The obvious replacement:

UseLessHuman: The question here is really gotten foggy, who lied to who and when? So much spin on both sides of this I'm really unable to find a factual basis to build on. At this point I'm inclined to believe that the truth is probably some political bullshiat of a kind that neither party is suggesting.

Who made the decision to change the talking points for Susan Rice? Assuming she really is innocent of purposefully lying to America who made the decision for her. Bring that person forward for a press conference, admit that they changed it and explain why. This shows her innocence and explains to the American people why they had to omit the facts and use the video as a cover, an explanation other than "it was right before the election and it would have looked bad."

I'm a crazy liberal and I generally vote D but this really looks like Obama used Susan Rice as a tool to deflate the political consequences of the attack and then let her go when McCain and Company went super crazy media-frenzy about it. It's certainly possible some repubs believe that if the public had known what had really happened it could have swung the vote their way. In retrospect It wouldn't have changed my decision, at least as I understand it now, which is a definite BARELY.

The political consequences didn't need deflating. And how would insinuating that a random mob, rather than organized, well-armed terrorists, killed our ambassador be GOOD, politically?

The CIA gave her edited information (which she ADMITTED was incomplete and possibly false), partially to hide the existence of the CIA facility (which is kinda the CIA's thing), and partially because the investigation was ongoing. This isn't an unusual thing for the CIA to do.

Paging Jon Huntsman. Jon Huntsman please pick up the courtesy phone.

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.

I couldn't care less about the Benghazi scandal, as she had nothing to do with it. The reason I wanted her withdrawn was that she has huge investments in the companies involved in the Keystone XL pipeline, and she would ultimately be responsible for deciding whether or not the deal goes through.

For that alone she should not be considered. Massive conflict of interest, so I'm surprised the Republicans didn't want her in there.

4 dead Americans, the Oval Office here I come! 

This was the lowest point of the election. A candidate who couldn't wait to get in front of the cameras to gloat over the death of Americans just to get a political leg up. All the other stuff is typical political BS and to be expected - lie about jeep moving jobs to china, lie about stealing money from medicare when your own plan would implement the exact same savings measures, lie that the 21st century American military is weaker than it was in 1916... but turning the deaths of your fellow citizens into a smirky punchline was beyond repugnant. And that inhuman pile of dog excrement came sorta-close to taking the White House. 

This incident was doomed to be nothing more than political fodder from Day One.

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.

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.

Nominate John McCain.

Confirmation!

Fire him on his first day.

Obama should nominate Valerie Plame. :)

F*ck you John McCain. You bitter old coot. And honorable mention to Fox ( All Bengazi All The Time) News.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

When children throw a tantrum you shouldn't give them what they're asking for, even if it's just to shut them up.

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

Holder.

BravadoGT: 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.

Don't you find it tiresome to be so consistently, painfully wrong about everything?

I mean, it's tiresome to the rest of us, even as it's mildly amusing, but honestly, cowboy, when are you gonna admit that you've never roped a steer in your life and maybe, just maybe you oughta hang up the spurs?

halfof33: Slurp!

Shut up, troll.

beta_plus: You lost. Get over it.

You too. Do some productive with your life and stop disrupting threads with your desperate butthurt.

beta_plus: EyeballKid: The GOP's trophies, since 2009:

[assets.nydailynews.com image 240x347]
[www.americanprogress.org image 200x279]
[media.washtimes.com image 229x286]

...but don't you dare call them racist.

Your tears of impotent liberal race card rage, so sweet, so delicious!

/blatantly lying about the 1st Amendment causing the death of an Ambassador when it was actually a planned terrorist attack has consequences

Are you forgetting who lost the election? impotent rage? Hilarious, victorious rage, I think you mean.

And......your second sentence. What in the everloving fark does that even mean?

beta_plus: EyeballKid: The GOP's trophies, since 2009:

[assets.nydailynews.com image 240x347]
[www.americanprogress.org image 200x279]
[media.washtimes.com image 229x286]

...but don't you dare call them racist.

Your tears of impotent liberal race card rage, so sweet, so delicious!

/blatantly lying about the 1st Amendment causing the death of an Ambassador when it was actually a planned terrorist attack has consequences

Still lashing out. How many days can he keep this up?

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.

 


See also: Sandra Fluke. We'll be seeing her name on a ballot soon.

Cpl.D: Wonderful. Way to encourage the GOP to pull more crap like this. Give the kid some candy once when he throws a tantrum for it in the supermarket, then he's gonna do it every goddamned time.

Have patience. You saw what Obama did with Elizabeth Warren; there are good odds he has another trick or two up his sleeve.

/Not saying that Obama is necessarily some sort of supergenius strategist.
//It doesn't take much to play the GOP like a fiddle. They're pretty farking predictable.

The question here is really gotten foggy, who lied to who and when? So much spin on both sides of this I'm really unable to find a factual basis to build on. At this point I'm inclined to believe that the truth is probably some political bullshiat of a kind that neither party is suggesting.

Who made the decision to change the talking points for Susan Rice? Assuming she really is innocent of purposefully lying to America who made the decision for her. Bring that person forward for a press conference, admit that they changed it and explain why. This shows her innocence and explains to the American people why they had to omit the facts and use the video as a cover, an explanation other than "it was right before the election and it would have looked bad."

I'm a crazy liberal and I generally vote D but this really looks like Obama used Susan Rice as a tool to deflate the political consequences of the attack and then let her go when McCain and Company went super crazy media-frenzy about it. It's certainly possible some repubs believe that if the public had known what had really happened it could have swung the vote their way. In retrospect It wouldn't have changed my decision, at least as I understand it now, which is a definite BARELY.

Raharu: Goodfella: Witch hunt was successful.

Republicans must be proud of themselves.

I'm sure it's circle jerks all around the GOP right now.





"You farking people... you have no idea how to defend a nation. All you did was weaken a country today, McCain. That's all you did. You put people's lives in danger. Sweet dreams, son. "

Brian Ryanberger: I love you all America.

*plonk*
/thread number noted for future reference

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

Are the people whose incompetence led directly to the death of an ambassador and three other Americans still in office?

Further, are the people who lied about and tried to cover up what led up to the death of an ambassador and the three other Americans still in office?

As the answer to both of those questions is "Yes" the answer to your question is "No"

Should criminal charges be brought against people within this administration over what happened?

The answer to that question is also yes.

Yep. The Republicans who directly denied security for the embassy are still in office. I think we should bring criminal charges against them. Good idea, bro.

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?

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?

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.

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.

Brian Ryanberger: Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi

Account created: 2012-12-13 13:25:09

lol

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

Heh. Looks like we're into 3rd shift at the Derp Patrol.

Lib humor:



















Stupid conservatards, why can't you be as funny as libs?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Why is everybody arguing with an outed mod alt?

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.

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.

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.

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?

The scandal is that she is black and the Republicans harassed her out of a job that she deserved.
That is the shameful scandal.

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.

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.


Trolololo. This needs to happen.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

acaciaavenue: Classic patsy.

Lazy troll is lazy.

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.

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.

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.\

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,"

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?

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.

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.

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.

GOP: Party Before Country, 2008-20??

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.

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.

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?

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

Indeed. The disgrace is named John McCain.

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

He said with an erection

I cannot fu##ing believe she actually caved to this manufactured bullshiat!

Well, there goes Benghazi. The GOP feels like Charlie Brown after Lucy yanks the football away. LOL.

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

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

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

To say nothing of his truck.

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

The hippety hop music that kids like nowadays?