seat should Kerry up and go.

Mass governor is a Dem. Like Propasaur said, he's likely to up and appoint himself.

/as blagoyovich said, a senate seat is a valuable gotdamned thing

I thought Mass. doesn't do appointments, just special elections, which is why Brown got in in the first place.


I'm not sure MA is ready for Brown. He still has looser stink all over him. Besides, I think Kerry really likes being Senior Senator from MA it's kind of the perfect job for him, and he could hold that seat till he dies if he wants. Also if the Rethugs are so hot for it why cater to them?
 
2012-12-13 04:57:43 PM

Ambivalence: Any bets on who the next target for GOP outrage will be? It seems they target the most likely person just to warm up for the actual confirmation hearings.

I wonder if Obama selected someone and the confirmation hearings were the next day, how would the GOP know what to be pissed off about? It's not like they know how to use the google.


Benghazi is it, until FOX News tells the mouth breathers otherwise.
 
2012-12-13 04:57:47 PM

DamnYankees: I thought Mass. doesn't do appointments, just special elections, which is why Brown got in in the first place.


Exactly. Although the change the law when it fits them, right now it's special elections. Brown got the seat when Kennedy kicked off and the Democrats nominated Martha Coakley, who was a total dud.
 
2012-12-13 05:14:11 PM
I'm just a Californian, but I've heard that Scott Brown and family are not putting off the wrong pheromones suitable to Massachusetts' noses.
 
2012-12-13 05:15:30 PM
We all knew that someone had to take the fall for the incompetency of the Administration.

The claim that it arose out of a protest at the Embassy was pure bullshiat, and they should have known better.
 
2012-12-13 05:20:42 PM

halfof33: The claim that it arose out of a protest at the Embassy was pure bullshiat, and they should have known better.


I believe you made that claim in the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this.

Or am I mistaken?
 
2012-12-13 05:22:18 PM

ToxicMunkee: Well what the hell is McCain going to shake his fist at now?


The hippety hop music that kids like nowadays?
 
2012-12-13 05:23:29 PM

Ambivalence: Any bets on who the next target for GOP outrage will be?


Holder.
 
2012-12-13 05:24:37 PM

mitchcumstein1: Scott Walker was actually not a horrible elected representative.


To say nothing of his truck.
 
2012-12-13 05:24:40 PM
This really pisses me off.
 
2012-12-13 05:25:12 PM
This is what happens when you're a black woman who murders diplomats.
 
2012-12-13 05:25:12 PM

BSABSVR: Ambivalence: Any bets on who the next target for GOP outrage will be?

Holder.


For letting people have guns again, or for letting the bankers off the hook? That's a tough sell, because the GOP is frothy for both.
 
2012-12-13 05:25:19 PM

Marcus Aurelius: "While I deeply regret the unfair and misleading attacks on Susan Rice in recent weeks, her decision demonstrates the strength of her character, and an admirable commitment to rise above the politics of the moment to put our national interests first."

Is Obama the biggest troll in America, or what?

And don't forget what happened after the GOP torpedoed Elisabeth Warren for the Consumer Protection department. She ended up on the Senate banking committee. Something tells me the GOP didn't think their cunning plan all the way through.


So, she is going to go all Obi-Wan on the GOP? I can't wait!
"You can't win, GOP. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."
 
2012-12-13 05:25:54 PM
Ambivalence: "Any bets on who the next target for GOP outrage will be?"

The next liberal President Obama stands next to.

Or, for that matter, the next person whose conservative bona-fides are so much as *in question*.

/ e.g. even Christie and Boehner catch poutrage depending on which way the wind blows
 
2012-12-13 05:26:09 PM

Marcus Aurelius: halfof33: The claim that it arose out of a protest at the Embassy was pure bullshiat, and they should have known better.

I believe you made that claim in the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this.

Or am I mistaken?


I think you missed a thread.
 
2012-12-13 05:26:27 PM
GOP: Hey lets use this to attack Obama for the election!! This is all Obama's fault!!!

[election happens, GOP loses]

GOP: Ummm now it's all Rices (because getting upset at Obama doesn't do anything anymore) fault because she changed what the intelligence community told her what to say!!!

[investigation finds she reported exactly what the intelligence community told her to say]

GOP: Ummm not it's all rices fault because she did NOT change what the intelligence community told her to say!!!

Yes, who's at fault and why magically changes whenever it's no longer politically advantageous for the Republicans, just like normal.
 
2012-12-13 05:26:35 PM
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-12-13 05:26:38 PM
Well, there goes Benghazi. The GOP feels like Charlie Brown after Lucy yanks the football away. LOL.
 
2012-12-13 05:27:02 PM

Ambivalence: Any bets on who the next target for GOP outrage will be? It seems they target the most likely person just to warm up for the actual confirmation hearings.


Another black person?
 
2012-12-13 05:27:22 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?


I thought that was what the Republicans wnated so they could have a chance at a Senate seat?
 
2012-12-13 05:27:26 PM
F you, McCain, you sack of poop.


i865.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-13 05:27:36 PM
When children throw a tantrum you shouldn't give them what they're asking for, even if it's just to shut them up.
 
2012-12-13 05:27:41 PM

badLogic: Marcus Aurelius: "While I deeply regret the unfair and misleading attacks on Susan Rice in recent weeks, her decision demonstrates the strength of her character, and an admirable commitment to rise above the politics of the moment to put our national interests first."

Is Obama the biggest troll in America, or what?

And don't forget what happened after the GOP torpedoed Elisabeth Warren for the Consumer Protection department. She ended up on the Senate banking committee. Something tells me the GOP didn't think their cunning plan all the way through.

So, she is going to go all Obi-Wan on the GOP? I can't wait!
"You can't win, GOP. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."


I didn't even know the lady before a bunch of harpies started screaming about a press conference she gave that virtually no one saw, but she seems well qualified for a lot of positions. Like my dinner date, for example.
 
2012-12-13 05:27:55 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Nadie_AZ: 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 GOP would love to see Scott Walker appointed to his senate seat should Kerry up and go.

Mass governor is a Dem. Like Propasaur said, he's likely to up and appoint himself.

/as blagoyovich said, a senate seat is a valuable gotdamned thing


MA law calls for a special election, not an appointment.
 
2012-12-13 05:28:03 PM
It's not a scandal subby. It's a national disgrace.
 
2012-12-13 05:28:19 PM
Susan Rice, the embattled U.S. ambassador to the U.N., withdrew her name on Thursday from consideration to be Secretary of State in the face of angry Republican criticisms.

"If nominated, I am now convinced that the confirmation process would be lengthy, disruptive and costly-to you and to our most pressing national and international priorities," Rice wrote in a letter to President Barack Obama



This woman flushes more class down the toilet than every seated jackass with an (R) next to their name could ever fake having.
 
2012-12-13 05:28:42 PM

Marcus Aurelius: believe you made that claim in the thread before this


It is not a "claim" it is a fact.

/by the way, you might want to brush up on your grammar. No matter how many times you repeat "and the thread before this" it is referring to one thread. You wanted to repeat "and the thread before that one." The more you know!
 
2012-12-13 05:29:41 PM
I wouldn't rule her out just yet.

These are only the initial statements on the matter.
 
2012-12-13 05:30:26 PM

halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: believe you made that claim in the thread before this

It is not a "claim" it is a fact.

/by the way, you might want to brush up on your grammar. No matter how many times you repeat "and the thread before this" it is referring to one thread. You wanted to repeat "and the thread before that one." The more you know!


it's one of those weird conservative facts that has no base in reality.
 
2012-12-13 05:30:42 PM
I cannot fu##ing believe she actually caved to this manufactured bullshiat!
 
2012-12-13 05:30:51 PM
Marcus Aurelius:
/as blagoyovich Bagotojail said, a senate seat is a valuable gotdamned thing farking golden

FTFY

/IL
//Used to have that bit of FBI tape as my ringtone
 
2012-12-13 05:30:52 PM

born_yesterday: Marcus Aurelius: halfof33: The claim that it arose out of a protest at the Embassy was pure bullshiat, and they should have known better.

I believe you made that claim in the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this.

Or am I mistaken?

I think you missed a thread.


Maybe I'll have to make a note of the thread numbers from now on!
 
2012-12-13 05:31:12 PM

wambu: 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?

I thought that was what the Republicans wnated so they could have a chance at a Senate seat?


Kerry could assassinate Ahmadinejad with his stupor power of boredom.
 
2012-12-13 05:31:28 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: [25.media.tumblr.com image 850x582]


Can someone explain this photo to me? I've seen it alot in the last few weeks and I have no idea what it is.
 
2012-12-13 05:31:33 PM
Senator Stephen Colbert of South Carolina

Senator Jon Stewart of Massachusetts.
 
2012-12-13 05:32:20 PM
It's only a scandal to butthurt GOPers looking to score cheap points. McCain has an excuse - he's senile - but the rest of them don't.
 
2012-12-13 05:33:02 PM
She lied to everyone on TV.
 
2012-12-13 05:33:14 PM
Why isn't Hillary SoS again?
 
2012-12-13 05:33:23 PM

NowhereMon: DamnYankees: Marcus Aurelius: Nadie_AZ: 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 GOP would love to see Scott Walker appointed to his senate seat should Kerry up and go.

Mass governor is a Dem. Like Propasaur said, he's likely to up and appoint himself.

/as blagoyovich said, a senate seat is a valuable gotdamned thing

I thought Mass. doesn't do appointments, just special elections, which is why Brown got in in the first place.

I'm not sure MA is ready for Brown. He still has looser stink all over him. Besides, I think Kerry really likes being Senior Senator from MA it's kind of the perfect job for him, and he could hold that seat till he dies if he wants. Also if the Rethugs are so hot for it why cater to them?


Don't think for a second that Kerry doesn't want the job. He knows his name is going around--he wouldn't let that continue at this point if he didn't want the job. He wants it for the same reason Clinton wanted it: it's a more powerful position. More distinguished, Glamorous, global travel, while acting as THE representative of the US. It's arguably the next best thing to being the actual president.
 
2012-12-13 05:33:28 PM

halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: believe you made that claim in the thread before this

It is not a "claim" it is a fact


So the mean old administration made a claim that you didn't actually witness on TV but which you were outraged about after seeing it on the news about them not revealing the true details of an investigation in progress of a terrorist attack where the perpetrators had not yet been identified nor apprehended, and you are outraged?

Does that about sum it up?
 
2012-12-13 05:33:41 PM
It's not like there's anybody to the left of John Bolton that the Potato Squad won't filibuster.
 
2012-12-13 05:34:00 PM
Letter from Rice. Link
 
2012-12-13 05:34:28 PM

netweavr: Why isn't Hillary SoS again?


She needs to start fundraising for her 2016 run for President.
 
2012-12-13 05:34:40 PM

netweavr: Why isn't Hillary SoS again?


She is she is retiring.
 
2012-12-13 05:35:07 PM
McCain's a pathetic sack of shiat who should be ashamed of himself.
 
2012-12-13 05:35:09 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: 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.

I LIKE this idea


Can I second this?
 
2012-12-13 05:35:10 PM
heh.....while I am pretty peeved that she had to withdraw, I am a bit relieved as it would have been one of those nasty confirmations that would have distracted congress for yet another month.

On the other hand, I am sure that Team Obama has a plan to grind the faces of the GOP into the pavement over this. TO generally does not leave much to chance. So in withdrawing, I am sure it is just a step in a plan that is already in place and has been for weeks.

This outta be good.
 
2012-12-13 05:35:19 PM

rotsky: I liked her. *sigh*


a rare rotsky sighting.

/yes, "like" is a polite way of putting it. phwar!
 
2012-12-13 05:35:34 PM

DamnYankees: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: [25.media.tumblr.com image 850x582]

Can someone explain this photo to me? I've seen it alot in the last few weeks and I have no idea what it is.


Ben Gazzara, the guy all the way to the right in the pic, who starred in such mega hits as Road House alongside Patrick swinging Swayze.
 
2012-12-13 05:36:26 PM

Marcus Aurelius: For letting people have guns again, or for letting the bankers off the hook? That's a tough sell, because the GOP is frothy for both.


I'm not sure it particularly matters as to the reason. The base loathes him because they have told themselves for years that he's a militant black panther type. Hell, Susan Rice was/is Ambassador to the UN. She had nothing to do with Libya, or security forces in the middle east or how any intelligence on 9/11/12 was interpreted.

Her entire "crime" is reading statements that other people gave her.
 
2012-12-13 05:36:47 PM
The obvious replacement:

i.i.com.com
 
2012-12-13 05:36:58 PM

Isitoveryet: DamnYankees: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: [25.media.tumblr.com image 850x582]

Can someone explain this photo to me? I've seen it alot in the last few weeks and I have no idea what it is.

Ben Gazzara, the guy all the way to the right in the pic, who starred in such mega hits as Road House alongside Patrick swinging Swayze.


Perhaps you dont understand what the word "explain" means.
 
2012-12-13 05:37:18 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: It's not a scandal subby. It's a national disgrace.


He said with an erection
 
2012-12-13 05:37:48 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.


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.
 
2012-12-13 05:38:10 PM

hankhorsey: This is what happens when you're a black woman who murders diplomats.


Surely you have proof to support your statement-you-feel-is-fact, fail troll.
 
2012-12-13 05:38:30 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?


This phrase is new to me. I shall endevour to use it in a sentence during the holiday season.
 
2012-12-13 05:39:17 PM
Perhaps Rice was offered up as a sacrificial lamb of sorts, seeing as to how the republicans would likely try to kill whatever nomination Obama would have offered up. Now the republicans have their scalp to wave around and Obama can select who he really wants.
 
2012-12-13 05:39:37 PM

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.
 
2012-12-13 05:40:20 PM

halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: believe you made that claim in the thread before this

It is not a "claim" it is a fact.

/by the way, you might want to brush up on your grammar. No matter how many times you repeat "and the thread before this" it is referring to one thread. You wanted to repeat "and the thread before that one." The more you know!


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.
 
2012-12-13 05:40:48 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: It's not a scandal subby. It's a national disgrace.


Indeed. The disgrace is named John McCain.
 
2012-12-13 05:40:58 PM

DamnYankees: Isitoveryet: DamnYankees: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: [25.media.tumblr.com image 850x582]

Can someone explain this photo to me? I've seen it alot in the last few weeks and I have no idea what it is.

Ben Gazzara, the guy all the way to the right in the pic, who starred in such mega hits as Road House alongside Patrick swinging Swayze.

Perhaps you dont understand what the word "explain" means.


it's a play on words, Benghazi = Ben Gazzara, you aren't new to FARK, do you have someone helping you?
 
2012-12-13 05:41:00 PM

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.
 
2012-12-13 05:41:03 PM

Hanky: I'm just a Californian, but I've heard that Scott Brown and family are not putting off the wrong pheromones suitable to Massachusetts' noses.


Well, he doesn't look like an Indian either.
 
2012-12-13 05:41:28 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Marcus Aurelius: "While I deeply regret the unfair and misleading attacks on Susan Rice in recent weeks, her decision demonstrates the strength of her character, and an admirable commitment to rise above the politics of the moment to put our national interests first."

Is Obama the biggest troll in America, or what?

And don't forget what happened after the GOP torpedoed Elisabeth Warren for the Consumer Protection department. She ended up on the Senate banking committee. Something tells me the GOP didn't think their cunning plan all the way through.

When have they ever?


When will Baldrick be put on a GOP ballot?
 
2012-12-13 05:42:44 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: It's not a scandal subby. It's a national disgrace.


You're right. The GOP needs to stop embarassing this country.
 
2012-12-13 05:43:04 PM

Isitoveryet: it's a play on words, Benghazi = Ben Gazzara, you aren't new to FARK, do you have someone helping you?


Is that seriously the entire reason for this meme? Blergh, was hoping for more.

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


To be fair, if Obama were to do that the GOP wouldn't be wrong for seeing it as a trick.
 
2012-12-13 05:43:29 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: It's not a scandal subby. It's a national disgrace.


Of course it's a national disgrace. A group of old white politicians attacked an innocent black woman because she did her job with the unclassified information provided to her by the CIA. The silliness of the attacks were only heightened by the Republican Right Hand of MSM, Fox News, seeking higher TV ratings and profits at the cost of the woman's career and personal standing.

I completely agree with you for once, Lt. Smegma Weasel, the Republicans are a national disgrace, many times over.
 
2012-12-13 05:44:40 PM

Marcus Aurelius: So the mean old administration made a claim that you didn't actually witness on TV but which you were outraged about after seeing it on the news about them not revealing the true details of an investigation in progress of a terrorist attack where the perpetrators had not yet been identified nor apprehended, and you are outraged?


"didn't witness on TV"? WTF? What an odd comment.

"not revealing the true details of an investigation in progress of a terrorist attack where the perpetrators had not yet been identified nor apprehended lied about something that had absolutely nothing to do with an investigation, and you are outraged?"

fixed that for you, chief.

/I have found in these threads that they are filled with morans who don't understand that the Administration lied about whether there was a protest outside the Embassy before the attack.
 
2012-12-13 05:44:49 PM
Senator John farking Kerry now up for Secretary of State. Just farking great.
 
2012-12-13 05:46:22 PM

halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: So the mean old administration made a claim that you didn't actually witness on TV but which you were outraged about after seeing it on the news about them not revealing the true details of an investigation in progress of a terrorist attack where the perpetrators had not yet been identified nor apprehended, and you are outraged?

"didn't witness on TV"? WTF? What an odd comment.

"not revealing the true details of an investigation in progress of a terrorist attack where the perpetrators had not yet been identified nor apprehended lied about something that had absolutely nothing to do with an investigation, and you are outraged?"

fixed that for you, chief.

/I have found in these threads that they are filled with morans who don't understand that the Administration lied about whether there was a protest outside the Embassy before the attack.


So if the lie had absolutely nothing to do with the investigation, why are you so outraged?
 
rpl
2012-12-13 05:46:23 PM
i49.tinypic.com
 
2012-12-13 05:46:49 PM
Alright, McCain, you finally got a victory over That One. Could you please shove a pacifier in your pie-hole and GBTW now?
 
2012-12-13 05:47:17 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: The obvious replacement:

i.i.com.com


Would be awesome if for no other reason than seeing the resulting tsunami of tears and plethora of pants-sh*tting.
 
2012-12-13 05:47:34 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Alright, McCain, you finally got a victory over That One. Could you please shove a pacifier in your pie-hole and GBTW now?


We are all better if if John McCain is not working.
 
2012-12-13 05:47:39 PM
There are consequences for your actions. Adults understand this.
 
2012-12-13 05:47:46 PM
img849.imageshack.us
 
2012-12-13 05:48:14 PM

Wooly Bully: Philip Francis Queeg: The obvious replacement:

i.i.com.com

Would be awesome if for no other reason than seeing the resulting tsunami of tears and plethora of pants-sh*tting.


The confirmation hearings would be glorious.
 
2012-12-13 05:48:23 PM
John McCain, human garbage, and the fark "posters" who agree with him.
 
2012-12-13 05:48:36 PM

DamnYankees: Is that seriously the entire reason for this meme? Blergh, was hoping for more.


AFAIK that's it.
 
2012-12-13 05:49:00 PM

halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: So the mean old administration made a claim that you didn't actually witness on TV but which you were outraged about after seeing it on the news about them not revealing the true details of an investigation in progress of a terrorist attack where the perpetrators had not yet been identified nor apprehended, and you are outraged?

"didn't witness on TV"? WTF? What an odd comment.

"not revealing the true details of an investigation in progress of a terrorist attack where the perpetrators had not yet been identified nor apprehended lied about something that had absolutely nothing to do with an investigation, and you are outraged?"

fixed that for you, chief.

/I have found in these threads that they are filled with morans who don't understand that the Administration lied about whether there was a protest outside the Embassy before the attack.


So then tell me, could the Administration have been putting out that line to keep the perpetrators from fleeing the country, perhaps?

And why should the general public be privy to an ongoing terrorism investigation?
 
2012-12-13 05:49:42 PM
Paging Jon Huntsman. Jon Huntsman please pick up the courtesy phone.
 
2012-12-13 05:50:11 PM
What about Jon Huntsman?

Strong Credentials (US Ambassador to China for the first two years of Obama's first term). Truly moderate political views, cool under fire.

Republicans won't have a problem with him.

What do Farkers think?
 
2012-12-13 05:50:29 PM

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.


Sigh.... I've learned that you MUST baby feed the trolls, even when they accuse you of lying based on their own ignorance.

"In the course of the meeting, we explained that the talking points provided by the intelligence community, and the initial assessment upon which they were based, were incorrect in a key respect: there was no protest or demonstration in Benghazi,"
 
2012-12-13 05:51:24 PM

justme317: What about Jon Huntsman?

Strong Credentials (US Ambassador to China for the first two years of Obama's first term). Truly moderate political views, cool under fire.

Republicans won't have a problem with him.

What do Farkers think?


Republicans will have a problem with anyone Obama nominates.
 
2012-12-13 05:52:16 PM

Marcus Aurelius: So then tell me, could the Administration have been putting out that line to keep the perpetrators from fleeing the country, perhaps?


No, that is idiotic. The perpetrators knew there was no protest, and the press was reporting there was no protest.

C'mon bro.
 
2012-12-13 05:52:36 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: So the mean old administration made a claim that you didn't actually witness on TV but which you were outraged about after seeing it on the news about them not revealing the true details of an investigation in progress of a terrorist attack where the perpetrators had not yet been identified nor apprehended, and you are outraged?

"didn't witness on TV"? WTF? What an odd comment.

"not revealing the true details of an investigation in progress of a terrorist attack where the perpetrators had not yet been identified nor apprehended lied about something that had absolutely nothing to do with an investigation, and you are outraged?"

fixed that for you, chief.

/I have found in these threads that they are filled with morans who don't understand that the Administration lied about whether there was a protest outside the Embassy before the attack.

So if the lie had absolutely nothing to do with the investigation, why are you so outraged?


He's not outraged, he's a paid GOP shill.

Try getting him to respond rationally to a good point. He'll tell you YOU'RE a moron. He's not a debater, he's a thread shiatter.
 
2012-12-13 05:52:47 PM

Bucky Katt: Lt. Cheese Weasel: It's not a scandal subby. It's a national disgrace.

You're right. The GOP needs to stop embarassing this country.


sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-12-13 05:52:54 PM
Recess. Appointment.


So long as you're holding over so many classic Dubya moves, why not do this one as well?
 
2012-12-13 05:53:07 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: justme317: What about Jon Huntsman?

Strong Credentials (US Ambassador to China for the first two years of Obama's first term). Truly moderate political views, cool under fire.

Republicans won't have a problem with him.

What do Farkers think?

Republicans will have a problem with anyone Obama nominates.


Sure, they'll hem and haw and make noise as is their wont, but when it comes to hearing time, I think it will be a smooth process.
 
2012-12-13 05:53:31 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: It's not a scandal subby. It's a national disgrace.


i know - can you believe that republicans voted to cut funding for embassy security and still had the farking balls to go after obama and rice on this?
 
2012-12-13 05:53:42 PM

halfof33: 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.

Sigh.... I've learned that you MUST baby feed the trolls, even when they accuse you of lying based on their own ignorance.

"In the course of the meeting, we explained that the talking points provided by the intelligence community, and the initial assessment upon which they were based, were incorrect in a key respect: there was no protest or demonstration in Benghazi,"


So why should the public be privy to the true details of an ongoing terrorism investigation?
 
2012-12-13 05:53:52 PM

halfof33: 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.

Sigh.... I've learned that you MUST baby feed the trolls, even when they accuse you of lying based on their own ignorance.

"In the course of the meeting, we explained that the talking points provided by the intelligence community, and the initial assessment upon which they were based, were incorrect in a key respect: there was no protest or demonstration in Benghazi,"


And how does the link you provided make this a scandal/embarassment/thing? Is any statement that is less than 100% factual and verifiable a scandal/embarassment/thing?
 
2012-12-13 05:54:28 PM
GOP: Party Before Country, 2008-20??
 
2012-12-13 05:55:09 PM

Emposter: GOP: Party Before Country, 2008-20??


try 1994-20??
 
2012-12-13 05:55:29 PM

justme317: Philip Francis Queeg: justme317: What about Jon Huntsman?

Strong Credentials (US Ambassador to China for the first two years of Obama's first term). Truly moderate political views, cool under fire.

Republicans won't have a problem with him.

What do Farkers think?

Republicans will have a problem with anyone Obama nominates.

Sure, they'll hem and haw and make noise as is their wont, but when it comes to hearing time, I think it will be a smooth process.


I have no doubt that they would do every thing they could to shred Huntsman in the hearings. Agreeing to work with Obama in any way is treason in their minds. Dick Lugar learned this the hard way.
 
2012-12-13 05:55:36 PM
farm4.static.flickr.com
 
2012-12-13 05:55:37 PM

Marcus Aurelius: ry getting him to respond rationally to a good point.


Try making one, champ.

We lied to the American Public because we wanted the perpetrators to think there was a protest at the Embassy they attacked even though there wasn't one!

lolz
 
2012-12-13 05:56:07 PM

justme317: What about Jon Huntsman?

Strong Credentials (US Ambassador to China for the first two years of Obama's first term). Truly moderate political views, cool under fire.

Republicans won't have a problem with him.

What do Farkers think?


Why the hell does everyone want to reward the GOP for its insanity? I don't get this.
 
2012-12-13 05:56:43 PM

halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: ry getting him to respond rationally to a good point.

Try making one, champ.

We lied to the American Public because we wanted the perpetrators to think there was a protest at the Embassy they attacked even though there wasn't one!

lolz


Please detail the harm that you believe came from this lie.
 
2012-12-13 05:57:20 PM

halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: ry getting him to respond rationally to a good point.

Try making one, champ.

We lied to the American Public because we wanted the perpetrators to think there was a protest at the Embassy they attacked even though there wasn't one!

lolz


OK then, so tell me, why should the public be privy to the true details of an ongoing terrorism investigation?
 
2012-12-13 05:57:29 PM

Marcus Aurelius: So why should the public be privy to the true details of an ongoing terrorism investigation?


First of all, it had nothing to do with any investigation.

Second, it isn't a question of "privy to," sport, THEY LIED about it.

Man, some people.
 
2012-12-13 05:58:04 PM

DamnYankees: Is that seriously the entire reason for this meme? Blergh, was hoping for more.


It's just me being as stupid as the DEFENDERS OF FREEDOM looking to kneecap Rice over the press release she read on BOEING PRESENTS GE'S MEET THE POLITICAL MOUTHPIECES.

The GOP has proven there's no bar they won't crawl under.
So they win!

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-12-13 05:58:17 PM

DamnYankees: Why the hell does everyone want to reward the GOP for its insanity? I don't get this.


She may not even have been Obama's top choice. Link
 
2012-12-13 05:58:36 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: ry getting him to respond rationally to a good point.

Try making one, champ.

We lied to the American Public because we wanted the perpetrators to think there was a protest at the Embassy they attacked even though there wasn't one!

lolz

Please detail the harm that you believe came from this lie.


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.

If they got away with the attack, it would have hurt Obama. And that's ALL Republicans cared about.
 
2012-12-13 05:58:47 PM

halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: ry getting him to respond rationally to a good point.

Try making one, champ.

We lied to the American Public because we wanted the perpetrators to think there was a protest at the Embassy they attacked even though there wasn't one!

lolz


It's hilarious that the Benghazi "scandal" is the worst possible scandal/conspiracy/herpderp you got on 0bama after 4 years of Muslim Usurpation.
 
2012-12-13 05:58:52 PM

halfof33: 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.

Sigh.... I've learned that you MUST baby feed the trolls, even when they accuse you of lying based on their own ignorance.

"In the course of the meeting, we explained that the talking points provided by the intelligence community, and the initial assessment upon which they were based, were incorrect in a key respect: there was no protest or demonstration in Benghazi,"


Hmm, ongoing investigation where there was a lot of things to sort through, as well as not wanting to give our enemies information. Yeah, I can see why this would be a humongous anti-American lie that Rice cooked up herself so as to allow Obama to contact the lizard-men and launch Bigfoot from the cloaked satellite in orbit to attack the Republican National Convention.

Benghazi is not and was not a scandal. No matter how much the right wishes it was. If you people truly cared, you'd have been outraged over all of the other times our embassies and consulates have been attacked over the years. The only reason you cared about this one was because Obama's in the White House.

"The number-one job is to make Obama a one-term president". Pardon me if I don't believe any of you after this statement and four years of trucking up and around to try to make it come true.
 
2012-12-13 05:59:01 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: [25.media.tumblr.com image 850x582]


Cassavetes' movie?
 
2012-12-13 05:59:12 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: DamnYankees: Why the hell does everyone want to reward the GOP for its insanity? I don't get this.

She may not even have been Obama's top choice. Link


I didnt say she was. But nominating a Republican after this would just be a really pathetic thing to do.
 
2012-12-13 05:59:43 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: ry getting him to respond rationally to a good point.

Try making one, champ.

We lied to the American Public because we wanted the perpetrators to think there was a protest at the Embassy they attacked even though there wasn't one!

lolz

Please detail the harm that you believe came from this lie.


The lie didn't kill anyone, but it's still kinda shiatty to lie to everyone about American deaths for political gain. If they were "terrorist attacks" then Obama looks bad before the election. If they were because of some mean man in California and Obama condemns him, then Obama look good (I guess) before the election.

Sort of a shiatty thing to do to those families.
 
2012-12-13 06:00:26 PM

DamnYankees: Matt Yglesias @mattyglesias: Obama rarely misses an opportunity to show adversaries that irrational hostility will be catered too rather than punished.


Yeah, that's not true. Methinks that Marcus Aurelius and Propasaurus are closer to the endgame here.

/Preparing my large collection of Trollbama pics as we speak.
//[fighting_back_unprecedented.jpg]
 
2012-12-13 06:00:28 PM

halfof33: First of all, it had nothing to do with any investigation.


There was no investigation going on on 9/16 to an attack that happened on 9/11? You believe this?
 
2012-12-13 06:00:30 PM

DamnYankees: justme317: What about Jon Huntsman?

Strong Credentials (US Ambassador to China for the first two years of Obama's first term). Truly moderate political views, cool under fire.

Republicans won't have a problem with him.

What do Farkers think?

Why the hell does everyone want to reward the GOP for its insanity? I don't get this.


Reward? Eff that, I don't care if Huntsman is R or D, I think he's the next best guy for the job. It doesn't hurt that I think he'd have a smooth confirmation process.
 
2012-12-13 06:00:35 PM

halfof33: First of all, it had nothing to do with any investigation.

Second, it isn't a question of "privy to," sport, THEY LIED about it.

Man, some people.




They lied about it for no reason?
 
2012-12-13 06:01:40 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: halfof33: 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.

Sigh.... I've learned that you MUST baby feed the trolls, even when they accuse you of lying based on their own ignorance.

"In the course of the meeting, we explained that the talking points provided by the intelligence community, and the initial assessment upon which they were based, were incorrect in a key respect: there was no protest or demonstration in Benghazi,"

Hmm, ongoing investigation where there was a lot of things to sort through, as well as not wanting to give our enemies information. Yeah, I can see why this would be a humongous anti-American lie that Rice cooked up herself so as to allow Obama to contact the lizard-men and launch Bigfoot from the cloaked satellite in orbit to attack the Republican National Convention.

Benghazi is not and was not a scandal. No matter how much the right wishes it was. If you people truly cared, you'd have been outraged over all of the other times our embassies and consulates have been attacked over the years. The only reason you cared about this one was because Obama's in the White House.

"The number-one job is to make Obama a one-term president". Pardon me if I don't believe any of you after this statement and four years of trucking up and around to try to make it come true.


See also: "I want seven hearings a week, times 40 weeks,"
 
2012-12-13 06:01:55 PM

Therion: Senator Stephen Colbert of South Carolina

Senator Jon Stewart of Massachusetts.


Trade their easy and awesome lives for this? Probably not, but it sure would be awesome.
 
2012-12-13 06:02:24 PM

Silly Jesus: but it's still kinda shiatty to lie to everyone about American deaths for political gain


Yeah, the real farking heroes here are the GOP who have been sooo goddamn honest here.


Forget actually getting answers, let's just scream about not having answers until we pass out.
 
2012-12-13 06:02:52 PM

Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: ry getting him to respond rationally to a good point.

Try making one, champ.

We lied to the American Public because we wanted the perpetrators to think there was a protest at the Embassy they attacked even though there wasn't one!

lolz

Please detail the harm that you believe came from this lie.

The lie didn't kill anyone, but it's still kinda shiatty to lie to everyone about American deaths for political gain. If they were "terrorist attacks" then Obama looks bad before the election. If they were because of some mean man in California and Obama condemns him, then Obama look good (I guess) before the election.

Sort of a shiatty thing to do to those families.


So Obama was sabotaging himself when he called it an "Act of Terror". Got it.
 
2012-12-13 06:03:09 PM

coco ebert: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: [25.media.tumblr.com image 850x582]

Cassavetes' movie?


Husbands.
 
2012-12-13 06:03:10 PM

Silly Jesus: If they were "terrorist attacks" then Obama looks bad before the election.


They were terrorist attacks. And they made the Republicans expose themselves as the tacky cynical vampires they are. If anything, their shameful attempts to politicize it gave Obama an even wider margin. Find a hobby.
 
2012-12-13 06:03:51 PM

mitchcumstein1: Scott Walker was actually not a horrible elected representative.


This statement lets me make 1 of 3 assumptions about you:

1) You use the word "was" to mean that he didn't fark up anything in his first 5 minutes of his first term as Milwaukee County Supervisor.

2) You've never lived in Milwaukee County.

3) Your last name starts with a "K" and ends with "-och".

Which one is it?
 
2012-12-13 06:04:11 PM

BalugaJoe: She lied to everyone on TV.


There are a LOT of people on TV. Are you sure she lied to ALL of them?
 
2012-12-13 06:04:20 PM

halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: So why should the public be privy to the true details of an ongoing terrorism investigation?

First of all, it had nothing to do with any investigation.

Second, it isn't a question of "privy to," sport, THEY LIED about it.

Man, some people.


You're so smart and well informed that I'm going to give you your very own special color. I have to ask Drew if we can work brown into the color scheme at some point.
 
2012-12-13 06:04:20 PM

Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: ry getting him to respond rationally to a good point.

Try making one, champ.

We lied to the American Public because we wanted the perpetrators to think there was a protest at the Embassy they attacked even though there wasn't one!

lolz

Please detail the harm that you believe came from this lie.

The lie didn't kill anyone, but it's still kinda shiatty to lie to everyone about American deaths for political gain. If they were "terrorist attacks" then Obama looks bad before the election. If they were because of some mean man in California and Obama condemns him, then Obama look good (I guess) before the election.

Sort of a shiatty thing to do to those families.


Didn't stop the Republicans, did it? Of course, now you're assuming that the only reason for this "lie" was Obama using it for political gain, instead of the CIA not wanting to give out sensitive information and because there was and is still an investigation going on.

Republicans, masters of projecting.
 
2012-12-13 06:04:39 PM
Obama, ever the epic troll, would only let this go down if he had something even better up his sleeve... like Rice running for Senate in 2014, or maybe sooner if SoS goes to Kerry...
 
2012-12-13 06:04:42 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: ry getting him to respond rationally to a good point.

Try making one, champ.

We lied to the American Public because we wanted the perpetrators to think there was a protest at the Embassy they attacked even though there wasn't one!

lolz

Please detail the harm that you believe came from this lie.

The lie didn't kill anyone, but it's still kinda shiatty to lie to everyone about American deaths for political gain. If they were "terrorist attacks" then Obama looks bad before the election. If they were because of some mean man in California and Obama condemns him, then Obama look good (I guess) before the election.

Sort of a shiatty thing to do to those families.

So Obama was sabotaging himself when he called it an "Act of Terror". Got it.


He didn't call it that.
 
2012-12-13 06:05:15 PM
Wow. Obama just abandoned her.
 
2012-12-13 06:05:22 PM
I'm gonna run 20 red lights in a row in her honor.

/you know what kinda eyes she got
 
2012-12-13 06:05:23 PM

justme317: Reward? Eff that, I don't care if Huntsman is R or D, I think he's the next best guy for the job. It doesn't hurt that I think he'd have a smooth confirmation process.


No offense, but you're not qualified to know who the next best person is. Neither am I. But I'm also aware that for these kinds of jobs, there's very rarely a list of people in a specific order which actually exists. There is no (i) Susan Rice, (ii) John Huntsman, (iii) Donald Trump. There's always a pool of qualified people, and who you pick depends on the circumstances - who's available, who will accept, what the liekly issues they will face are, how Congress will react, etc. The idea that there's a literal list which is independent of the political nature of the selection is a fantasy.
 
2012-12-13 06:05:24 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Bucky Katt: Lt. Cheese Weasel: It's not a scandal subby. It's a national disgrace.

You're right. The GOP needs to stop embarassing this country.

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 380x295]


Yup, Herman Cain is a national disgrace.
 
2012-12-13 06:05:30 PM

Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: ry getting him to respond rationally to a good point.

Try making one, champ.

We lied to the American Public because we wanted the perpetrators to think there was a protest at the Embassy they attacked even though there wasn't one!

lolz

Please detail the harm that you believe came from this lie.

The lie didn't kill anyone, but it's still kinda shiatty to lie to everyone about American deaths for political gain. If they were "terrorist attacks" then Obama looks bad before the election. If they were because of some mean man in California and Obama condemns him, then Obama look good (I guess) before the election.

Sort of a shiatty thing to do to those families.

So Obama was sabotaging himself when he called it an "Act of Terror". Got it.

He didn't call it that.


Please Proceed.
 
2012-12-13 06:05:35 PM

Silly Jesus: There are consequences for your actions. Adults understand this.


I agree. Which is why parents (president Obama) learn that when your child (republicans) spends a lot of time lying on the floor screaming that the worst thing you can do is indulge that child. It only reinforces bad behavior in the future.
 
2012-12-13 06:05:55 PM

justme317: Reward? Eff that, I don't care if Huntsman is R or D, I think he's the next best guy for the job. It doesn't hurt that I think he'd have a smooth confirmation process.


If you respond to republican temper tantrums by giving Republicans things, you are rewarding them.

My 2 year old nephew is probably very thirsty when he throws his cup and cries for milk, and giving a child milk is the right thing to do. it doesn't mean he gets milk while he's throwing shiat.
 
2012-12-13 06:06:05 PM

Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.


Point at it and laugh.
 
2012-12-13 06:08:03 PM

Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: ry getting him to respond rationally to a good point.

Try making one, champ.

We lied to the American Public because we wanted the perpetrators to think there was a protest at the Embassy they attacked even though there wasn't one!

lolz

Please detail the harm that you believe came from this lie.

The lie didn't kill anyone, but it's still kinda shiatty to lie to everyone about American deaths for political gain. If they were "terrorist attacks" then Obama looks bad before the election. If they were because of some mean man in California and Obama condemns him, then Obama look good (I guess) before the election.

Sort of a shiatty thing to do to those families.

So Obama was sabotaging himself when he called it an "Act of Terror". Got it.

He didn't call it that.


He called it an act of terror the day after it happened, and two days after that. Ne never called it anything else. Others said it wasn't, at the beginning, but they later agreed with him as the investigation went on and the evidence became clear. But Obama himself never said it was anything but an act of terror.
 
2012-12-13 06:09:16 PM

Silly Jesus: There are consequences for your actions. Adults understand this.


You mean like GOP acts of douchiness having the consequence the entire political party being curb stomped in a national election?
 
2012-12-13 06:09:32 PM
I hate to break it to you all, but terrorist attacks against American citizens tend to unite the population behind the current leadership. How else do you explain W's 90% approval rating on 9/12?

Ergo, it was in Obama's interest to report it as a terrorist attack.
 
2012-12-13 06:09:42 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: ry getting him to respond rationally to a good point.

Try making one, champ.

We lied to the American Public because we wanted the perpetrators to think there was a protest at the Embassy they attacked even though there wasn't one!

lolz

Please detail the harm that you believe came from this lie.

The lie didn't kill anyone, but it's still kinda shiatty to lie to everyone about American deaths for political gain. If they were "terrorist attacks" then Obama looks bad before the election. If they were because of some mean man in California and Obama condemns him, then Obama look good (I guess) before the election.

Sort of a shiatty thing to do to those families.

Didn't stop the Republicans, did it? Of course, now you're assuming that the only reason for this "lie" was Obama using it for political gain, instead of the CIA not wanting to give out sensitive information and because there was and is still an investigation going on.

Republicans, masters of projecting.


How about "no comment, it's an ongoing investigation" rather than "this nifty reason that I made up?"
 
2012-12-13 06:10:57 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: ry getting him to respond rationally to a good point.

Try making one, champ.

We lied to the American Public because we wanted the perpetrators to think there was a protest at the Embassy they attacked even though there wasn't one!

lolz

Please detail the harm that you believe came from this lie.

The lie didn't kill anyone, but it's still kinda shiatty to lie to everyone about American deaths for political gain. If they were "terrorist attacks" then Obama looks bad before the election. If they were because of some mean man in California and Obama condemns him, then Obama look good (I guess) before the election.

Sort of a shiatty thing to do to those families.

So Obama was sabotaging himself when he called it an "Act of Terror". Got it.

He didn't call it that.

Please Proceed.


You're the one making the claim...ding dong.
 
2012-12-13 06:11:47 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: ry getting him to respond rationally to a good point.

Try making one, champ.

We lied to the American Public because we wanted the perpetrators to think there was a protest at the Embassy they attacked even though there wasn't one!

lolz

Please detail the harm that you believe came from this lie.

The lie didn't kill anyone, but it's still kinda shiatty to lie to everyone about American deaths for political gain. If they were "terrorist attacks" then Obama looks bad before the election. If they were because of some mean man in California and Obama condemns him, then Obama look good (I guess) before the election.

Sort of a shiatty thing to do to those families.

So Obama was sabotaging himself when he called it an "Act of Terror". Got it.

He didn't call it that.

He called it an act of terror the day after it happened, and two days after that. Ne never called it anything else. Others said it wasn't, at the beginning, but they later agreed with him as the investigation went on and the evidence became clear. But Obama himself never said it was anything but an act of terror.


[citation needed]
 
2012-12-13 06:12:29 PM

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Silly Jesus: There are consequences for your actions. Adults understand this.

You mean like GOP acts of douchiness having the consequence the entire political party being curb stomped in a national election?


The idiots talking about rape and abortion did that.
 
2012-12-13 06:12:35 PM
I found that poor chicken!

www.chillhour.com
 
2012-12-13 06:12:46 PM

DamnYankees: justme317: What about Jon Huntsman?

Strong Credentials (US Ambassador to China for the first two years of Obama's first term). Truly moderate political views, cool under fire.

Republicans won't have a problem with him.

What do Farkers think?

Why the hell does everyone want to reward the GOP for its insanity? I don't get this.


I appreciate your point, but I don't see Huntsman as a typical GOP lackey. I would go for a sitting GOP female, and get the Popcorn concession.
 
2012-12-13 06:13:10 PM
First story at 6 PM on DC local news: Boehner has been at the White House for an hour for fiscal cliff talks.

Second story: Susan Rice withdrew her name from consideration for Secretary of State two hours ago.

I'm not saying the two are related...

1.bp.blogspot.com

...but they're related.

My guess: Boehner made Rice's removal from consideration a condition for further fiscal cliff negotiations.

/adjusts tinfoil
 
2012-12-13 06:13:11 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: He called it an act of terror the day after it happened, and two days after that. Ne never called it anything else. Others said it wasn't, at the beginning, but they later agreed with him as the investigation went on and the evidence became clear. But Obama himself never said it was anything but an act of terror.


In fact, Romney was the one who blamed it on protests, thought Hillary Clinton's statement about Cairo was Obama's response to Benghazi, and implied that the attack was in Cairo.
 
2012-12-13 06:13:25 PM

Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.


He didn't?
 
2012-12-13 06:14:13 PM
F*ck you John McCain. You bitter old coot. And honorable mention to Fox ( All Bengazi All The Time) News.
 
2012-12-13 06:14:22 PM

Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: ry getting him to respond rationally to a good point.

Try making one, champ.

We lied to the American Public because we wanted the perpetrators to think there was a protest at the Embassy they attacked even though there wasn't one!

lolz

Please detail the harm that you believe came from this lie.

The lie didn't kill anyone, but it's still kinda shiatty to lie to everyone about American deaths for political gain. If they were "terrorist attacks" then Obama looks bad before the election. If they were because of some mean man in California and Obama condemns him, then Obama look good (I guess) before the election.

Sort of a shiatty thing to do to those families.

So Obama was sabotaging himself when he called it an "Act of Terror". Got it.

He didn't call it that.

Please Proceed.

You're the one making the claim...ding dong.


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.\
 
2012-12-13 06:14:30 PM
 
2012-12-13 06:14:32 PM
 
2012-12-13 06:14:36 PM

Silly Jesus: Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: ry getting him to respond rationally to a good point.

Try making one, champ.

We lied to the American Public because we wanted the perpetrators to think there was a protest at the Embassy they attacked even though there wasn't one!

lolz

Please detail the harm that you believe came from this lie.

The lie didn't kill anyone, but it's still kinda shiatty to lie to everyone about American deaths for political gain. If they were "terrorist attacks" then Obama looks bad before the election. If they were because of some mean man in California and Obama condemns him, then Obama look good (I guess) before the election.

Sort of a shiatty thing to do to those families.

Didn't stop the Republicans, did it? Of course, now you're assuming that the only reason for this "lie" was Obama using it for political gain, instead of the CIA not wanting to give out sensitive information and because there was and is still an investigation going on.

Republicans, masters of projecting.

How about "no comment, it's an ongoing investigation" rather than "this nifty reason that I made up?"


Granted, one of the mistakes made was not telling the media and the public "We'll tell you when we've got a lot more info and everything sorted out", but I really doubt it was done out of malice or political maneuvering. Even God made mistakes.

But only those who have a vendetta against Obama and Democrats in general are the ones making a mountain out of this molehill.
 
2012-12-13 06:14:42 PM

Burn_The_Plows: mitchcumstein1: Scott Walker was actually not a horrible elected representative.

This statement lets me make 1 of 3 assumptions about you:

1) You use the word "was" to mean that he didn't fark up anything in his first 5 minutes of his first term as Milwaukee County Supervisor.

2) You've never lived in Milwaukee County.

3) Your last name starts with a "K" and ends with "-och".

Which one is it?


Meant Scott Brown, typed Scott Walker.

But #2 is absolutely right.
 
2012-12-13 06:15:15 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Bucky Katt: Lt. Cheese Weasel: It's not a scandal subby. It's a national disgrace.

You're right. The GOP needs to stop embarassing this country.

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 380x295]


Is that before or after the GOP cut funding for embassy security? Just asking questions here.
 
2012-12-13 06:15:53 PM
If I were Obama I'd nominate Jesse Jackson just to fark with those morons. The last thing I'd do is give them Kerry, or a conservative to appease the jackasses as some are speculating he might. The prez has taken enough shiat off these assholes the last four years. I think most of us would be really happy to see him give them a figurative "fark you" of some kind.

....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
.........."...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...
 
2012-12-13 06:15:53 PM

Silly Jesus: [citation needed]


You're sh*tting us, right?

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. 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.

 
2012-12-13 06:16:13 PM

Silly Jesus: Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: ry getting him to respond rationally to a good point.

Try making one, champ.

We lied to the American Public because we wanted the perpetrators to think there was a protest at the Embassy they attacked even though there wasn't one!

lolz

Please detail the harm that you believe came from this lie.

The lie didn't kill anyone, but it's still kinda shiatty to lie to everyone about American deaths for political gain. If they were "terrorist attacks" then Obama looks bad before the election. If they were because of some mean man in California and Obama condemns him, then Obama look good (I guess) before the election.

Sort of a shiatty thing to do to those families.

So Obama was sabotaging himself when he called it an "Act of Terror". Got it.

He didn't call it that.

He called it an act of terror the day after it happened, and two days after that. Ne never called it anything else. Others said it wasn't, at the beginning, but they later agreed with him as the investigation went on and the evidence became clear. But Obama himself never said it was anything but an act of terror.

[citation needed]


Here you go.
 
2012-12-13 06:17:05 PM
She was too ugly for the job.
 
2012-12-13 06:17:57 PM
So you now have John Kerry as the front runner.

Congratulation GOP on your crusade?
 
2012-12-13 06:18:25 PM

Marcus Aurelius: halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: So why should the public be privy to the true details of an ongoing terrorism investigation?

First of all, it had nothing to do with any investigation.

Second, it isn't a question of "privy to," sport, THEY LIED about it.

Man, some people.

You're so smart and well informed that I'm going to give you your very own special color. I have to ask Drew if we can work brown into the color scheme at some point.


brown for his shirt or stained undies?
 
2012-12-13 06:18:48 PM

ariseatex: First story at 6 PM on DC local news: Boehner has been at the White House for an hour for fiscal cliff talks.

Second story: Susan Rice withdrew her name from consideration for Secretary of State two hours ago.

I'm not saying the two are related...

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 461x403]

...but they're related.

My guess: Boehner made Rice's removal from consideration a condition for further fiscal cliff negotiations.

/adjusts tinfoil


If Obama lets the Repukes dictate any conditions on the fiscal cliff, he's as soft as he seemed to be in previous negotiations--let alone letting them control conditions as major as this. fark that nonsense.
 
2012-12-13 06:20:43 PM

Thigvald the Big-Balled: ariseatex: First story at 6 PM on DC local news: Boehner has been at the White House for an hour for fiscal cliff talks.

Second story: Susan Rice withdrew her name from consideration for Secretary of State two hours ago.

I'm not saying the two are related...

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 461x403]

...but they're related.

My guess: Boehner made Rice's removal from consideration a condition for further fiscal cliff negotiations.

/adjusts tinfoil

If Obama lets the Repukes dictate any conditions on the fiscal cliff, he's as soft as he seemed to be in previous negotiations--let alone letting them control conditions as major as this. fark that nonsense.


Mind you, my theory and Propasaurus/Marcus Aurelius's aren't mutually exclusive.
 
2012-12-13 06:22:33 PM

mitchcumstein1: Meant Scott Brown, typed Scott Walker.

But #2 is absolutely right.


My bad, sorry.
 
2012-12-13 06:24:18 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Hmm, ongoing investigation where there was a lot of things to sort through, as well as not wanting to give our enemies information.


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

Yeah you didn't want our enemies knowing that there wasn't a protest at the Embassy that they attacked! Hee hee.

True believers, a pack of freaking Zealots.

But remember folks, I'm the bad guy!
 
2012-12-13 06:24:37 PM

Rev. Skarekroe: Silly Jesus: [citation needed]

You're sh*tting us, right?

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. 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.


He's already had his ass handed to him about this. Probably more than a few times.

He's into the wine coolers again.
 
2012-12-13 06:25:05 PM
Kerry is also a bad choice.

Swift Boat people don't like him.
 
2012-12-13 06:25:09 PM
The GOP would happily confirm one of these Democrats for SoS. Can you guess which one?

www.theblaze.com
 
2012-12-13 06:25:41 PM

halfof33: But remember folks, I'm the bad guy!


No, you're just a dumb guy. Fark is probably not the best place to think you have an engaging hero arc.
 
2012-12-13 06:26:00 PM

halfof33: Keizer_Ghidorah: Hmm, ongoing investigation where there was a lot of things to sort through, as well as not wanting to give our enemies information.

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

Yeah you didn't want our enemies knowing that there wasn't a protest at the Embassy that they attacked! Hee hee.

True believers, a pack of freaking Zealots.

But remember folks, I'm the bad guy!


Again I would like to offer you the opportunity to explain what harm came from Rice's statement.
 
2012-12-13 06:26:54 PM

DamnYankees: justme317: Reward? Eff that, I don't care if Huntsman is R or D, I think he's the next best guy for the job. It doesn't hurt that I think he'd have a smooth confirmation process.

No offense, but you're not qualified to know who the next best person is. Neither am I. But I'm also aware that for these kinds of jobs, there's very rarely a list of people in a specific order which actually exists. There is no (i) Susan Rice, (ii) John Huntsman, (iii) Donald Trump. There's always a pool of qualified people, and who you pick depends on the circumstances - who's available, who will accept, what the liekly issues they will face are, how Congress will react, etc. The idea that there's a literal list which is independent of the political nature of the selection is a fantasy.


And then there's the question of whether Huntsman would accept the position. Unfortunately, Huntsman learned a hard lesson as to what Republican voters think about people who work across the aisle.
 
2012-12-13 06:28:14 PM

EyeballKid: Recess. Appointment.


So long as you're holding over so many classic Dubya moves, why not do this one as well?


My thought exactly. Don't put anyone forward now. The Senate has to adjourn soon enough anyway. Once it does, Clinton can resign and Obama can appoint Rice to the position.

A year from now, either she'll be viewed as a failure in the position, and will resign rather than go through the hearings, or she'll be viewed as a success, and Republicans would be viewed as crazy people (even by their base) for trying to bring up Benghazi when even FOX News has moved on to try to sell 80-90 other controversies by then.
 
2012-12-13 06:29:07 PM

halfof33: I'm the bad guy!


no not the bad guy but definitely the concerned guy. Unfortunately or not, you've proven that you have an opinion & that opinion is based on opinion.
 
2012-12-13 06:30:01 PM
So what are the odds that Obama waits until the Senate is in recess and then appoints her anyway?
 
2012-12-13 06:30:29 PM
Classic patsy.
 
2012-12-13 06:31:52 PM

acaciaavenue: Classic patsy.


Lazy troll is lazy.
 
2012-12-13 06:31:54 PM

Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: ry getting him to respond rationally to a good point.

Try making one, champ.

We lied to the American Public because we wanted the perpetrators to think there was a protest at the Embassy they attacked even though there wasn't one!

lolz

Please detail the harm that you believe came from this lie.

The lie didn't kill anyone, but it's still kinda shiatty to lie to everyone about American deaths for political gain. If they were "terrorist attacks" then Obama looks bad before the election. If they were because of some mean man in California and Obama condemns him, then Obama look good (I guess) before the election.

Sort of a shiatty thing to do to those families.


You sound...concerned.
 
2012-12-13 06:32:22 PM

thamike: No, you're just a dumb guy. Fark is probably not the best place to think you have an engaging hero arc.


Oh wait, I'm the "dumb guy."

What with my actual quote and links.

CHECK! Thanks, we are all learning so much from the Administration slurpers here.

So much! You guys are also WAY open minded.
 
2012-12-13 06:32:36 PM

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: ry getting him to respond rationally to a good point.

Try making one, champ.

We lied to the American Public because we wanted the perpetrators to think there was a protest at the Embassy they attacked even though there wasn't one!

lolz

Please detail the harm that you believe came from this lie.

The lie didn't kill anyone, but it's still kinda shiatty to lie to everyone about American deaths for political gain. If they were "terrorist attacks" then Obama looks bad before the election. If they were because of some mean man in California and Obama condemns him, then Obama look good (I guess) before the election.

Sort of a shiatty thing to do to those families.

You sound...concerned.


It's his MO.
 
2012-12-13 06:32:58 PM
Well, this clears the way for someone competant like John F Kerry.
 
2012-12-13 06:33:44 PM
FREE AT LAST, FREE AT LAST, THANK THE LORD ALMIGHTY CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED SPEECH CRITICIZING RELIGION IS FREE AT LAST!!!!!

Oh wait ...

www.humanevents.com

/HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA A AAAA!
//Your tears of impotent liberal rage - THEY FEED ME!
///This plus Michigan is Right To Work - Christmas came early this year!
 
2012-12-13 06:35:29 PM

thamike: Keizer_Ghidorah: He called it an act of terror the day after it happened, and two days after that. Ne never called it anything else. Others said it wasn't, at the beginning, but they later agreed with him as the investigation went on and the evidence became clear. But Obama himself never said it was anything but an act of terror.

In fact, Romney was the one who blamed it on protests, thought Hillary Clinton's statement about Cairo was Obama's response to Benghazi, and implied that the attack was in Cairo.


You also hit the nail on the head on why the GOP tried to make this a scandal so badly. Because Romney shat the bed in the foreign policy department by jumping the gun way too early and the GOP were frantically searching for a way to bring down Obama on foreign policy as a result in an attempt to do damage control for the Romney campaign...which is how we ended up with this stupid scandal.
 
2012-12-13 06:36:36 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-13 06:37:13 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?


Scott Brown taking Kerry's Senate seat. That's what's wrong.
 
2012-12-13 06:37:27 PM

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.
 
2012-12-13 06:37:35 PM
Idiot farking Republicans, just puffing their chests to make sure they still can.

This so-called scandal is the biggest non-story I've seen in years. There is literally nothing to it.

Idiots.
 
2012-12-13 06:37:48 PM
Is Benghazi a truth yet? I can't keep up with the twists and turns of interpretation, logic and rationalization.

But it's all been great fun. Thanks for the memories, Susan. You took that bullet like a champ.
 
2012-12-13 06:37:58 PM
I'd like to think that the reason Graham and McCain torpedoed Rice is because Kerry is a buddy and a respected elder statesman, and they want to clear the field for him.

Or they want to free up an open seat in MA for Brown to swoop in and take. One of those.

Either way, I fully believe that the hooplah over Rice's "role" in Benghazi is way too much herping and derping for even the modern GOP.

/forever the optimist
 
2012-12-13 06:38:47 PM

Taylor Mental: If I were Obama I'd nominate Jesse Jackson just to fark with those morons. The last thing I'd do is give them Kerry, or a conservative to appease the jackasses as some are speculating he might. The prez has taken enough shiat off these assholes the last four years. I think most of us would be really happy to see him give them a figurative "fark you" of some kind.

....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
.........."...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...


Jesse is too busy with the Zimmerman witch-hunt.
 
2012-12-13 06:38:52 PM

Marcus Aurelius: JerseyTim: 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?

It opens up his seat for Scott Brown.

True. Kerry's got a lot of seniority in the Senate. Obama can't be absolutely sure who the Governor would replace him with, either. That's a good point.


Mass replaces Senators via election rather than appointment.
 
2012-12-13 06:40:15 PM

FlashHarry: that's a shame. she had ZERO to do with the benghazi attack. she gave talking points dictated to her by the CIA. this is her only crime. would john mccain and lindsay graham have gone against the CIA were they in her position?


She didn't challenge the information the CIA gave her. That is not leadership. When Bush was told by the CIA that Osama Bin Laden was targeting the US he didn't just roll-over and accept it. When the CIA told Bush that they didn't have anything reliable showing WMD's in Iraq, he challenged it until he got the answers he wanted. That's leadership.
 
2012-12-13 06:40:16 PM

Silly Jesus: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Silly Jesus: There are consequences for your actions. Adults understand this.

You mean like GOP acts of douchiness having the consequence the entire political party being curb stomped in a national election?

The idiots talking about rape and abortion did that.


So you're saying the idiots talking about rape & abortion weren't Republicans committing acts of douchiness?
 
2012-12-13 06:40:49 PM

Nordolio: This so-called scandal is the biggest non-story I've seen in years. There is literally nothing to it.

Idiots.


blog.saskatoonrealestate.com

Sounds legit.
 
2012-12-13 06:40:58 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.


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-13 06:41:10 PM

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


yeah that would be a mistake and lead to Brown being Senator again next year.
 
2012-12-13 06:41:45 PM
I really hope John Kerry isn't nominated for the position. That would free up his senate seat for the return of Scott Brown, and we really can't allow that to happen.

Once again, the minority rules in DC.
 
2012-12-13 06:41:45 PM
Propaganda and smear campaigns work.
 
2012-12-13 06:41:58 PM

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Silly Jesus: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Silly Jesus: There are consequences for your actions. Adults understand this.

You mean like GOP acts of douchiness having the consequence the entire political party being curb stomped in a national election?

The idiots talking about rape and abortion did that.

So you're saying the idiots talking about rape & abortion weren't Republicans committing acts of douchiness?


I thought you were specifically referring to the Benghazi thing. Sorry for reading your words in context. I won't make that mistake again.
 
2012-12-13 06:42:14 PM

Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: ry getting him to respond rationally to a good point.

Try making one, champ.

We lied to the American Public because we wanted the perpetrators to think there was a protest at the Embassy they attacked even though there wasn't one!

lolz

Please detail the harm that you believe came from this lie.

The lie didn't kill anyone, but it's still kinda shiatty to lie to everyone about American deaths for political gain. If they were "terrorist attacks" then Obama looks bad before the election. If they were because of some mean man in California and Obama condemns him, then Obama look good (I guess) before the election.

Sort of a shiatty thing to do to those families.


This is exactly what I don't get about this entire manufactured controversy. In what possible way does a terrorist attack just before our election make Obama look bad? Bush Jr. showed that all you had to do was give a good speech after an attack that you totally missed and you get the highest approval of your Presidency.

And, unlike Bush, Obama actually has an unbelievably good track record of killing terrorists. If Obama wanted to make himself look better before the election, he could have demanded time from all the networks to speak to an issue of national security, and then given a meaningless speech about our country fighting terrorism everywhere in the world, etc. He would have won in an even bigger landslide.

Instead, he tried very hard to avoid the issue, even against Republican criticism. Given the Romney/Ryan ticket's complete lack of foreign policy and national security experience, one might conclude that Obama was putting country before campaign, by not drawing attention to whatever classified shenanigans the CIA was up to over there.
 
2012-12-13 06:43:10 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.


"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.
 
2012-12-13 06:43:23 PM
Obama should nominate Valerie Plame. :)
 
2012-12-13 06:43:27 PM

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?
 
2012-12-13 06:43:54 PM

halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: ry getting him to respond rationally to a good point.

Try making one, champ.

We lied to the American Public because we wanted the perpetrators to think there was a protest at the Embassy they attacked even though there wasn't one!

lolz


Strangely, your proof actually disputes your claim. Perhaps you should read it yourself.
 
2012-12-13 06:44:39 PM

rotsky: I liked lyked her. *sigh*


/Sorry, pet peeve.
 
2012-12-13 06:45:23 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?


Man this troll is still on fark? I thought it left because of embarrassment.
 
2012-12-13 06:46:03 PM

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.
 
2012-12-13 06:46:51 PM

beta_plus: FREE AT LAST, FREE AT LAST, THANK THE LORD ALMIGHTY CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED SPEECH CRITICIZING RELIGION IS FREE AT LAST!!!!!

Oh wait ...

[www.humanevents.com image 620x436]

/HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA A AAAA!
//Your tears of impotent liberal rage - THEY FEED ME!
///This plus Michigan is Right To Work - Christmas came early this year!


Wrong thread, Sparky?

halfof33: Nordolio: This so-called scandal is the biggest non-story I've seen in years. There is literally nothing to it.

Idiots.

[blog.saskatoonrealestate.com image 300x158]

Sounds legit.


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.
 
2012-12-13 06:47:05 PM

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.
 
2012-12-13 06:47:36 PM

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?
 
2012-12-13 06:47:49 PM
Sounds legit.

The Benghazi scandal is as legit as "Obamacare death panels" and "you didn't built that" hyperventilating. Its called making shiat up. And then making a mountain out of that molehill of shiat.
 
2012-12-13 06:47:54 PM
Nominate John McCain.

Confirmation!

Fire him on his first day.
 
2012-12-13 06:48:45 PM

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.
 
2012-12-13 06:48:48 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.


so now all you got is that he didn't place enough emphasis on it? that's weak sauce
 
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.
 
2012-12-13 07:17:02 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 .


Those are Drew's rules.
 
2012-12-13 07:17:22 PM

Jon H: /sitting at a bar
//watching Telemundo
///does not speak Mexican
////drinking a Budweiser!


And posting to fark.com. Damn. That's ... pathetic. You need to re-evaluate things and maybe go do something else.
 
2012-12-13 07:17:49 PM

Marcus Aurelius: 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.


The funny thing is, they only care when a Democrat lies to them. Just like they only care about embassy attacks when a Democrat is in office, and only care about human life when it's still in the woman's body and not quite life yet.
 
2012-12-13 07:18:03 PM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: 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.


Umm, yeah, I don't even. SMH.
 
2012-12-13 07:18:52 PM

halfof33: 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!


Are you five years old?
 
2012-12-13 07:19:40 PM

Silly Jesus: 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 .

Those are Drew's rules.


Are there different rules for mod alts such as yourself?
 
2012-12-13 07:19:48 PM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: 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.


I would also like to point out that "Benghazi" is not in the Constitution even ONCE. If it was important, don't you think the Founding Fathers would have mentioned it, at least in passing?
 
2012-12-13 07:19:53 PM

Marcus Aurelius: 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.


Oh man, do it! You won't have any one questioning you ever again, and won't have to learn inconvenient fully sourced and linked facts.

"i'm gonna put you on ignore" the mating call of the Eastern Breasted TotalPussy.
 
2012-12-13 07:20:23 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Marcus Aurelius: 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.

The funny thing is, they only care when a Democrat lies to them. Just like they only care about embassy attacks when a Democrat is in office, and only care about human life when it's still in the woman's body and not quite life yet.


And they only care about sending troops off to war when a Democrat is doing it, and they only care about deficits when a Democrat is in office, and...
 
2012-12-13 07:21:53 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Marcus Aurelius: 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.

The funny thing is, they only care when a Democrat lies to them. Just like they only care about embassy attacks when a Democrat is in office, and only care about human life when it's still in the woman's body and not quite life yet.


It's almost as if they're getting paid to promote their own irrational point of view, because there's no other reason I can think of that a person would act like such a fool in front of so many people.
 
2012-12-13 07:22:25 PM

halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: 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.

Oh man, do it! You won't have any one questioning you ever again, and won't have to learn inconvenient fully sourced and linked facts.

"i'm gonna put you on ignore" the mating call of the Eastern Breasted TotalPussy.


The sad thing is that you have been posting for days in every thread on this topic.

Yet it still isn't a scandal. How sad your life must be.
 
2012-12-13 07:22:45 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah:
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.

People have, many times. And you either ignore them or accuse them of being in on whatever conspiracy you think is happening.


You missed the "logical" part. All I get is "you want all information released to terrorists?" "Where did she lie, whar?" "Fog of war," "Obama clearly said it was a terrorist attack, you troll." "The CIA altered the talking points!"

Everything contradicts the known facts and the explanations sometimes contradict each other.

As I've said, it's hardly a major scandal, or maybe not a scandal at all. But don't fart in my face and blame the dog, please.
 
2012-12-13 07:23:19 PM

Halli: Silly Jesus: 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 .

Those are Drew's rules.

Are there different rules for mod alts such as yourself?


I follow the rules.
 
2012-12-13 07:23:37 PM

Marcus Aurelius: I bet he can't even tell you the names of the perpetrators.


Silly Librul. Ebil mooslems don't have names. Names are a product of a sivilised society, and only cizzlied societies name their kids Honey Boo Boo, Snooki, and Chumley.
 
2012-12-13 07:24:22 PM

Halli: halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: 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.

Oh man, do it! You won't have any one questioning you ever again, and won't have to learn inconvenient fully sourced and linked facts.

"i'm gonna put you on ignore" the mating call of the Eastern Breasted TotalPussy.

The sad thing is that you have been posting for days in every thread on this topic.

Yet it still isn't a scandal. How sad your life must be.


I'd put the odds of his being a true believer at about 10%.
 
2012-12-13 07:26:01 PM

IlGreven: Marcus Aurelius: I bet he can't even tell you the names of the perpetrators.

Silly Librul. Ebil mooslems don't have names. Names are a product of a sivilised society, and only cizzlied societies name their kids Honey Boo Boo, Snooki, and Chumley.


Atta boy.
 
2012-12-13 07:26:07 PM

HeartBurnKid: Keizer_Ghidorah: Marcus Aurelius: 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.

The funny thing is, they only care when a Democrat lies to them. Just like they only care about embassy attacks when a Democrat is in office, and only care about human life when it's still in the woman's body and not quite life yet.

And they only care about sending troops off to war when a Democrat is doing it, and they only care about deficits when a Democrat is in office, and...


When the Democrat president proposes and/or installs things that Republicans themselves created and applauded, suddenly that thing is evil and horrible and anti-American.

Marcus Aurelius: Keizer_Ghidorah: Marcus Aurelius: 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.

The funny thing is, they only care when a Democrat lies to them. Just like they only care about embassy attacks when a Democrat is in office, and only care about human life when it's still in the woman's body and not quite life yet.

It's almost as if they're getting paid to promote their own irrational point of view, because there's no other reason I can think of that a person would act like such a fool in front of so many people.


Either that, or they seriously believe everything they say, or it's the internet and they're having fun saying whatever they like because they're anonymous.
 
2012-12-13 07:26:40 PM

Marcus Aurelius: The Jami Turman Fan Club: 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.

I would also like to point out that "Benghazi" is not in the Constitution even ONCE. If it was important, don't you think the Founding Fathers would have mentioned it, at least in passing?


Benghazi was supposed to prove that Obama is Jimmy Carter so Romney=Reagan during the election. Problem is, only Fox newswatchers heard the dogwhistle.
 
2012-12-13 07:27:14 PM
Good. The lying b*tch had it coming. Anyone who would WILLING go around lying for Obama does not deserve any respect nor any consideration for anything. And yes, Benghazi will continue to be a major scandal until we hear ALL that happened, that which the administraton (which is SOOO transparent) has kept secret, so far. Obama is going down for this.
 
2012-12-13 07:27:29 PM
What a terrorist might look like:
www.veteranstoday.com
 
2012-12-13 07:29:04 PM

Cletus C.: Keizer_Ghidorah:
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.

People have, many times. And you either ignore them or accuse them of being in on whatever conspiracy you think is happening.

You missed the "logical" part. All I get is "you want all information released to terrorists?" "Where did she lie, whar?" "Fog of war," "Obama clearly said it was a terrorist attack, you troll." "The CIA altered the talking points!"

Everything contradicts the known facts and the explanations sometimes contradict each other.

As I've said, it's hardly a major scandal, or maybe not a scandal at all. But don't fart in my face and blame the dog, please.


Just like how Republicans can never keep their conspiracy theories straight about Benghazi, hm? I've seen you reject absolutely everything offered to you except the conspiracy theories that fit with what you want to hear.
 
2012-12-13 07:29:20 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Marcus Aurelius: 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.

The funny thing is, they only care when a Democrat lies to them. Just like they only care about embassy attacks when a Democrat is in office, and only care about human life when it's still in the woman's body and not quite life yet.


Pisses me off whenever a politician lies to me. Don't care for embassy or consulate attacks ever. Love all human life, except maybe some murderers, rapists and reality show stars.

But thanks for the assumptions.
 
2012-12-13 07:29:44 PM

Silly Jesus: The Jami Turman Fan Club: 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.

Umm, yeah, I don't even. SMH.


This whole thing has been adorable, I have to admit. Watching people spew points that have been proven false months ago, that mean nothing because Obama's already won. All this time and it's still not a scandal... must be tough.

I do have to ask you something SJ, just because I'm dying to have you input on this. Say the world went bizarro, dogs turned into cats, global warming really is a lie, and somehow what you're saying is true... and Obama didn't call it an act of terror. So... what then? What happens? Do they try impeaching him and fail miserably? Do you get a pony? Really... if you're so very right, what exactly is the juicy outcome if people are swayed to your side... that he didn't call it an act of terror until later?

So... farking... what?
 
2012-12-13 07:29:53 PM

Marcus Aurelius: It's almost as if they're getting paid to promote their own irrational point of view, because there's no other reason I can think of that a person would act like such a fool in front of so many people.


A certain dairy troll who shall remain nameless once admitted that he'd been paid for it, though he could have been lying.
 
2012-12-13 07:30:16 PM
How sad that you can score a political 'victory' not by being right, but just by being loud.
 
2012-12-13 07:30:27 PM

tony41454: Good. The lying b*tch had it coming. Anyone who would WILLING go around lying for Obama does not deserve any respect nor any consideration for anything. And yes, Benghazi will continue to be a major scandal until we hear ALL that happened, that which the administraton (which is SOOO transparent) has kept secret, so far. Obama is going down for this.


"The number-one job is to make Obama a one-term president."- McConnell

Tell us why we should listen to anything your side says?
 
2012-12-13 07:31:53 PM

Cletus C.: Keizer_Ghidorah: Marcus Aurelius: 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.

The funny thing is, they only care when a Democrat lies to them. Just like they only care about embassy attacks when a Democrat is in office, and only care about human life when it's still in the woman's body and not quite life yet.

Pisses me off whenever a politician lies to me. Don't care for embassy or consulate attacks ever. Love all human life, except maybe some murderers, rapists and reality show stars.

But thanks for the assumptions.


Hey, you're convinced that Obama has some grand conspiracy in place. Not much we can do to help you. You reject everything told to you except what gels with your views.
 
2012-12-13 07:32:02 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Cletus C.: Keizer_Ghidorah:
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.

People have, many times. And you either ignore them or accuse them of being in on whatever conspiracy you think is happening.

You missed the "logical" part. All I get is "you want all information released to terrorists?" "Where did she lie, whar?" "Fog of war," "Obama clearly said it was a terrorist attack, you troll." "The CIA altered the talking points!"

Everything contradicts the known facts and the explanations sometimes contradict each other.

As I've said, it's hardly a major scandal, or maybe not a scandal at all. But don't fart in my face and blame the dog, please.

Just like how Republicans can never keep their conspiracy theories straight about Benghazi, hm? I've seen you reject absolutely everything offered to you except the conspiracy theories that fit with what you want to hear.


When people tell me what Rice said on the talk shows was not a lie I tend to ignore that, yes. It doesn't seem to have any basis in fact. Maybe she thought it was true but the people who sent her out to say it knew it wasn't. They would be the liars in that case.
 
2012-12-13 07:34:16 PM
Ah Republicans. All that energy spent and on what? She wasn't even nominated yet. So now you look more petty and yet you've gained what?
 
2012-12-13 07:35:57 PM

moralpanic: Ah Republicans. All that energy spent and on what? She wasn't even nominated yet. So now you look more petty and yet you've gained what?


If they hold up one more nomination, they get a free sub!
 
2012-12-13 07:36:01 PM

Cletus C.: Keizer_Ghidorah: Cletus C.: Keizer_Ghidorah:
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.

People have, many times. And you either ignore them or accuse them of being in on whatever conspiracy you think is happening.

You missed the "logical" part. All I get is "you want all information released to terrorists?" "Where did she lie, whar?" "Fog of war," "Obama clearly said it was a terrorist attack, you troll." "The CIA altered the talking points!"

Everything contradicts the known facts and the explanations sometimes contradict each other.

As I've said, it's hardly a major scandal, or maybe not a scandal at all. But don't fart in my face and blame the dog, please.

Just like how Republicans can never keep their conspiracy theories straight about Benghazi, hm? I've seen you reject absolutely everything offered to you except the conspiracy theories that fit with what you want to hear.

When people tell me what Rice said on the talk shows was not a lie I tend to ignore that, yes. It doesn't seem to have any basis in fact. Maybe she thought it was true but the people who sent her out to say it knew it wasn't. They would be the liars in that case.


She also said that when the investigation was still early and there was a lot of stuff floating around. People make mistakes, you know. Thoughts change as new information come in. Why does it always have to be some kind of damned massive conspiracy to people like you? What's the purpose of the grans conspiracy you people have created?
 
2012-12-13 07:36:07 PM

Halli: halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: 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.

Oh man, do it! You won't have any one questioning you ever again, and won't have to learn inconvenient fully sourced and linked facts.

"i'm gonna put you on ignore" the mating call of the Eastern Breasted TotalPussy.

The sad thing is that you have been posting for days in every thread on this topic.

Yet it still isn't a scandal. How sad your life must be.


LOLOLOLOL. 42 +1/2 is using reverse psychology to beg people not to ignore him or her.
 
2012-12-13 07:36:14 PM

Cletus C.: Keizer_Ghidorah:
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.

People have, many times. And you either ignore them or accuse them of being in on whatever conspiracy you think is happening.

You missed the "logical" part. All I get is "you want all information released to terrorists?" "Where did she lie, whar?" "Fog of war," "Obama clearly said it was a terrorist attack, you troll." "The CIA altered the talking points!"

Everything contradicts the known facts and the explanations sometimes contradict each other.

As I've said, it's hardly a major scandal, or maybe not a scandal at all. But don't fart in my face and blame the dog, please.


OK, how about this logical part.

Susan Rice was speaking to the U.N., not the general public. The CIA didn't want her to piss off the U.N., for any number of reasons I'm sure will occur to you*. They deliberately made it as fuzzy as possible without coming out and saying "none of your business, shut the fark up".

Does that satisfy your need for logic?

*such as a secret CIA prison in Libya that violated the Geneva Convention, for one.
 
2012-12-13 07:38:15 PM
It's a shame she had to take the blame for something she really had nothing to do with.
 
2012-12-13 07:38:20 PM

Kevin72: Marcus Aurelius: The Jami Turman Fan Club: 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.

I would also like to point out that "Benghazi" is not in the Constitution even ONCE. If it was important, don't you think the Founding Fathers would have mentioned it, at least in passing?

Benghazi was supposed to prove that Obama is Jimmy Carter so Romney=Reagan during the election. Problem is, only Fox newswatchers heard the dogwhistle.


And they haven't come up with a better "scandal" since the election.

These money laundering bankers that got let off the hook today has pastabilities. I can see the GOP being outraged that the Dems are poaching their campaign fundraising bankers. And they're still pissed at Holder for giving more people guns and getting away with it.

I think before MLK day, we'll have a new scandal, involving Obama letting rich bankers off the hook (when he's not nationalizing their assets like the pinko commie he is) and being soft on terrorist money launderes. What did Obama know and when did he know it?

Which of course would mean criminal charges for the bankers, to start with, but I guarantee Roger Ailes does not put them ahead of his ratings. This scandal could go on for years, because you KNOW this was the tip of the iceberg, thanks to Newt Gingrich "deregulating" these felonious farkers.

I'd put the odds of this happening at 33%, minimum.
 
2012-12-13 07:39:33 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Cletus C.: Keizer_Ghidorah: Marcus Aurelius: 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.

The funny thing is, they only care when a Democrat lies to them. Just like they only care about embassy attacks when a Democrat is in office, and only care about human life when it's still in the woman's body and not quite life yet.

Pisses me off whenever a politician lies to me. Don't care for embassy or consulate attacks ever. Love all human life, except maybe some murderers, rapists and reality show stars.

But thanks for the assumptions.

Hey, you're convinced that Obama has some grand conspiracy in place. Not much we can do to help you. You reject everything told to you except what gels with your views.


Dude, I posted exactly what was said and by whom. I clearly showed my opinions are based on those facts.

I have never called this a grand conspiracy. Just annoying. Also annoying that so many people are willing to defend the indefensible. That so many people are willing to rationalize away reality to support their political views.

I like Obama. But unlike so many, I say it when I have a problem with him, his policies or administration. That's OK to do in this country. We fought a war to end the need to take a knee.
 
2012-12-13 07:39:37 PM
FACT: Anything said on Meet the Press or Face the Nation is considered sworn testimony. Anything said that turns out to not be 100% correct results in an automatic Treason conviction and one way ticket to Gitmo.
 
2012-12-13 07:40:20 PM

Silly Jesus: Taylor Mental: If I were Obama I'd nominate Jesse Jackson just to fark with those morons. The last thing I'd do is give them Kerry, or a conservative to appease the jackasses as some are speculating he might. The prez has taken enough shiat off these assholes the last four years. I think most of us would be really happy to see him give them a figurative "fark you" of some kind.

....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
.........."...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...

Jesse is too busy with the Zimmerman witch-hunt.


Nope. That's a self-peeling banana these days, thanks to his ambulance chasing lawyer.
 
2012-12-13 07:40:46 PM

born_yesterday: If they hold up one more nomination, they get a free sub!


I know that Republican officials love their wide stances, but coupons for rentboys seems creepy even for them.
 
2012-12-13 07:42:13 PM

quiotu: Silly Jesus: The Jami Turman Fan Club: 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.

Umm, yeah, I don't even. SMH.

This whole thing has been adorable, I have to admit. Watching people spew points that have been proven false months ago, that mean nothing because Obama's already won. All this time and it's still not a scandal... must be tough.

I do have to ask you something SJ, just because I'm dying to have you input on this. Say the world went bizarro, dogs turned into cats, global warming really is a lie, and somehow what you're saying is true... and Obama didn't call it an act of terror. So... what then? What happens? Do they try impeaching him and fail miserably? Do you get a pony? Really... if you're so very right, what exactly is the j ...


I should ask you the same thing, you and others are fighting tooth and nail to prove that he did call it an act of terror. What are you fighting for?

It wouldn't really change anything at this point, but it's principle. Lying to everyone for political gain ain't cool. Ask Pat Tillman's mother. Ask the mothers of the men killed over there. They are concerned. Isn't that enough?
 
2012-12-13 07:42:54 PM

Fluorescent Testicle: Marcus Aurelius: It's almost as if they're getting paid to promote their own irrational point of view, because there's no other reason I can think of that a person would act like such a fool in front of so many people.

A certain dairy troll who shall remain nameless once admitted that he'd been paid for it, though he could have been lying.


Keep farking that chicken.
 
2012-12-13 07:44:14 PM

halfof33: 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!


Man, that's a lot of butthurt to have over a month later.
 
2012-12-13 07:49:53 PM
I think I've figured out how all of this makes sense.

4.bp.blogspot.com

Damn old Biff.
 
2012-12-13 07:49:56 PM
so that's what? 3 or 4 black people the right have slandered and forced out of their jobs with their lies? this pisses me off that Obama won't fight for his people harder. I'd have every agency at my disposal crawling up Lindsay Graham and John McCain's butt looking for the slightest little bit of dirt to use against them. Take a cue from Johnson,Nixon and J.Edgar. Or Hell take a page out of their playbook and fabricate a scandal out of thin air.
 
2012-12-13 07:50:03 PM
When serving in civvies in Uncle Sam's stead
Rest assured that your service will be stood on its head
You'll be fed to the press
Or exhumed when your dead
The jackals are legion and all must be fed
So go to your fate like a soldier
 
2012-12-13 07:54:20 PM

Cletus C.: Keizer_Ghidorah: Cletus C.: Keizer_Ghidorah: Marcus Aurelius: 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.

The funny thing is, they only care when a Democrat lies to them. Just like they only care about embassy attacks when a Democrat is in office, and only care about human life when it's still in the woman's body and not quite life yet.

Pisses me off whenever a politician lies to me. Don't care for embassy or consulate attacks ever. Love all human life, except maybe some murderers, rapists and reality show stars.

But thanks for the assumptions.

Hey, you're convinced that Obama has some grand conspiracy in place. Not much we can do to help you. You reject everything told to you except what gels with your views.

Dude, I posted exactly what was said and by whom. I clearly showed my opinions are based on those facts.

I have never called this a grand conspiracy. Just annoying. Also annoying that so many people are willing to defend the indefensible. That so many people are willing to rationalize away reality to support their political views.

I like Obama. But unlike so many, I say it when I have a problem with him, his policies or administration. That's OK to do in this country. We fought a war to end the need to take a knee.


He's annoyed the hell out of me since he voted (as a senator) to let the telco's wiretapping violations go away. And to think I had donated to his campaign just before that. And THEN still have to vote for the marther farker.

Two party politics is just like one party politics, except that the orbiting parties stabilize each other, so there's no REAL change from the status quo.
 
2012-12-13 07:57:56 PM
Is Benghazi a scandal yet?

No, but the derpers f*cked it for everybody.

I can't even imagine the megatons of fake outrage if Susan Rice were sworn in as SOS.
 
2012-12-13 08:00:00 PM
so then it's settled,

Benghazi is a scandal for a select few deaf blind non-mutes who refuse to accept evidence & insist on submitting their personal opinions as evidence.
 
2012-12-13 08:00:15 PM
Benghazi.
 
2012-12-13 08:03:36 PM

Cletus C.: Also annoying that so many people are willing to defend the indefensible.


WTF?!

She made a diplomatic speech to a bunch of diplomats. Unless she suggested that Hitler didn't go far enough, how could that possibly be 'indefensible'?
 
2012-12-13 08:04:27 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Two party politics is just like one party politics, except that the orbiting parties stabilize each other, so there's no REAL change from the status quo.


img213.imageshack.us
 
2012-12-13 08:04:27 PM

Karne: Benghazi.

 
DRINK!

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-12-13 08:05:26 PM
He should nominate Rice for the Supreme Court
 
2012-12-13 08:05:28 PM

Cletus C.: Pisses me off whenever a politician lies to me. Don't care for embassy or consulate attacks ever. Love all human life, except maybe some murderers, rapists and reality show stars.


What was the lie, again?

You keep forgetting to mention what it was.
 
2012-12-13 08:05:46 PM

whidbey: Is Benghazi a scandal yet?

No, but the derpers f*cked it for everybody.

I can't even imagine the megatons of fake outrage if Susan Rice were sworn in as SOS.


Her stepping down gave credibility to the idea of a scandal. Besides.. Kerrry will be confirmed and Scott Brown will take his seat...lol
 
2012-12-13 08:07:39 PM

Cletus C.: Keizer_Ghidorah: Cletus C.: Keizer_Ghidorah: Marcus Aurelius: 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.

The funny thing is, they only care when a Democrat lies to them. Just like they only care about embassy attacks when a Democrat is in office, and only care about human life when it's still in the woman's body and not quite life yet.

Pisses me off whenever a politician lies to me. Don't care for embassy or consulate attacks ever. Love all human life, except maybe some murderers, rapists and reality show stars.

But thanks for the assumptions.

Hey, you're convinced that Obama has some grand conspiracy in place. Not much we can do to help you. You reject everything told to you except what gels with your views.

Dude, I posted exactly what was said and by whom. I clearly showed my opinions are based on those facts.

I have never called this a grand conspiracy. Just annoying. Also annoying that so many people are willing to defend the indefensible. That so many people are willing to rationalize away reality to support their political views.

I like Obama. But unlike so many, I say it when I have a problem with him, his policies or administration. That's OK to do in this country. We fought a war to end the need to take a knee.


You're still obsessing because "I hate it when people lie to me". And you still think that there's some kind of cover-up or something because she didn't say the 100% exact truth, telling the entire world our secrets and everything we know about what happened and how we're gonna get those responsible. Or is it about what halfof33 and Silly Jesuskeep flipping their shiat about? Did you also hold this level of outrage against Bush Jr for lying about Iraq?

For fark's sake, we're still investigating, we're still going after those responsible, and there was or is no reason to make this big a damned mountain out of this molehill. Everything about this is because the right is desperate to have a weapon to use against Obama.

"The number-one job is to make Obama a one-term president."- McConnell

After a statement like that, and everything the right's done in the last four years, why should we entertain anything they say?
 
2012-12-13 08:09:09 PM

Silly Jesus: I should ask you the same thing, you and others are fighting tooth and nail to prove that he did call it an act of terror. What are you fighting for?

It wouldn't really change anything at this point, but it's principle. Lying to everyone for political gain ain't cool. Ask Pat Tillman's mother. Ask the mothers of the men killed over there. They are concerned. Isn't that enough?


I haven't fought you at all... this is my Boobies on this thread, after all. I just asked you a question. And you answered... it's just about the lie, and you shouldn't lie for political gain concerning an act where people die.

So I have another question to follow up with. When Bush and his administration lied about WMDs in Iraq... would you say that's better or worse than what Obama did? Take into account that Obama's supposed lie was about an attack that killed 4, while Bush's started a war that killed over 4400 US soldiers and wounded 32000 more.

I'm curious as to how much outrage you had over that lie compared to this one. You seem to be wasting a lot of energy over something tragic but small, and not worth you or anyone else's time. If you spent more time arguing over this lie then Bush's lie, you're a pretty farking horrible human being.
 
2012-12-13 08:10:54 PM
Ahhh, got caught with the boobie mod. Oh well.
 
2012-12-13 08:11:03 PM

Spaz-master: Her stepping down gave credibility to the idea of a scandal


No it doesn't. It means the Democrats don't know how to tell the Republicans to STFU.

Kerrry will be confirmed and Scott Brown will take his seat...lol

Oh look. A keyboard warrior who wants to watch the world burn.
 
2012-12-13 08:11:20 PM

Spaz-master: whidbey: Is Benghazi a scandal yet?

No, but the derpers f*cked it for everybody.

I can't even imagine the megatons of fake outrage if Susan Rice were sworn in as SOS.

Her stepping down gave credibility to the idea of a scandal. Besides.. Kerrry will be confirmed and Scott Brown will take his seat...lol


I don't know why everyone's assuming Brown will take the seat. I mean, it wasn't even close and Warren is as liberal as they come.
 
2012-12-13 08:11:39 PM

DamnYankees: Isitoveryet: it's a play on words, Benghazi = Ben Gazzara, you aren't new to FARK, do you have someone helping you?

Is that seriously the entire reason for this meme? Blergh, was hoping for more.

No wonder why I didn't get it. That was one hellova reach for a bad pun.

 
2012-12-13 08:16:01 PM

quiotu: Silly Jesus: I should ask you the same thing, you and others are fighting tooth and nail to prove that he did call it an act of terror. What are you fighting for?

It wouldn't really change anything at this point, but it's principle. Lying to everyone for political gain ain't cool. Ask Pat Tillman's mother. Ask the mothers of the men killed over there. They are concerned. Isn't that enough?

I haven't fought you at all... this is my Boobies on this thread, after all. I just asked you a question. And you answered... it's just about the lie, and you shouldn't lie for political gain concerning an act where people die.

So I have another question to follow up with. When Bush and his administration lied about WMDs in Iraq... would you say that's better or worse than what Obama did? Take into account that Obama's supposed lie was about an attack that killed 4, while Bush's started a war that killed over 4400 US soldiers and wounded 32000 more.

I'm curious as to how much outrage you had over that lie compared to this one. You seem to be wasting a lot of energy over something tragic but small, and not worth you or anyone else's time. If you spent more time arguing over this lie then Bush's lie, you're a pretty farking horrible human being.


Bush's lie was easily far, far worse. I like that you assumed that I would think otherwise though. That's sort of the fark meme. If anyone says anything negative about Obama, blessings be upon him, then they automatically love Bush and hate the gays yadda yadda yadda. Farkers are pretty predictable.
 
2012-12-13 08:16:58 PM

Spaz-master: whidbey: Is Benghazi a scandal yet?

No, but the derpers f*cked it for everybody.

I can't even imagine the megatons of fake outrage if Susan Rice were sworn in as SOS.

Her stepping down gave credibility to the idea of a scandal. Besides.. Kerrry will be confirmed and Scott Brown will take his seat...lol


Everything the left does gives credibility to the idea of a scandal to the right, especially if it's things that directly contradict other things. Obama eating a peanut butter sandwich gives credibility to the idea of a scandal to the right. There not being a scandal gives credibility to the idea of a scandal to the right. The 11 attacks on our embassies and consulates during Bush gives credibility to the idea of a scandal to the right.
 
2012-12-13 08:19:15 PM

Silly Jesus: Bush's lie was easily far, far worse. I like that you assumed that I would think otherwise though. That's sort of the fark meme. If anyone says anything negative about Obama, blessings be upon him, then they automatically love Bush and hate the gays yadda yadda yadda. Farkers are pretty predictable


What was Obama's lie, again?

Please, point it out for the class.
 
2012-12-13 08:19:15 PM

Marcus Aurelius:
He's annoyed the hell out of me since he voted (as a senator) to let the telco's wiretapping violations go away. And to think I had donated to his campaign just before that. And THEN still have to vote for the marther farker.

Two party politics is just like one party politics, except that the orbiting parties stabilize each other, so there's no REAL change from the status quo.


Wah wah wah. Because it's not change that you like, there is no change. Riiight. If Republicans had it there way, there would be no health care reform, social security would be privatized, medicare be a voucher program, there would be ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and possibly Syria and Iran.

Obama is a liberal who governs from the middle. Get use to it.
 
2012-12-13 08:24:59 PM

born_yesterday: moralpanic: Ah Republicans. All that energy spent and on what? She wasn't even nominated yet. So now you look more petty and yet you've gained what?

If they hold up one more nomination, they get a free sub!


Would it be Virginia class?
 
2012-12-13 08:28:48 PM
I'm still not sure what Benghazi is about. Is this like when the previous administration lied about WMDs?
 
2012-12-13 08:29:35 PM

quiotu: So I have another question to follow up with. When Bush and his administration lied about WMDs in Iraq... would you say that's better or worse than what Obama did? Take into account that Obama's supposed lie was about an attack that killed 4, while Bush's started a war that killed over 4400 US soldiers and wounded 32000 more.


I'm a hard- core conservative who opposed the war in Iraq as a waste of time and money, but all the same it wasn't a lie that Iraq had had WMDs at some point; Saddam Hussein had used the same to kill thousands of Kurds with poison gas only fourteen years previously, in 1988. His subsequent stonewalling of international inspectors naturally led others to the conclusion that such weapons had been secretly retained for future offensive purposes (though the refusal to allow the inspections turned out, in the end, to be the result of hyper- defensiveness over their implications for Iraqi national sovereignty; the WMDs themselves had already been destroyed).

None of this, naturally, lets the Obama administration off the hook over its duplicity concerning Benghazi, despite the frantic attempts of Democratic partisans at "whatabouttery".
 
2012-12-13 08:30:43 PM

Silly Jesus: quiotu: Silly Jesus: I should ask you the same thing, you and others are fighting tooth and nail to prove that he did call it an act of terror. What are you fighting for?

It wouldn't really change anything at this point, but it's principle. Lying to everyone for political gain ain't cool. Ask Pat Tillman's mother. Ask the mothers of the men killed over there. They are concerned. Isn't that enough?

I haven't fought you at all... this is my Boobies on this thread, after all. I just asked you a question. And you answered... it's just about the lie, and you shouldn't lie for political gain concerning an act where people die.

So I have another question to follow up with. When Bush and his administration lied about WMDs in Iraq... would you say that's better or worse than what Obama did? Take into account that Obama's supposed lie was about an attack that killed 4, while Bush's started a war that killed over 4400 US soldiers and wounded 32000 more.

I'm curious as to how much outrage you had over that lie compared to this one. You seem to be wasting a lot of energy over something tragic but small, and not worth you or anyone else's time. If you spent more time arguing over this lie then Bush's lie, you're a pretty farking horrible human being.

Bush's lie was easily far, far worse. I like that you assumed that I would think otherwise though. That's sort of the fark meme. If anyone says anything negative about Obama, blessings be upon him, then they automatically love Bush and hate the gays yadda yadda yadda. Farkers are pretty predictable.


I bolded the parts to help you see how I didn't assume anything. It's nice to see your ideals aren't skewed for convenience. But this really isn't a subject you should be stuck on. Just about everyone other than Republicans raging about their defeat have put this matter to bed. The MSM are done with it. Romney was laughed at over it. You're being laughed at over it as well. You should really let this one go... no one agrees with you, not even the normal trolls around here.
 
2012-12-13 08:34:46 PM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: quiotu: So I have another question to follow up with. When Bush and his administration lied about WMDs in Iraq... would you say that's better or worse than what Obama did? Take into account that Obama's supposed lie was about an attack that killed 4, while Bush's started a war that killed over 4400 US soldiers and wounded 32000 more.

I'm a hard- core conservative who opposed the war in Iraq as a waste of time and money, but all the same it wasn't a lie that Iraq had had WMDs at some point; Saddam Hussein had used the same to kill thousands of Kurds with poison gas only fourteen years previously, in 1988. His subsequent stonewalling of international inspectors naturally led others to the conclusion that such weapons had been secretly retained for future offensive purposes (though the refusal to allow the inspections turned out, in the end, to be the result of hyper- defensiveness over their implications for Iraqi national sovereignty; the WMDs themselves had already been destroyed).

None of this, naturally, lets the Obama administration off the hook over its duplicity concerning Benghazi, despite the frantic attempts of Democratic partisans at "whatabouttery".


Well then I'll ask you the same thing that I asked SJ. So if Obama didn't call it an act of terror earlier, either through bad information or some other reason that wouldn't make sense, what do you want from it? Do you just want to say he lied? Because that's about all you can hope to get... to just point at the TV and go 'See? See?! He lies too!' Yeah... and?
 
2012-12-13 08:35:34 PM
images.politico.com
"Yeah, but what should we do when we are attacked? Pull together, stand united and find the culprits, right?"


www.nydailynews.com
"That sounds like hard work.
Let's just shoot the messenger."


l.yimg.com
"Yes, besides this is like the only card in our deck right now. We could really use one of those senate seats the vast majority of the American public decided to refuse us. Let's shoot the messenger."


i.i.com.com
"You can't be serious?! This is America, we are the most powerful nation on earth. We shouldn't be making political hamburger out of our valuable assets. This is petty and wrong and a complete distraction from real issues."

"You're senior Senators for God's sake. Surely you have more important battles to fight???"



www.slate.com
 
2012-12-13 08:37:49 PM
Fox will drop the Benghazi thing now.

Obama should still nominate her.
 
2012-12-13 08:40:51 PM

Bucky Katt: born_yesterday: moralpanic: Ah Republicans. All that energy spent and on what? She wasn't even nominated yet. So now you look more petty and yet you've gained what?

If they hold up one more nomination, they get a free sub!

Would it be Virginia class?


Nah, the free ones are probably LA class.
 
2012-12-13 08:42:37 PM
The truth is out there - very out there.
 
2012-12-13 08:45:03 PM

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

ah, refreshed.


Is it SJ? I ignored him and all the other references to him and the comment count dropped by 100
 
2012-12-13 08:54:53 PM

Publikwerks: He should nominate Rice for the Supreme Court


I'm pretty sure that ambassadors don't get nommed for the Court.
 
2012-12-13 09:15:06 PM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: quiotu: So I have another question to follow up with. When Bush and his administration lied about WMDs in Iraq... would you say that's better or worse than what Obama did? Take into account that Obama's supposed lie was about an attack that killed 4, while Bush's started a war that killed over 4400 US soldiers and wounded 32000 more.

I'm a hard- core conservative who opposed the war in Iraq as a waste of time and money, but all the same it wasn't a lie that Iraq had had WMDs at some point; Saddam Hussein had used the same to kill thousands of Kurds with poison gas only fourteen years previously, in 1988. His subsequent stonewalling of international inspectors naturally led others to the conclusion that such weapons had been secretly retained for future offensive purposes (though the refusal to allow the inspections turned out, in the end, to be the result of hyper- defensiveness over their implications for Iraqi national sovereignty; the WMDs themselves had already been destroyed).

None of this, naturally, lets the Obama administration off the hook over its duplicity concerning Benghazi, despite the frantic attempts of Democratic partisans at "whatabouttery".


That is a very astute description of why an appeal to hypocrisy is a fallacy.
 
2012-12-13 09:18:33 PM
They tried to do this to Elizabeth Warren too, so I can only say welcome Senator Rice in 2014. The epic wharrrrgarble would make it more than worth it.
 
2012-12-13 09:25:12 PM
I hear the job of Ambassador to Libya recently opened up. She'd be an excellent choice.
 
2012-12-13 09:26:58 PM

FlashHarry: she gave talking points dictated to her by the CIA. this is her only crime.


And it isn't even THAT big of a deal... We know it was a bad thing, we know it was done by bad people. How much does it actually matter if it was done by angry muslims that saw a video, or angry muslims that refer to themselves as "the base" in arabic?

If a guy stole your car would it really matter that much to you if it was done by someone that saw your car and wanted it, or someone that worked for someone else that organized a chop-shop? Doesn't it just matter that the cops are on the case?

This Benghazi thing is the lamest, dumbest, weakest "scandal" ever.
 
2012-12-13 09:30:10 PM

67 Beetle: I hear the job of Ambassador to Libya recently opened up. She'd be an excellent choice.


THIS
 
2012-12-13 09:30:24 PM
Meh she will be in that position or one like it eventually.. plenty of time to keep her powder dry and plenty of other work to do.
 
2012-12-13 09:38:37 PM

halfof33: We all knew that someone had to take the fall for the incompetency of the Administration.

The claim that it arose out of a protest at the Embassy was pure bullshiat, and they should have known better.

 
2012-12-13 09:43:22 PM

Garble: And it isn't even THAT big of a deal...


But you see she didn't use Fox's approved talking points therefore she's nothing but a low-down, double-dealing, backstabbing, larcenous perverted worm! Hanging's too good for her. Burning's too good for her! She should be torn into little bitsy pieces and buried alive!
 
2012-12-13 09:57:17 PM

Marcus Aurelius: "While I deeply regret the unfair and misleading attacks on Susan Rice in recent weeks, her decision demonstrates the strength of her character, and an admirable commitment to rise above the politics of the moment to put our national interests first."

Is Obama the biggest troll in America, or what?

And don't forget what happened after the GOP torpedoed Elisabeth Warren for the Consumer Protection department. She ended up on the Senate banking committee. Something tells me the GOP didn't think their cunning plan all the way through.


This.
 
2012-12-13 09:59:17 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: 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.

I LIKE this idea


Seconded; going back to Marcus Aurelius' earlier point, this would be one hell of a troll move.
 
2012-12-13 10:05:54 PM

Rwa2play: MaudlinMutantMollusk: 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.

I LIKE this idea

Seconded; going back to Marcus Aurelius' earlier point, this would be one hell of a troll move.


Brilliant. Or she could do as did Elizabeth Warren did. Elizabeth Warren who was also glass-ceiling raped by the womenhating Republicans.
 
2012-12-13 10:20:34 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.


GODDAMN you're evil!

Wanna get married?
 
2012-12-13 10:31:48 PM

halfof33: We all knew that someone had to take the fall for the incompetency of the Administration.

The claim that it arose out of a protest at the Embassy was pure bullshiat, and they should have known better.


Is it fun living in your tiny, deluded world, where nothing is complicated, and facts are unnecessary?
 
2012-12-13 10:39:10 PM

Sid_6.7: halfof33: We all knew that someone had to take the fall for the incompetency of the Administration.

The claim that it arose out of a protest at the Embassy was pure bullshiat, and they should have known better.

Is it fun living in your tiny, deluded world, where nothing is complicated, and facts are unnecessary?


I'm guessing that you won't be coming back after you read the link I posted? Man you really didn't know that was farking wrong, did you.

Fantastic bro. I like you!
 
2012-12-13 10:43:57 PM
If she withdraws her name, the terrorists have won, and I'm not talking about the radical Muslims. I'm talking about the GOP
 
2012-12-13 10:46:01 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Spaz-master: whidbey: Is Benghazi a scandal yet?

No, but the derpers f*cked it for everybody.

I can't even imagine the megatons of fake outrage if Susan Rice were sworn in as SOS.

Her stepping down gave credibility to the idea of a scandal. Besides.. Kerrry will be confirmed and Scott Brown will take his seat...lol

Everything the left does gives credibility to the idea of a scandal to the right, especially if it's things that directly contradict other things. Obama eating a peanut butter sandwich gives credibility to the idea of a scandal to the right. There not being a scandal gives credibility to the idea of a scandal to the right. The 11 attacks on our embassies and consulates during Bush gives credibility to the idea of a scandal to the right.


I mean. at this point, we are facing a repeat of history where at some point the Republicans will finally get one of their derpy "gotcha Prez" moments to stick to the proverbial wall, and we will see a huge waste of Congressional resources that dwarfs anything Kenneth Starr was chair of. Only this time, it's Slick Barry.
 
2012-12-13 10:50:55 PM
So since now Kerry will likely become Sec. of State.... how does that mean the GOP "won" exactly? "Ha-ha, that girl won't be Secretary of State, just the guy who didn't become President last time! We kept him away from power for four whole years! Boy, we sure showed them!"
 
2012-12-13 11:00:23 PM

Gyrfalcon: 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.

GODDAMN you're evil!

Wanna get married?


When & where.

/cuz I know you know evil
 
2012-12-13 11:14:37 PM
If Susan Rice opposes the nomination of Susan Rice, does that make her a racist?
 
2012-12-13 11:17:41 PM

Marcus Aurelius: What a terrorist might look like:
[www.veteranstoday.com image 150x200]

 
2012-12-13 11:19:30 PM

Thigvald the Big-Balled: Marcus Aurelius: What a terrorist might look like:
[www.veteranstoday.com image 150x200]


media.washingtonpost.com
 
2012-12-13 11:19:33 PM

Optimus Composite: If Susan Rice opposes the nomination of Susan Rice, does that make her a racist?


you what now?
 
2012-12-13 11:20:09 PM
Wild-card name for SecState: Charlie Crist.
 
2012-12-13 11:24:41 PM
Here's my take on Benghazi: The Republicans wanted to use this attack to show that the president was weak on or unable to fight terrorists. They were upset that the White House and Ambassador Rice down played the nature of the attack. Even though the intelligence community later announced that the attack was planned and not spontaneous, the Republicans were unable to use this for political advantage. Now McCain and his cohorts have taken political revenge on President Obama and Ambassador Rice
 
2012-12-13 11:27:57 PM

SmithHiller: Here's my take on Benghazi: The Republicans wanted to use this attack to show that the president was weak on or unable to fight terrorists. They were upset that the White House and Ambassador Rice down played the nature of the attack. Even though the intelligence community later announced that the attack was planned and not spontaneous, the Republicans were unable to use this for political advantage. Now McCain and his cohorts have taken political revenge on President Obama and Ambassador Rice


Not only that but this was also the event where Romney completely ruined what little credibility he had in foreign policy by jumping the gun and claiming that Obama apologized to the terrorists.

As a result the GOP tried to make up this scandal to help save face for Romney which is why they were so desperate to make this scandal stick in the last weeks leading to the election.
 
2012-12-13 11:28:14 PM

SmithHiller: . Now McCain and his cohorts have taken political revenge on President Obama and Ambassador Rice


No kidding. All they have to do is stir up enough dust and make everyone's life hell with their whining and all anyone can ever do is give in. It's total bullying.
 
2012-12-13 11:30:33 PM
The obvious replacement? Mitt Romney

/or me.
 
2012-12-13 11:33:20 PM

Sid_6.7: halfof33: We all knew that someone had to take the fall for the incompetency of the Administration.

The claim that it arose out of a protest at the Embassy was pure bullshiat, and they should have known better.

Is it fun living in your tiny, deluded world, where nothing is complicated, and facts are unnecessary?


That's pretty much the world most Republicans live in.
 
2012-12-13 11:34:11 PM

Aar1012: The obvious replacement? Mitt Romney


who?
 
2012-12-13 11:35:21 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Aar1012: The obvious replacement? Mitt Romney

who?


Exactly. No baggage whatsoever
 
2012-12-13 11:36:17 PM
this pisses me off so much. it was mentioned on rachel tonight that obama can be spineless and this looks like it. plus it plays into the whole kerry, MA needs new senator, etc crap the republicans have been wanting.

just when i'm semi happy with obama he farks it up again.
 
2012-12-13 11:41:02 PM
By the way, someone needs to explain to McCain that Rice is still the ambassador. He responded as if if she resigned her post: McCain spokesman Brian Rogers emailed Yahoo News to express that the senator "thanks Ambassador Rice for her service to the country and wishes her well. ... He will continue to seek all the facts about what happened before, during and after the attack on our consulate in Benghazi that killed four brave Americans."
 
2012-12-13 11:47:55 PM
I feel bad for this woman. She did nothing wrong, yet she's basically being accused of treason by people with an axe to grind, and having her name dragged through the mud. Can't blame her for wanting nothing to do with it.
 
2012-12-13 11:54:38 PM

halfof33: Sid_6.7: halfof33: We all knew that someone had to take the fall for the incompetency of the Administration.

The claim that it arose out of a protest at the Embassy was pure bullshiat, and they should have known better.

Is it fun living in your tiny, deluded world, where nothing is complicated, and facts are unnecessary?

I'm guessing that you won't be coming back after you read the link I posted? Man you really didn't know that was farking wrong, did you.

Fantastic bro. I like you!


Remember when I pointed out how your own link disputes your claim? Interesting how you never responded. Truth hurts, cupcake?
 
2012-12-14 12:02:03 AM
Obama should consider tapping Mitt Romney for Secretary of State. They probably talked about it when Romney came to visit in the White House for lunch.

Besides, Obama and Romney basically believe the same things on foreign policy.
 
2012-12-14 12:11:52 AM

Aar1012: The obvious replacement? Mitt Romney

/or me.


Pretty sure that would be considered an act of war.
 
2012-12-14 12:21:58 AM
Witch hunt was successful.

Republicans must be proud of themselves.
 
2012-12-14 12:28:46 AM

Goodfella: Witch hunt was successful.

Republicans must be proud of themselves.


I'm sure it's circle jerks all around the GOP right now.
 
2012-12-14 12:31:10 AM
Nominate former Senator Richard Lugar. Get all the experience of a Senator, without the potential loss of a Senate seat to the opposition (either through nomination or special election), and deliver a giant slap in the face to Republicans.

Then hold up a picture of Senator Murdoch and assure the Teatards that the seat is still safe.
 
2012-12-14 12:42:10 AM

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.


Explain this to me: You say that Rice "lied" about what actually happened. We all know she read exactly what the CIA told her to read. I am confused as to the exact issue here. What is the difference between "it was a terrorist attack" and "It was a protest"? 4 people died regardless. If the issue is that she lied, what difference would it actually make?
 
2012-12-14 12:47:07 AM
So she lied, so what? At least she is on the good guy team.
 
2012-12-14 12:49:50 AM
So, you churlish racist shiat-mongering GOP guys...happy now?

Too bad, you still lost.
 
2012-12-14 12:52:04 AM

Sid_6.7: So, you churlish racist shiat-mongering GOP guys...happy now?

Too bad, you still lost.


So true. It's because she is black.
 
2012-12-14 12:54:01 AM
When we the left hated Rice, it was because she was black, and republican. There is a big difference there.
 
2012-12-14 01:08:46 AM

muck4doo: So she lied, so what? At least she is on the good guy team.


Where was the lie, again?

Nobody can seem to point this out.
 
2012-12-14 01:12:27 AM

cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: So she lied, so what? At least she is on the good guy team.

Where was the lie, again?

Nobody can seem to point this out.


Anything to distract from the butthurt of losing another election.
 
2012-12-14 01:14:36 AM
Lib humor:

amptoons.com

nicedeb.files.wordpress.com

nicedeb.files.wordpress.com

img456.imageshack.us

mije.org

floppingaces.net

www.condoleezzaforpresident.com

www.black-and-right.com

afrocityblog.files.wordpress.com

Stupid conservatards, why can't you be as funny as libs?
 
2012-12-14 01:15:29 AM

muck4doo: Lib humor:

[amptoons.com image 500x350]

[nicedeb.files.wordpress.com image 385x270]

[nicedeb.files.wordpress.com image 140x183]

[img456.imageshack.us image 400x311]

[mije.org image 430x315]

[floppingaces.net image 471x336]

[www.condoleezzaforpresident.com image 400x558]

[www.black-and-right.com image 150x99]

[afrocityblog.files.wordpress.com image 192x216]

Stupid conservatards, why can't you be as funny as libs?


So instead of pointing out where the lie was, you decided to look up a bunch of unrelated cartoons?

Good luck with that.
 
2012-12-14 01:17:34 AM
Nice to know what I'm missing on ignore. So much for that post-election amnesty.
 
2012-12-14 01:25:07 AM

whidbey: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: So she lied, so what? At least she is on the good guy team.

Where was the lie, again?

Nobody can seem to point this out.

Anything to distract from the butthurt of losing another election.


Shouldn't you be slipping someone some roofies somewhere? After all, you think there is nothing wrong with drugging people without their consent.
 
2012-12-14 01:26:08 AM

cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: Lib humor:

[amptoons.com image 500x350]

[nicedeb.files.wordpress.com image 385x270]

[nicedeb.files.wordpress.com image 140x183]

[img456.imageshack.us image 400x311]

[mije.org image 430x315]

[floppingaces.net image 471x336]

[www.condoleezzaforpresident.com image 400x558]

[www.black-and-right.com image 150x99]

[afrocityblog.files.wordpress.com image 192x216]

Stupid conservatards, why can't you be as funny as libs?

So instead of pointing out where the lie was, you decided to look up a bunch of unrelated cartoons?

Good luck with that.


Was the attack over a youtube movie?
 
2012-12-14 01:26:49 AM
Yes subby, it is.

But the apologist-press won't cover it as a scandal , so you have to actually think for yourself.
 
2012-12-14 01:27:54 AM

muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: Lib humor:

[amptoons.com image 500x350]

[nicedeb.files.wordpress.com image 385x270]

[nicedeb.files.wordpress.com image 140x183]

[img456.imageshack.us image 400x311]

[mije.org image 430x315]

[floppingaces.net image 471x336]

[www.condoleezzaforpresident.com image 400x558]

[www.black-and-right.com image 150x99]

[afrocityblog.files.wordpress.com image 192x216]

Stupid conservatards, why can't you be as funny as libs?

So instead of pointing out where the lie was, you decided to look up a bunch of unrelated cartoons?

Good luck with that.

Was the attack over a youtube movie?


Did Susan Rice read the CIA memo or not? What was in the CIA memo?
 
2012-12-14 01:28:35 AM

cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: Lib humor:

[amptoons.com image 500x350]

[nicedeb.files.wordpress.com image 385x270]

[nicedeb.files.wordpress.com image 140x183]

[img456.imageshack.us image 400x311]

[mije.org image 430x315]

[floppingaces.net image 471x336]

[www.condoleezzaforpresident.com image 400x558]

[www.black-and-right.com image 150x99]

[afrocityblog.files.wordpress.com image 192x216]

Stupid conservatards, why can't you be as funny as libs?

So instead of pointing out where the lie was, you decided to look up a bunch of unrelated cartoons?

Good luck with that.

Was the attack over a youtube movie?

Did Susan Rice read the CIA memo or not? What was in the CIA memo?


Was the attack over a youtube video or not?
 
2012-12-14 01:29:28 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: Yes subby, it is.

But the apologist-press won't cover it as a scandal , so you have to actually think for yourself.


What's the scandal?
 
2012-12-14 01:29:36 AM
Ugh. Stupid Republicans.

SHUT UP AND GOVERN, YOU ASSHOLES.

/disillusioned
 
2012-12-14 01:30:07 AM

muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: Lib humor:

[amptoons.com image 500x350]

[nicedeb.files.wordpress.com image 385x270]

[nicedeb.files.wordpress.com image 140x183]

[img456.imageshack.us image 400x311]

[mije.org image 430x315]

[floppingaces.net image 471x336]

[www.condoleezzaforpresident.com image 400x558]

[www.black-and-right.com image 150x99]

[afrocityblog.files.wordpress.com image 192x216]

Stupid conservatards, why can't you be as funny as libs?

So instead of pointing out where the lie was, you decided to look up a bunch of unrelated cartoons?

Good luck with that.

Was the attack over a youtube movie?

Did Susan Rice read the CIA memo or not? What was in the CIA memo?

Was the attack over a youtube video or not?


Why won't you answer my question. Did Susan Rice know at the time the attack was over a video or not? If not, why not?
 
2012-12-14 01:32:05 AM
Heh. Looks like we're into 3rd shift at the Derp Patrol.
 
2012-12-14 01:32:36 AM

cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: Lib humor:

[amptoons.com image 500x350]

[nicedeb.files.wordpress.com image 385x270]

[nicedeb.files.wordpress.com image 140x183]

[img456.imageshack.us image 400x311]

[mije.org image 430x315]

[floppingaces.net image 471x336]

[www.condoleezzaforpresident.com image 400x558]

[www.black-and-right.com image 150x99]

[afrocityblog.files.wordpress.com image 192x216]

Stupid conservatards, why can't you be as funny as libs?

So instead of pointing out where the lie was, you decided to look up a bunch of unrelated cartoons?

Good luck with that.

Was the attack over a youtube movie?

Did Susan Rice read the CIA memo or not? What was in the CIA memo?

Was the attack over a youtube video or not?

Why won't you answer my question. Did Susan Rice know at the time the attack was over a video or not? If not, why not?


Why won't you answer mine? Mine goes directly to the original question. Yours goes to excuses for the lies.
 
2012-12-14 01:33:30 AM

whidbey: Heh. Looks like we're into 3rd shift at the Derp Patrol.


You're getting paid what you're worth.
 
2012-12-14 01:35:54 AM

muck4doo: we the left


Dems voted for Condoleezza's confirmation 32/12.
 
2012-12-14 01:40:17 AM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: muck4doo: we the left

Dems voted for Condoleezza's confirmation 32/12.


Too bad they weren't writing the humor pages for you too.
 
2012-12-14 01:42:44 AM

muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: Lib humor:

[amptoons.com image 500x350]

[nicedeb.files.wordpress.com image 385x270]

[nicedeb.files.wordpress.com image 140x183]

[img456.imageshack.us image 400x311]

[mije.org image 430x315]

[floppingaces.net image 471x336]

[www.condoleezzaforpresident.com image 400x558]

[www.black-and-right.com image 150x99]

[afrocityblog.files.wordpress.com image 192x216]

Stupid conservatards, why can't you be as funny as libs?

So instead of pointing out where the lie was, you decided to look up a bunch of unrelated cartoons?

Good luck with that.

Was the attack over a youtube movie?

Did Susan Rice read the CIA memo or not? What was in the CIA memo?

Was the attack over a youtube video or not?

Why won't you answer my question. Did Susan Rice know at the time the attack was over a video or not? If not, why not?

Why won't you answer mine? Mine goes directly to the original question. Yours goes to excuses for the lies.


What lies? How can one lie if they're simply stating what is in an official CIA report? What, exactly, was the lie that Susan Rice has supposedly told?
 
2012-12-14 01:46:16 AM

muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: Lib humor:

[amptoons.com image 500x350]

[nicedeb.files.wordpress.com image 385x270]

[nicedeb.files.wordpress.com image 140x183]

[img456.imageshack.us image 400x311]

[mije.org image 430x315]

[floppingaces.net image 471x336]

[www.condoleezzaforpresident.com image 400x558]

[www.black-and-right.com image 150x99]

[afrocityblog.files.wordpress.com image 192x216]

Stupid conservatards, why can't you be as funny as libs?

So instead of pointing out where the lie was, you decided to look up a bunch of unrelated cartoons?

Good luck with that.

Was the attack over a youtube movie?

Did Susan Rice read the CIA memo or not? What was in the CIA memo?

Was the attack over a youtube video or not?

Why won't you answer my question. Did Susan Rice know at the time the attack was over a video or not? If not, why not?

Why won't you answer mine? Mine goes directly to the original question. Yours goes to excuses for the lies.


It wasn't a lie, she was repeating the information the CIA gave her, with a big farking disclaimer saying 'This information is probably inaccurate, and will probably change as we get more intel.'. Which was EXACTLY the truth. Nice to know that you think the CIA should have released classified information so the attackers would know how we planned to retaliate, though.

/Also, good job, you found unfunny, idiotic political cartoons. It must have taken SECONDS!
//Funny, smart political cartoons are the exception, not the rule.
 
2012-12-14 01:46:28 AM

cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: Lib humor:

[amptoons.com image 500x350]

[nicedeb.files.wordpress.com image 385x270]

[nicedeb.files.wordpress.com image 140x183]

[img456.imageshack.us image 400x311]

[mije.org image 430x315]

[floppingaces.net image 471x336]

[www.condoleezzaforpresident.com image 400x558]

[www.black-and-right.com image 150x99]

[afrocityblog.files.wordpress.com image 192x216]

Stupid conservatards, why can't you be as funny as libs?

So instead of pointing out where the lie was, you decided to look up a bunch of unrelated cartoons?

Good luck with that.

Was the attack over a youtube movie?

Did Susan Rice read the CIA memo or not? What was in the CIA memo?

Was the attack over a youtube video or not?

Why won't you answer my question. Did Susan Rice know at the time the attack was over a video or not? If not, why not?

Why won't you answer mine? Mine goes directly to the original question. Yours goes to excuses for the lies.

What lies? How can one lie if they're simply stating what is in an official CIA report? What, exactly, was the lie that Susan Rice has supposedly told?


So the administration didn't know shiat? Unbelievable. They lied like yellow cake lies.
 
2012-12-14 01:46:32 AM

muck4doo: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: muck4doo: we the left

Dems voted for Condoleezza's confirmation 32/12.

Too bad they weren't writing the humor pages for you too.


You seem like you are in desperate need of attention. Is there anything I can do? How about I ask how the president lied, then we can go round and round in circles until the next Benghazi thread?
 
2012-12-14 01:47:00 AM
I feel bad for Susan Rice and the way Obama used her by trying to place her in a position she isn't well suited for simply because Obama thought her race would get her a weekend pass or something.
 
2012-12-14 01:47:11 AM

muck4doo: So the administration didn't know shiat? Unbelievable. They lied like yellow cake lies


So you can't prove that they lied? Oh my, this is my shocked face.
 
2012-12-14 01:47:46 AM

Brian Ryanberger: I feel bad for Susan Rice and the way Obama used her by trying to place her in a position she isn't well suited for simply because Obama thought her race would get her a weekend pass or something.


Isn't well-suited for? She's a f*cking Rhodes scholar for crying out f*cking loud.
 
2012-12-14 01:48:17 AM

Brian Ryanberger: I feel bad for Susan Rice and the way Obama used her by trying to place her in a position she isn't well suited for simply because Obama thought her race would get her a weekend pass or something.


Just say the "n" word and get it over with. It's the only excitement your login is ever going to generate here.
 
2012-12-14 01:48:37 AM

LordJiro: muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: Lib humor:

[amptoons.com image 500x350]

[nicedeb.files.wordpress.com image 385x270]

[nicedeb.files.wordpress.com image 140x183]

[img456.imageshack.us image 400x311]

[mije.org image 430x315]

[floppingaces.net image 471x336]

[www.condoleezzaforpresident.com image 400x558]

[www.black-and-right.com image 150x99]

[afrocityblog.files.wordpress.com image 192x216]

Stupid conservatards, why can't you be as funny as libs?

So instead of pointing out where the lie was, you decided to look up a bunch of unrelated cartoons?

Good luck with that.

Was the attack over a youtube movie?

Did Susan Rice read the CIA memo or not? What was in the CIA memo?

Was the attack over a youtube video or not?

Why won't you answer my question. Did Susan Rice know at the time the attack was over a video or not? If not, why not?

Why won't you answer mine? Mine goes directly to the original question. Yours goes to excuses for the lies.

It wasn't a lie, she was repeating the information the CIA gave her, with a big farking disclaimer saying 'This information is probably inaccurate, and will probably change as we get more intel.'. Which was EXACTLY the truth. Nice to know that you think the CIA should have released classified information so the attackers would know how we planned to retaliate, though.

/Also, good job, you found unfunny, idiotic political cartoons. It must have taken SECONDS!
//Funny, smart political cartoons are the exception, not the rule.


Bullshiat. It was a lie when Powell did it, it was a lie when Susan Rice did it. Only idiots think in one case it wasn't a lie, but in the other it must have been.
 
2012-12-14 01:50:12 AM

cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: So the administration didn't know shiat? Unbelievable. They lied like yellow cake lies

So you can't prove that they lied? Oh my, this is my shocked face.


Do you believe Powell lied? Of course you do. I find it hilarious you think it is different this time though when your team is doing it.
 
2012-12-14 01:50:48 AM

muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: So the administration didn't know shiat? Unbelievable. They lied like yellow cake lies

So you can't prove that they lied? Oh my, this is my shocked face.

Do you believe Powell lied? Of course you do. I find it hilarious you think it is different this time though when your team is doing it.


I'm sorry, when did I ever say that Powell lied?

Please, answer the question. Can you prove Susan Rice lied or not?
 
2012-12-14 01:51:00 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Brian Ryanberger: I feel bad for Susan Rice and the way Obama used her by trying to place her in a position she isn't well suited for simply because Obama thought her race would get her a weekend pass or something.

Isn't well-suited for? She's a f*cking Rhodes scholar for crying out f*cking loud.



Well if she is so smart how did she fall for being duped into lying about Benghazi?
 
2012-12-14 01:51:37 AM

cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: So the administration didn't know shiat? Unbelievable. They lied like yellow cake lies

So you can't prove that they lied? Oh my, this is my shocked face.

Do you believe Powell lied? Of course you do. I find it hilarious you think it is different this time though when your team is doing it.

I'm sorry, when did I ever say that Powell lied?

Please, answer the question. Can you prove Susan Rice lied or not?


Did she tell the truth?
 
2012-12-14 01:52:04 AM

Brian Ryanberger: cameroncrazy1984: Brian Ryanberger: I feel bad for Susan Rice and the way Obama used her by trying to place her in a position she isn't well suited for simply because Obama thought her race would get her a weekend pass or something.

Isn't well-suited for? She's a f*cking Rhodes scholar for crying out f*cking loud.


Well if she is so smart how did she fall for being duped into lying about Benghazi?


When did she lie about Benghazi?
 
2012-12-14 01:52:25 AM

Brian Ryanberger: cameroncrazy1984: Brian Ryanberger: I feel bad for Susan Rice and the way Obama used her by trying to place her in a position she isn't well suited for simply because Obama thought her race would get her a weekend pass or something.

Isn't well-suited for? She's a f*cking Rhodes scholar for crying out f*cking loud.


Well if she is so smart how did she fall for being duped into lying about Benghazi?


0/10
 
2012-12-14 01:52:50 AM

muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: So the administration didn't know shiat? Unbelievable. They lied like yellow cake lies

So you can't prove that they lied? Oh my, this is my shocked face.

Do you believe Powell lied? Of course you do. I find it hilarious you think it is different this time though when your team is doing it.

I'm sorry, when did I ever say that Powell lied?

Please, answer the question. Can you prove Susan Rice lied or not?

Did she tell the truth?


Yes. She said that according to the CIA intelligence estimate of the time, it was because of protests over the video.

Now, can you prove she was wrong about that? Of course you can't, because the CIA corroborates the claim.
 
2012-12-14 01:54:37 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Brian Ryanberger: cameroncrazy1984: Brian Ryanberger: I feel bad for Susan Rice and the way Obama used her by trying to place her in a position she isn't well suited for simply because Obama thought her race would get her a weekend pass or something.

Isn't well-suited for? She's a f*cking Rhodes scholar for crying out f*cking loud.


Well if she is so smart how did she fall for being duped into lying about Benghazi?

When did she lie about Benghazi?


Right after it happened. I think everybody knows the story now but I think it is awful how this woman was treated first by being told to repeat a lie after Benghazi and then being used like a pawn for her racial makeup and heritage as bait and nobody bit.
 
2012-12-14 01:55:30 AM

Brian Ryanberger: Right after it happened. I think everybody knows the story now but I think it is awful how this woman was treated first by being told to repeat a lie after Benghazi and then being used like a pawn for her racial makeup and heritage as bait and nobody bit.


0/10
 
2012-12-14 01:55:48 AM

Brian Ryanberger: Right after it happened. I think everybody knows the story now but I think it is awful how this woman was treated first by being told to repeat a lie after Benghazi and then being used like a pawn for her racial makeup and heritage as bait and nobody bit


Who told her this? Nobody in the administration told her to repeat any lies. It was the CIA intelligence of the time. Or were you not aware of that part, because Fox News hasn't told you that?
 
2012-12-14 01:56:18 AM

cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: So the administration didn't know shiat? Unbelievable. They lied like yellow cake lies

So you can't prove that they lied? Oh my, this is my shocked face.

Do you believe Powell lied? Of course you do. I find it hilarious you think it is different this time though when your team is doing it.

I'm sorry, when did I ever say that Powell lied?

Please, answer the question. Can you prove Susan Rice lied or not?

Did she tell the truth?

Yes. She said that according to the CIA intelligence estimate of the time, it was because of protests over the video.

Now, can you prove she was wrong about that? Of course you can't, because the CIA corroborates the claim.


Sorry. You guys don't get double standards. If Powell lied because of what he was told, then Susan Rice is also a liar by the same standard. You guys rode that shiat for years, now you want to cry about changing the rules again. We are going by your rules. Susan rice is a liar, and everyone who supports her is a liar as well with blood on their hands.
 
2012-12-14 01:56:55 AM

Brian Ryanberger: Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi

Account created: 2012-12-13 13:25:09


lol
 
2012-12-14 01:58:08 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Brian Ryanberger: Right after it happened. I think everybody knows the story now but I think it is awful how this woman was treated first by being told to repeat a lie after Benghazi and then being used like a pawn for her racial makeup and heritage as bait and nobody bit

Who told her this? Nobody in the administration told her to repeat any lies. It was the CIA intelligence of the time. Or were you not aware of that part, because Fox News hasn't told you that?



From what I remember in school the CIA is under the President so they do what Obama says and everybody knows Obama issues the marching orders around there and she didn't go say anything without Obama's express consent.
 
2012-12-14 01:58:40 AM

muck4doo: Sorry. You guys don't get double standards. If Powell lied because of what he was told, then Susan Rice is also a liar by the same standard. You guys rode that shiat for years, now you want to cry about changing the rules again. We are going by your rules. Susan rice is a liar, and everyone who supports her is a liar as well with blood on their hands


Oh hey guess what, I never said Powell lied.

So, thank you for admitting that Susan Rice didn't lie. Now go away. Thanks.
 
2012-12-14 01:59:01 AM
Brian Ryanberger:

Account created: 2012-12-13 13:25:09

Ploink
 
2012-12-14 01:59:15 AM

Brian Ryanberger: From what I remember in school the CIA is under the President so they do what Obama says and everybody knows Obama issues the marching orders around there


Okay. Find me the marching orders. Since everybody knows he issued one.
 
2012-12-14 02:00:07 AM

Fart_Machine: Brian Ryanberger:

Account created: 2012-12-13 13:25:09

Ploink


You guys are no fun.
 
2012-12-14 02:00:51 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Brian Ryanberger: From what I remember in school the CIA is under the President so they do what Obama says and everybody knows Obama issues the marching orders around there

Okay. Find me the marching orders. Since everybody knows he issued one.


Old school Chicago gansters don't write things down that is rule one.
 
2012-12-14 02:01:09 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Fart_Machine: Brian Ryanberger:

Account created: 2012-12-13 13:25:09

Ploink

You guys are no fun.


Your Mike Wallace impersonation was starting to skip. Needed some percussive maintenance.
 
2012-12-14 02:01:16 AM

cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: Sorry. You guys don't get double standards. If Powell lied because of what he was told, then Susan Rice is also a liar by the same standard. You guys rode that shiat for years, now you want to cry about changing the rules again. We are going by your rules. Susan rice is a liar, and everyone who supports her is a liar as well with blood on their hands

Oh hey guess what, I never said Powell lied.

So, thank you for admitting that Susan Rice didn't lie. Now go away. Thanks.


Maybe not you. I know you are a good guy, but many lefties did. They all have blood on their hands.
 
2012-12-14 02:02:14 AM
Is FlingforPoo still shiatting up this thread?
 
2012-12-14 02:02:44 AM

muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: Sorry. You guys don't get double standards. If Powell lied because of what he was told, then Susan Rice is also a liar by the same standard. You guys rode that shiat for years, now you want to cry about changing the rules again. We are going by your rules. Susan rice is a liar, and everyone who supports her is a liar as well with blood on their hands

Oh hey guess what, I never said Powell lied.

So, thank you for admitting that Susan Rice didn't lie. Now go away. Thanks.

Maybe not you. I know you are a good guy, but many lefties did. They all have blood on their hands.


That is weak and you know it.
 
2012-12-14 02:03:01 AM

muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: So the administration didn't know shiat? Unbelievable. They lied like yellow cake lies

So you can't prove that they lied? Oh my, this is my shocked face.

Do you believe Powell lied? Of course you do. I find it hilarious you think it is different this time though when your team is doing it.

I'm sorry, when did I ever say that Powell lied?

Please, answer the question. Can you prove Susan Rice lied or not?

Did she tell the truth?

Yes. She said that according to the CIA intelligence estimate of the time, it was because of protests over the video.

Now, can you prove she was wrong about that? Of course you can't, because the CIA corroborates the claim.

Sorry. You guys don't get double standards. If Powell lied because of what he was told, then Susan Rice is also a liar by the same standard. You guys rode that shiat for years, now you want to cry about changing the rules again. We are going by your rules. Susan rice is a liar, and everyone who supports her is a liar as well with blood on their hands.


Powell's 'lie' was used to get us into a war of choice that has cost thousands of American lives and shiattons of money, and allowed a terrorist who killed ~3000 Americans on American soil to get away until a Democrat had the balls to finish the job the Republicans refused to finish..

What, pray tell, is Rice's 'lie' supposed to have accomplished? It didn't help Obama's reelection chances; Romney's constant minigun fire into his foot did that. It didn't disguise the fact that it was a terrorist attack, because that was never in question (particularly after Obama called in an 'act of terror' the day after).

So what was the motive? What's the scandal here?
 
2012-12-14 02:03:16 AM

cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: Sorry. You guys don't get double standards. If Powell lied because of what he was told, then Susan Rice is also a liar by the same standard. You guys rode that shiat for years, now you want to cry about changing the rules again. We are going by your rules. Susan rice is a liar, and everyone who supports her is a liar as well with blood on their hands

Oh hey guess what, I never said Powell lied.

So, thank you for admitting that Susan Rice didn't lie. Now go away. Thanks.


By the way, I'm glad you get it. There is a difference between getting bad intel and being a liar. Too bad from 2002 to 2008 many dems couldn't figure that out. Glad they are figuring it out now.
 
2012-12-14 02:03:59 AM

muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: Sorry. You guys don't get double standards. If Powell lied because of what he was told, then Susan Rice is also a liar by the same standard. You guys rode that shiat for years, now you want to cry about changing the rules again. We are going by your rules. Susan rice is a liar, and everyone who supports her is a liar as well with blood on their hands

Oh hey guess what, I never said Powell lied.

So, thank you for admitting that Susan Rice didn't lie. Now go away. Thanks.

Maybe not you. I know you are a good guy, but many lefties did. They all have blood on their hands.


What in the fark are you talking about now?
 
2012-12-14 02:04:51 AM

cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: Sorry. You guys don't get double standards. If Powell lied because of what he was told, then Susan Rice is also a liar by the same standard. You guys rode that shiat for years, now you want to cry about changing the rules again. We are going by your rules. Susan rice is a liar, and everyone who supports her is a liar as well with blood on their hands

Oh hey guess what, I never said Powell lied.

So, thank you for admitting that Susan Rice didn't lie. Now go away. Thanks.

Maybe not you. I know you are a good guy, but many lefties did. They all have blood on their hands.

That is weak and you know it
.


O RLY?

LordJiro: muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: So the administration didn't know shiat? Unbelievable. They lied like yellow cake lies

So you can't prove that they lied? Oh my, this is my shocked face.

Do you believe Powell lied? Of course you do. I find it hilarious you think it is different this time though when your team is doing it.

I'm sorry, when did I ever say that Powell lied?

Please, answer the question. Can you prove Susan Rice lied or not?

Did she tell the truth?

Yes. She said that according to the CIA intelligence estimate of the time, it was because of protests over the video.

Now, can you prove she was wrong about that? Of course you can't, because the CIA corroborates the claim.

Sorry. You guys don't get double standards. If Powell lied because of what he was told, then Susan Rice is also a liar by the same standard. You guys rode that shiat for years, now you want to cry about changing the rules again. We are going by your rules. Susan rice is a liar, and everyone who supports her is a liar as well with blood on their hands.

Powell's 'lie' was used to get us into a war of choice that has cost thousands of American lives and shiattons of money, and allowed a terrorist who killed ~3000 Americans on American soil to get away until a Democrat had the balls to finish the job the Republicans refused to finish..

What, pray tell, is Rice's 'lie' supposed to have accomplished? It didn't help Obama's reelection chances; Romney's constant minigun fire into his foot did that. It didn't disguise the fact that it was a terrorist attack, because that was never in question (particularly after Obama called in an 'act of terror' the day after).

So what was the motive? What's the scandal here?

 
2012-12-14 02:05:40 AM
Well I guess if he was I wouldn't be able to tell. You guys should really know better, though.
 
2012-12-14 02:05:45 AM

muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: Sorry. You guys don't get double standards. If Powell lied because of what he was told, then Susan Rice is also a liar by the same standard. You guys rode that shiat for years, now you want to cry about changing the rules again. We are going by your rules. Susan rice is a liar, and everyone who supports her is a liar as well with blood on their hands

Oh hey guess what, I never said Powell lied.

So, thank you for admitting that Susan Rice didn't lie. Now go away. Thanks.

Maybe not you. I know you are a good guy, but many lefties did. They all have blood on their hands.

That is weak and you know it.

O RLY?

LordJiro: muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: So the administration didn't know shiat? Unbelievable. They lied like yellow cake lies

So you can't prove that they lied? Oh my, this is my shocked face.

Do you believe Powell lied? Of course you do. I find it hilarious you think it is different this time though when your team is doing it.

I'm sorry, when did I ever say that Powell lied?

Please, answer the question. Can you prove Susan Rice lied or not?

Did she tell the truth?

Yes. She said that according to the CIA intelligence estimate of the time, it was because of protests over the video.

Now, can you prove she was wrong about that? Of course you can't, because the CIA corroborates the claim.

Sorry. You guys don't get double standards. If Powell lied because of what he was told, then Susan Rice is also a liar by the same standard. You guys rode that shiat for years, now you want to cry about changing the rules again. We are going by your rules. Susan rice is a liar, and everyone who supports her is a liar as well with blood on their hands.

Powell's 'lie' was used to get us into a war of choice that has cost thousands of American lives and shiattons of money, and allowed a terrorist who killed ~3000 Americans on American soil to get away unt ...




QFT
 
2012-12-14 02:06:03 AM

LordJiro: muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: Sorry. You guys don't get double standards. If Powell lied because of what he was told, then Susan Rice is also a liar by the same standard. You guys rode that shiat for years, now you want to cry about changing the rules again. We are going by your rules. Susan rice is a liar, and everyone who supports her is a liar as well with blood on their hands

Oh hey guess what, I never said Powell lied.

So, thank you for admitting that Susan Rice didn't lie. Now go away. Thanks.

Maybe not you. I know you are a good guy, but many lefties did. They all have blood on their hands.

What in the fark are you talking about now?


Nothing you would understand. Go back to your Powell lied! crap.
 
2012-12-14 02:06:33 AM

muck4doo: By the way, I'm glad you get it. There is a difference between getting bad intel and being a liar. Too bad from 2002 to 2008 many dems couldn't figure that out. Glad they are figuring it out now


So, if Powell knew that the 11 words in the UN briefing about yellowcake were not true, he was lying. You would agree to that, yes?

There is no evidence suggesting that the CIA intelligence at the time was incorrect.
 
2012-12-14 02:06:33 AM
Does this mean we get the sweet, sweet goodness of Scott Brown losing all over again? I bet Markey can spank Brown twice as hard as Warren did.
 
2012-12-14 02:07:44 AM

whidbey: Is FlingforPoo still shiatting up this thread?


Are you done slipping unknowing people roofies?
 
2012-12-14 02:08:11 AM

muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: Sorry. You guys don't get double standards. If Powell lied because of what he was told, then Susan Rice is also a liar by the same standard. You guys rode that shiat for years, now you want to cry about changing the rules again. We are going by your rules. Susan rice is a liar, and everyone who supports her is a liar as well with blood on their hands

Oh hey guess what, I never said Powell lied.

So, thank you for admitting that Susan Rice didn't lie. Now go away. Thanks.

Maybe not you. I know you are a good guy, but many lefties did. They all have blood on their hands.

That is weak and you know it.

O RLY?

LordJiro: muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: So the administration didn't know shiat? Unbelievable. They lied like yellow cake lies

So you can't prove that they lied? Oh my, this is my shocked face.

Do you believe Powell lied? Of course you do. I find it hilarious you think it is different this time though when your team is doing it.

I'm sorry, when did I ever say that Powell lied?

Please, answer the question. Can you prove Susan Rice lied or not?

Did she tell the truth?

Yes. She said that according to the CIA intelligence estimate of the time, it was because of protests over the video.

Now, can you prove she was wrong about that? Of course you can't, because the CIA corroborates the claim.

Sorry. You guys don't get double standards. If Powell lied because of what he was told, then Susan Rice is also a liar by the same standard. You guys rode that shiat for years, now you want to cry about changing the rules again. We are going by your rules. Susan rice is a liar, and everyone who supports her is a liar as well with blood on their hands.

Powell's 'lie' was used to get us into a war of choice that has cost thousands of American lives and shiattons of money, and allowed a terrorist who killed ~3000 Americans on American soil to get away unt ...


Note the air quotes around 'lie'.

/Still wondering, if the Benghazi thing is such a big conspiracy, what the farking motive is.
//Oh, and the Bush administration deliberately manufactured Powell's 'faulty intel' to justify a bullshiat war. The CIA under Obama merely altered the information to, y'know, not let the people who perpetrated the attack know we were onto them.
///Republicans just love letting terrorists get away, I guess.
 
2012-12-14 02:08:21 AM

bootman: Does this mean we get the sweet, sweet goodness of Scott Brown losing all over again? I bet Markey can spank Brown twice as hard as Warren did.


I have the weirdest boner right now.
 
2012-12-14 02:08:22 AM

Brian Ryanberger: QFT


Lurk moar troll
 
2012-12-14 02:09:02 AM
I like how after he's already been outed as a freshly minted troll alt he keeps going, just like his GOP idols.

KFTC.
 
2012-12-14 02:09:24 AM

cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: By the way, I'm glad you get it. There is a difference between getting bad intel and being a liar. Too bad from 2002 to 2008 many dems couldn't figure that out. Glad they are figuring it out now

So, if Powell knew that the 11 words in the UN briefing about yellowcake were not true, he was lying. You would agree to that, yes?

There is no evidence suggesting that the CIA intelligence at the time was incorrect.


What evidence do you have that he knew it wasn't true.

/No Daily Kos links please or any of those other kook sites.
 
2012-12-14 02:10:20 AM

Raharu: I like how after he's already been outed as a freshly minted troll alt he keeps going, just like his GOP idols.

KFTC.


I am somewhat impressed, though. Brian here has gone from 'troll' to 'troll boring enough to ignore' in record time.
 
2012-12-14 02:10:21 AM
I like how the liberals here go on and on arguing things long since settled as in Susan Rice was told to lie. The real scandal should be focused on the racial brinksmanship Obama plays with making appointments for people like Susan Rice because he knows he can't lose. Obama will make sure anyone brave enough to question him will be called a racist and they lose or else they have to let it slide in and then Obama wins. Obama always wins when it comes to these racial wars.
 
2012-12-14 02:11:06 AM

LordJiro: Oh, and the Bush administration deliberately manufactured Powell's 'faulty intel' to justify a bullshiat war. The CIA under Obama merely altered the information to, y'know, not let the people who perpetrated the attack know we were onto them.


You sure are a gullible one.
 
2012-12-14 02:11:18 AM
Brian Ryanberger


Smartest nope
Funniest nope

2012-12-14 02:10:21 AM


DERP
 
2012-12-14 02:11:59 AM

muck4doo: LordJiro: Oh, and the Bush administration deliberately manufactured Powell's 'faulty intel' to justify a bullshiat war. The CIA under Obama merely altered the information to, y'know, not let the people who perpetrated the attack know we were onto them.

You sure are a gullible one.


Then why was the intel altered? Give me a farking motive for your conspiracy theory. Seriously, even birthers, truthers and moon-hoaxers can give reasons WHY the conspirators would do shiat.
 
2012-12-14 02:12:25 AM

muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: By the way, I'm glad you get it. There is a difference between getting bad intel and being a liar. Too bad from 2002 to 2008 many dems couldn't figure that out. Glad they are figuring it out now

So, if Powell knew that the 11 words in the UN briefing about yellowcake were not true, he was lying. You would agree to that, yes?

There is no evidence suggesting that the CIA intelligence at the time was incorrect.

What evidence do you have that he knew it wasn't true.

/No Daily Kos links please or any of those other kook sites.


I don't know, I'm asking you. If Powell honestly believed that a source named Curveball said that Saddam was definitely bringing yellowcake uranium into Iraq, that's not a lie. That goes on the Bush administration for putting those 11 words into the script.

Now, if the CIA tells Rice that the best intelligence of the time was that it was over the video because they don't want Al Qaeda to know there's a CIA operation in the consulate, do you have a problem with that?
 
2012-12-14 02:13:31 AM

muck4doo: LordJiro: Oh, and the Bush administration deliberately manufactured Powell's 'faulty intel' to justify a bullshiat war. The CIA under Obama merely altered the information to, y'know, not let the people who perpetrated the attack know we were onto them.

You sure are a gullible one.


You are aware that there used to be a pretty big covert op in the Benghazi consulate until Issa outed it, right?
 
2012-12-14 02:13:32 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Now, if the CIA tells Rice that the best intelligence of the time was that it was over the video because they don't want Al Qaeda to know there's a CIA operation in the consulate, do you have a problem with that?


That's still lying.
 
2012-12-14 02:13:38 AM

LordJiro: muck4doo: LordJiro: Oh, and the Bush administration deliberately manufactured Powell's 'faulty intel' to justify a bullshiat war. The CIA under Obama merely altered the information to, y'know, not let the people who perpetrated the attack know we were onto them.

You sure are a gullible one.

Then why was the intel altered? Give me a farking motive for your conspiracy theory. Seriously, even birthers, truthers and moon-hoaxers can give reasons WHY the conspirators would do shiat.


You're the conspiracy nut. Yeah, Obama was just not telling us the truth, because it was all of his secwet pwan to catch the bad guys. Huhuhuhuhhuh.
 
2012-12-14 02:14:40 AM
I love how this thread keeps getting comments.
 
2012-12-14 02:14:49 AM

muck4doo: LordJiro: muck4doo: LordJiro: Oh, and the Bush administration deliberately manufactured Powell's 'faulty intel' to justify a bullshiat war. The CIA under Obama merely altered the information to, y'know, not let the people who perpetrated the attack know we were onto them.

You sure are a gullible one.

Then why was the intel altered? Give me a farking motive for your conspiracy theory. Seriously, even birthers, truthers and moon-hoaxers can give reasons WHY the conspirators would do shiat.

You're the conspiracy nut. Yeah, Obama was just not telling us the truth, because it was all of his secwet pwan to catch the bad guys. Huhuhuhuhhuh.


I'll give you one more shot before plonk. If I'm wrong, what's the motive for the lie?
 
2012-12-14 02:15:03 AM

Brian Ryanberger: cameroncrazy1984: Now, if the CIA tells Rice that the best intelligence of the time was that it was over the video because they don't want Al Qaeda to know there's a CIA operation in the consulate, do you have a problem with that?

That's still lying.


How is it possible for Rice to lie when she believes it to be true?
 
2012-12-14 02:15:34 AM

Brian Ryanberger: I like how the liberals here go on and on arguing things long since settled as in Susan Rice was told to lie. The real scandal should be focused on the racial brinksmanship Obama plays with making appointments for people like Susan Rice because he knows he can't lose. Obama will make sure anyone brave enough to question him will be called a racist and they lose or else they have to let it slide in and then Obama wins. Obama always wins when it comes to these racial wars.


You are right about that Obama always wins.

Oh hey I know! There is a handy way you can remind yourself of that... A lot of our other OLDER political tab trolls use it..

Replace the O in Obamas name with a zero, like this.

0bama, rather then Obama.

It will remind you of how many times he's lost an election to republicans, or the number of times that he lied about Benghazi, or the number of times in which Benghazi was a scandal.

I hope that helps, you being new and all.
 
2012-12-14 02:15:38 AM

whidbey: I love how this thread keeps getting comments.


I shouldn't have had a redbull 20 minutes ago. But I don't work til 2 tomorrow so here I am.
 
2012-12-14 02:15:50 AM

cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: By the way, I'm glad you get it. There is a difference between getting bad intel and being a liar. Too bad from 2002 to 2008 many dems couldn't figure that out. Glad they are figuring it out now

So, if Powell knew that the 11 words in the UN briefing about yellowcake were not true, he was lying. You would agree to that, yes?

There is no evidence suggesting that the CIA intelligence at the time was incorrect.

What evidence do you have that he knew it wasn't true.

/No Daily Kos links please or any of those other kook sites.

I don't know, I'm asking you. If Powell honestly believed that a source named Curveball said that Saddam was definitely bringing yellowcake uranium into Iraq, that's not a lie. That goes on the Bush administration for putting those 11 words into the script.

Now, if the CIA tells Rice that the best intelligence of the time was that it was over the video because they don't want Al Qaeda to know there's a CIA operation in the consulate, do you have a problem with that?


So in other words, you make accusations, but can't back it up based on your gut feelings. How is this different again, other than it is your favorite party that is the whore this time?
 
2012-12-14 02:16:38 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Brian Ryanberger: cameroncrazy1984: Now, if the CIA tells Rice that the best intelligence of the time was that it was over the video because they don't want Al Qaeda to know there's a CIA operation in the consulate, do you have a problem with that?

That's still lying.

How is it possible for Rice to lie when she believes it to be true?


The American People were lied to! By Obama and the people under him. The end.
 
2012-12-14 02:16:47 AM

cameroncrazy1984: whidbey: I love how this thread keeps getting comments.

I shouldn't have had a redbull 20 minutes ago. But I don't work til 2 tomorrow so here I am.


Make him have a meltdown. Setting: 3 above "Nixon You Dolt."
 
2012-12-14 02:17:40 AM

muck4doo: So in other words, you make accusations, but can't back it up based on your gut feelings. How is this different again, other than it is your favorite party that is the whore this time


It's different in the sense that the CIA prefers their black ops to, you know, remain black. Generally you don't do that if you're spouting off on national TV that you know things you aren't supposed to.
 
2012-12-14 02:17:42 AM

LordJiro: muck4doo: LordJiro: muck4doo: LordJiro: Oh, and the Bush administration deliberately manufactured Powell's 'faulty intel' to justify a bullshiat war. The CIA under Obama merely altered the information to, y'know, not let the people who perpetrated the attack know we were onto them.

You sure are a gullible one.

Then why was the intel altered? Give me a farking motive for your conspiracy theory. Seriously, even birthers, truthers and moon-hoaxers can give reasons WHY the conspirators would do shiat.

You're the conspiracy nut. Yeah, Obama was just not telling us the truth, because it was all of his secwet pwan to catch the bad guys. Huhuhuhuhhuh.

I'll give you one more shot before plonk. If I'm wrong, what's the motive for the lie?


Getting re-elected. Keeping tards like you think it was all of a secwet pwan. What a hewo!
 
2012-12-14 02:18:24 AM

Brian Ryanberger: cameroncrazy1984: Brian Ryanberger: cameroncrazy1984: Now, if the CIA tells Rice that the best intelligence of the time was that it was over the video because they don't want Al Qaeda to know there's a CIA operation in the consulate, do you have a problem with that?

That's still lying.

How is it possible for Rice to lie when she believes it to be true?

The American People were lied to! By Obama and the people under him. The end.


What do you mean "Obama and," paleface?
 
2012-12-14 02:19:06 AM

muck4doo: Keeping tards like you think it was all of a secwet pwan


wat 

Go to bed, the outrage is clearly becoming stroke-inducing.
 
2012-12-14 02:20:39 AM

Raharu: Brian Ryanberger: I like how the liberals here go on and on arguing things long since settled as in Susan Rice was told to lie. The real scandal should be focused on the racial brinksmanship Obama plays with making appointments for people like Susan Rice because he knows he can't lose. Obama will make sure anyone brave enough to question him will be called a racist and they lose or else they have to let it slide in and then Obama wins. Obama always wins when it comes to these racial wars.

You are right about that Obama always wins.

Oh hey I know! There is a handy way you can remind yourself of that... A lot of our other OLDER political tab trolls use it..

Replace the O in Obamas name with a zero, like this.

0bama, rather then Obama.

It will remind you of how many times he's lost an election to republicans, or the number of times that he lied about Benghazi, or the number of times in which Benghazi was a scandal.

I hope that helps, you being new and all.



I do not attack the President's name that is part of being a loyal American and all I want is for Obama to do the same and return the favor to the American People and respect the oval office by NOT LYING to us about why our citizens and our children overseas are killed and yes we are all Americas children.
 
2012-12-14 02:20:42 AM

muck4doo: LordJiro: muck4doo: LordJiro: muck4doo: LordJiro: Oh, and the Bush administration deliberately manufactured Powell's 'faulty intel' to justify a bullshiat war. The CIA under Obama merely altered the information to, y'know, not let the people who perpetrated the attack know we were onto them.

You sure are a gullible one.

Then why was the intel altered? Give me a farking motive for your conspiracy theory. Seriously, even birthers, truthers and moon-hoaxers can give reasons WHY the conspirators would do shiat.

You're the conspiracy nut. Yeah, Obama was just not telling us the truth, because it was all of his secwet pwan to catch the bad guys. Huhuhuhuhhuh.

I'll give you one more shot before plonk. If I'm wrong, what's the motive for the lie?

Getting re-elected. Keeping tards like you think it was all of a secwet pwan. What a hewo!


Well, that explanation falls apart because Obama said it was an 'act of terror' the day after the attack. And, for that matter, how would 'One of our ambassadors was killed by a random mob' be any better for Obama than 'One of our ambassadors was killed by a coordinated group of terrorists'? Hell, the random mob theory is actually WORSE for Obama.

So, you gave a motive, but it doesn't make any sense. The only way Benghazi helped Obama's reelection was when Romney grinned like a farking psychopath upon hearing the news.
 
2012-12-14 02:21:04 AM

Brian Ryanberger: I do not attack the President's name that is part of being a loyal American and all I want is for Obama to do the same and return the favor to the American People and respect the oval office by NOT LYING to us about why our citizens and our children overseas are killed and yes we are all Americas children.


Oh my god, please learn about commas next year in grammar school.
 
2012-12-14 02:21:30 AM
25.media.tumblr.com

/see, now it looks like brilliant analysis
 
2012-12-14 02:21:40 AM

LordJiro: So, you gave a motive, but it doesn't make any sense. The only way Benghazi helped Obama's reelection was when Romney grinned like a farking psychopath upon hearing the news


Also "Please proceed, Governor"

But that doesn't make sense either, because he'd have to be planning for Romney to bring it up.
 
2012-12-14 02:21:49 AM

Brian Ryanberger: The American People were lied to! By Obama and the people under him. The end.


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-14 02:23:09 AM
And yet, not a single one of you can tell us exactly what she lied about, or how it actually makes a difference for anything.

How exactly is repeating word for word what the CIA told her to say is lying? What part of her saying that the circumstances could change and this is not everything we know is an issue?
 
2012-12-14 02:23:57 AM

whidbey: cameroncrazy1984: whidbey: I love how this thread keeps getting comments.

I shouldn't have had a redbull 20 minutes ago. But I don't work til 2 tomorrow so here I am.

Make him have a meltdown. Setting: 3 above "Nixon You Dolt."


You starting to eat some of your brownies and roofies yourself? Shouldn't you be out mugging old ladies who don't vote like you?

cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: So in other words, you make accusations, but can't back it up based on your gut feelings. How is this different again, other than it is your favorite party that is the whore this time

It's different in the sense that the CIA prefers their black ops to, you know, remain black. Generally you don't do that if you're spouting off on national TV that you know things you aren't supposed to.


You're getting into eye rolling territory. Now you are sounding as gullible as LoadHewo. You are smarter than that. What makes you think one side said false things under completely evil intentions that they said was bad intel, while the other said false things under bad intel but only meant well and are really good guys with pure hearts?

Or you can be like LordHoganJiro and believe one side "evil", other side wholesome, good, and protecting America. or be like Whidbey and keep taking drugs.
 
2012-12-14 02:26:35 AM
Hey Brian, would you describe yourself as a log cabin republican?
 
2012-12-14 02:26:38 AM

Zeppelininthesky: And yet, not a single one of you can tell us exactly what she lied about, or how it actually makes a difference for anything.

How exactly is repeating word for word what the CIA told her to say is lying? What part of her saying that the circumstances could change and this is not everything we know is an issue?


Because we have been over this so many times already and it has been covered already to death. I don't think the issue for me is going to be the Benghazi lie as much as it is going to be about the nefarious racial manipulations Obama depends on to stay on top of the political world at large. Susan Rice made this appointment because she is black and that is win or win for Obama because he plays the race card all the time and makes his enemies look like the racists and it is no good for America.
 
2012-12-14 02:26:42 AM

cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: Keeping tards like you think it was all of a secwet pwan

wat 

Go to bed, the outrage is clearly becoming stroke-inducing.


I'll leave the thread because you ask so. Agreed, this is just going to become worse, and we will never agree. I don't dislike you, so there is no point in keeping this going.

Whidbey still thinks it's okay to drug people without their knowledge though. Just ask him.
 
2012-12-14 02:26:58 AM

Zeppelininthesky: And yet, not a single one of you can tell us exactly what she lied about, or how it actually makes a difference for anything.


Here's some perspective:

The only people I saw during the election season who were hung up about Benghazi were standing outside the post office holding Obama signs with a Nazi moustache drawn on them. Sounds legit.
 
2012-12-14 02:27:04 AM

muck4doo: You are smarter than that. What makes you think one side said false things under completely evil intentions that they said was bad intel, while the other said false things under bad intel but only meant well and are really good guys with pure hearts?


Because what would be the "bad reason" to lie about Benghazi? I can't come up with one. You certainly haven't. What would be the point?
 
2012-12-14 02:28:04 AM

Brian Ryanberger: the Benghazi lie


derp

Susan Rice made this appointment because she is black

Say the "n-word." Say it.
 
2012-12-14 02:28:14 AM

Brian Ryanberger: cameroncrazy1984: Now, if the CIA tells Rice that the best intelligence of the time was that it was over the video because they don't want Al Qaeda to know there's a CIA operation in the consulate, do you have a problem with that?

That's still lying.


*blink*

Exactly how is that lying?
 
2012-12-14 02:28:31 AM

Raharu: Hey Brian, would you describe yourself as a log cabin republican?


I should have learned to expect you to attack me sexually and I don't care I actually like it that was because it lets everybody see who we both really are when you come at me with the sex.
 
2012-12-14 02:29:09 AM

Brian Ryanberger: Zeppelininthesky: And yet, not a single one of you can tell us exactly what she lied about, or how it actually makes a difference for anything.

How exactly is repeating word for word what the CIA told her to say is lying? What part of her saying that the circumstances could change and this is not everything we know is an issue?

Because we have been over this so many times already and it has been covered already to death. I don't think the issue for me is going to be the Benghazi lie as much as it is going to be about the nefarious racial manipulations Obama depends on to stay on top of the political world at large. Susan Rice made this appointment because she is black and that is win or win for Obama because he plays the race card all the time and makes his enemies look like the racists and it is no good for America.


So you still have no idea? Or are you just being obtuse?
 
2012-12-14 02:30:23 AM

Brian Ryanberger: Raharu: Hey Brian, would you describe yourself as a log cabin republican?

I should have learned to expect you to attack me sexually and I don't care I actually like it that was because it lets everybody see who we both really are when you come at me with the sex.


We already have a Meow Said the Dog

Try again later.
 
2012-12-14 02:30:41 AM

Raharu: Hey Brian, would you describe yourself as a log cabin republican?


How dare you insult all those gay Republicans voting against their own self-interest!
 
2012-12-14 02:30:51 AM

whidbey: Zeppelininthesky: And yet, not a single one of you can tell us exactly what she lied about, or how it actually makes a difference for anything.

Here's some perspective:

The only people I saw during the election season who were hung up about Benghazi were standing outside the post office holding Obama signs with a Nazi moustache drawn on them. Sounds legit.


Totally legit.
 
2012-12-14 02:32:22 AM

Zeppelininthesky: Brian Ryanberger: cameroncrazy1984: Now, if the CIA tells Rice that the best intelligence of the time was that it was over the video because they don't want Al Qaeda to know there's a CIA operation in the consulate, do you have a problem with that?

That's still lying.

*blink*

Exactly how is that lying?


Because the American People did not hear the truth. They called and order a large truth but the driver shows up with a small lie and they still want their money for the large so now the small lie has become a large one but that's still NOT WHAT AMERICA ORDERED. We ordered the truth.
 
2012-12-14 02:32:35 AM

Zeppelininthesky: So you still have no idea? Or are you just being obtuse?


Is it weird that I think of Carter Pewterschmidt now when I read phrases like this, instead of the actual warden from Shawshank?
 
2012-12-14 02:33:26 AM

Brian Ryanberger: We ordered the truth.


God that is the most vapid trolling since...yeah.
 
2012-12-14 02:35:41 AM

Brian Ryanberger: Raharu: Hey Brian, would you describe yourself as a log cabin republican?

I should have learned to expect you to attack me sexually and I don't care I actually like it that was because it lets everybody see who we both really are when you come at me with the sex.


You are the last person I would come at with sex.

No I was only wondering if my google-fu came up with a correct hit on a popular social media site.
 
2012-12-14 02:36:25 AM

Brian Ryanberger: Zeppelininthesky: Brian Ryanberger: cameroncrazy1984: Now, if the CIA tells Rice that the best intelligence of the time was that it was over the video because they don't want Al Qaeda to know there's a CIA operation in the consulate, do you have a problem with that?

That's still lying.

*blink*

Exactly how is that lying?

Because the American People did not hear the truth. They called and order a large truth but the driver shows up with a small lie and they still want their money for the large so now the small lie has become a large one but that's still NOT WHAT AMERICA ORDERED. We ordered the truth.


picardwtf.jpg
 
2012-12-14 02:36:56 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Brian Ryanberger: Raharu: Hey Brian, would you describe yourself as a log cabin republican?

I should have learned to expect you to attack me sexually and I don't care I actually like it that was because it lets everybody see who we both really are when you come at me with the sex.

We already have a Meow Said the Dog

Try again later.


Who is this individual upon which is doing the trolling of the Susan Rice thread? I am someone who has the support of this woman and do not know what Brian Ryanberger is making the attempt of. I wish he would stop this however as it is not the polite thing. Also I did not order the truth but instead did the ordering of the turkey sandwich on wheat bread. You are welcome for this.
 
2012-12-14 02:37:40 AM

Brian Ryanberger: Zeppelininthesky: Brian Ryanberger: cameroncrazy1984: Now, if the CIA tells Rice that the best intelligence of the time was that it was over the video because they don't want Al Qaeda to know there's a CIA operation in the consulate, do you have a problem with that?

That's still lying.

*blink*

Exactly how is that lying?

Because the American People did not hear the truth. They called and order a large truth but the driver shows up with a small lie and they still want their money for the large so now the small lie has become a large one but that's still NOT WHAT AMERICA ORDERED. We ordered the truth.


But you never exactly told anyone what she lied about. You also never said why it even matters that she said exactly what the CIA told her to say. What is the difference if it because there was a protest or if there was a terrorist attack?

Never mind, we are just going around and around.
 
2012-12-14 02:39:12 AM

meow said the dog: cameroncrazy1984: Brian Ryanberger: Raharu: Hey Brian, would you describe yourself as a log cabin republican?

I should have learned to expect you to attack me sexually and I don't care I actually like it that was because it lets everybody see who we both really are when you come at me with the sex.

We already have a Meow Said the Dog

Try again later.

Who is this individual upon which is doing the trolling of the Susan Rice thread? I am someone who has the support of this woman and do not know what Brian Ryanberger is making the attempt of. I wish he would stop this however as it is not the polite thing. Also I did not order the truth but instead did the ordering of the turkey sandwich on wheat bread. You are welcome for this.


They put anchovies on my pizza, dammit!
 
2012-12-14 02:39:20 AM

Raharu: Brian Ryanberger: Raharu: Hey Brian, would you describe yourself as a log cabin republican?

I should have learned to expect you to attack me sexually and I don't care I actually like it that was because it lets everybody see who we both really are when you come at me with the sex.

You are the last person I would come at with sex.

No I was only wondering if my google-fu came up with a correct hit on a popular social media site.



That is what you have to expect from less fortunate people who were raised like heathens. Trying to cyberstalk on me and entice me for sex is not how we will ever get both sides to come together. Republicans like me have been trying everything possible to lay a bridge through the middle of this whole mess with Obama and all you do is bite the hand that feeds you.
 
2012-12-14 02:40:00 AM
Hm, where did muck go?
 
2012-12-14 02:40:53 AM
Back to the shadows again?
 
2012-12-14 02:41:20 AM

meow said the dog: cameroncrazy1984: Brian Ryanberger: Raharu: Hey Brian, would you describe yourself as a log cabin republican?

I should have learned to expect you to attack me sexually and I don't care I actually like it that was because it lets everybody see who we both really are when you come at me with the sex.

We already have a Meow Said the Dog

Try again later.

Who is this individual upon which is doing the trolling of the Susan Rice thread? I am someone who has the support of this woman and do not know what Brian Ryanberger is making the attempt of. I wish he would stop this however as it is not the polite thing. Also I did not order the truth but instead did the ordering of the turkey sandwich on wheat bread. You are welcome for this.



And now you attack the way I talk. Making fun of people is the liberal way.
 
2012-12-14 02:42:31 AM

Brian Ryanberger: Raharu: Brian Ryanberger: Raharu: Hey Brian, would you describe yourself as a log cabin republican?

I should have learned to expect you to attack me sexually and I don't care I actually like it that was because it lets everybody see who we both really are when you come at me with the sex.

You are the last person I would come at with sex.

No I was only wondering if my google-fu came up with a correct hit on a popular social media site.


That is what you have to expect from less fortunate people who were raised like heathens. Trying to cyberstalk on me and entice me for sex is not how we will ever get both sides to come together. Republicans like me have been trying everything possible to lay a bridge through the middle of this whole mess with Obama and all you do is bite the hand that feeds you.


Ok now I'm sure you are either;

A: doing this for the lols, in which case, bravo.

Or

B: in deep need of Psychological help.
 
2012-12-14 02:42:46 AM

Brian Ryanberger: Making fun of people is the liberal way.


Bye Bryan. Your maiden voyage is taking on water.
 
2012-12-14 02:44:43 AM

Brian Ryanberger: And now you attack the way I talk. Making fun of people is the liberal way.


Listen to me very much if you do not wish to say the nice thing of Mrs. Susan the Rice then try to not make any saying at all because I believe this is the honest woman who was doing the sayofing what was known of she by the administration. If you have the questions then perhaps you are one who is willing to make the payments for the independent investigation of this. Perhaps you could try the simulation with the G.I. Joe toys...ahem, collectibles...of you and see if you can come to the conclusion. Or you can maybe you can just admit you are the individual who has wrongness and is also the person who wishes for the trolling of threads. I am thinking you might be the alternative of the other poster but would appreciate if you could see this from two sides as I am also one who does this and both of these sides are saying that Susan who graduated from Rice University is the perfect candidate for the office of Secretary of Treasury to take the place of Timothy Geithner.
 
2012-12-14 02:46:40 AM

whidbey: Is FlingforPoo still shiatting up this thread?


Yeah.

And still nobody has answered the main question: Why does it MATTER whether the attack was attributed to a video or to a terrorist attack? Why does it MATTER? Why did it ever matter?

Nothing would have changed. The Ambassador and three others were already dead. Rice said what she was told to say and it would have made ZERO DIFFERENCE if she had said "It was because of the video" or "It was a terrorist attack" or "We don't know." WHY DOES IT MATTER SO MUCH?

This idea that "It was a lie!" is especially rich coming from people who still insist that George W. Bush's espousing of WMDs in Iraq as an excuse for going to war didn't really count or whatever the current narrative is. Saying what you know or believe to be the truth at the time isn't a lie, even when it later turns out to be disproven by later events. I'm sorry, but it just isn't.

And if the government has to lie in order to protect US interests, allies or assets abroad in an evolving situation; then again, I'm sorry but that's justifiable; other administrations have done it and we've had to accept it. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that's how life is. Deal with it.
 
2012-12-14 02:47:28 AM

Brian Ryanberger: meow said the dog: cameroncrazy1984: Brian Ryanberger: Raharu: Hey Brian, would you describe yourself as a log cabin republican?

I should have learned to expect you to attack me sexually and I don't care I actually like it that was because it lets everybody see who we both really are when you come at me with the sex.

We already have a Meow Said the Dog

Try again later.

Who is this individual upon which is doing the trolling of the Susan Rice thread? I am someone who has the support of this woman and do not know what Brian Ryanberger is making the attempt of. I wish he would stop this however as it is not the polite thing. Also I did not order the truth but instead did the ordering of the turkey sandwich on wheat bread. You are welcome for this.


And now you attack the way I talk. Making fun of people is the liberal way.


I am sure it is the GOP way.
 
2012-12-14 02:50:46 AM

meow said the dog: Brian Ryanberger: And now you attack the way I talk. Making fun of people is the liberal way.

Listen to me very much if you do not wish to say the nice thing of Mrs. Susan the Rice then try to not make any saying at all because I believe this is the honest woman who was doing the sayofing what was known of she by the administration. If you have the questions then perhaps you are one who is willing to make the payments for the independent investigation of this. Perhaps you could try the simulation with the G.I. Joe toys...ahem, collectibles...of you and see if you can come to the conclusion. Or you can maybe you can just admit you are the individual who has wrongness and is also the person who wishes for the trolling of threads. I am thinking you might be the alternative of the other poster but would appreciate if you could see this from two sides as I am also one who does this and both of these sides are saying that Susan who graduated from Rice University is the perfect candidate for the office of Secretary of Treasury to take the place of Timothy Geithner.


I don't hate Susan Rice in fact I feel sorry for her and the way she has been abused and manipulated to throwing her race around because she probably would not do that until she fell in with Obama's Chicago crowd. I only see Obama playing games like this and I have to wonder who is watching the hen house while he is performing racial brinkmanship at such a bad time in American history. And I agree with you that anything would be better than Geitner because how can you expect a tax cheating fox to watch your taxhouse with a reputation like that it is not possible.
 
2012-12-14 02:50:52 AM

Gyrfalcon: whidbey: Is FlingforPoo still shiatting up this thread?

Yeah.

And still nobody has answered the main question: Why does it MATTER whether the attack was attributed to a video or to a terrorist attack? Why does it MATTER? Why did it ever matter?

Nothing would have changed. The Ambassador and three others were already dead. Rice said what she was told to say and it would have made ZERO DIFFERENCE if she had said "It was because of the video" or "It was a terrorist attack" or "We don't know." WHY DOES IT MATTER SO MUCH?

This idea that "It was a lie!" is especially rich coming from people who still insist that George W. Bush's espousing of WMDs in Iraq as an excuse for going to war didn't really count or whatever the current narrative is. Saying what you know or believe to be the truth at the time isn't a lie, even when it later turns out to be disproven by later events. I'm sorry, but it just isn't.

And if the government has to lie in order to protect US interests, allies or assets abroad in an evolving situation; then again, I'm sorry but that's justifiable; other administrations have done it and we've had to accept it. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that's how life is. Deal with it.


I am not sure they actually know the definition of the word 'lie'

Not the same definition of the word 'is'
 
2012-12-14 02:51:28 AM
Brian Ryanberger [TotalFark]

Click the link upon which is the TotalFark and then the TotalFark Discussion and do the introduction of the self of you. Also Susan Rice should not be the escaped goat of John Boehner.
 
2012-12-14 02:51:41 AM

Brian Ryanberger: meow said the dog: Brian Ryanberger: And now you attack the way I talk. Making fun of people is the liberal way.

Listen to me very much if you do not wish to say the nice thing of Mrs. Susan the Rice then try to not make any saying at all because I believe this is the honest woman who was doing the sayofing what was known of she by the administration. If you have the questions then perhaps you are one who is willing to make the payments for the independent investigation of this. Perhaps you could try the simulation with the G.I. Joe toys...ahem, collectibles...of you and see if you can come to the conclusion. Or you can maybe you can just admit you are the individual who has wrongness and is also the person who wishes for the trolling of threads. I am thinking you might be the alternative of the other poster but would appreciate if you could see this from two sides as I am also one who does this and both of these sides are saying that Susan who graduated from Rice University is the perfect candidate for the office of Secretary of Treasury to take the place of Timothy Geithner.

I don't hate Susan Rice in fact I feel sorry for her and the way she has been abused and manipulated to throwing her race around because she probably would not do that until she fell in with Obama's Chicago crowd. I only see Obama playing games like this and I have to wonder who is watching the hen house while he is performing racial brinkmanship at such a bad time in American history. And I agree with you that anything would be better than Geitner because how can you expect a tax cheating fox to watch your taxhouse with a reputation like that it is not possible.


We get it, he is black!
 
2012-12-14 02:53:13 AM

Gyrfalcon: Why does it MATTER whether the attack was attributed to a video or to a terrorist attack? Why does it MATTER? Why did it ever matter?


Because so far they've failed to pin anything on this administration. The rage factor is now starting to reach peak levels.
 
2012-12-14 02:53:24 AM