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

(The Raw Story)   State Department spokesperson calls out Fox News reporter for asking exactly why Hillary Clinton can't seem to testify about Bengazi. She even suggested the appropriate tag   (rawstory.com ) divider line
    More: Asinine, Fox News, State Department, key dates, journalists  
•       •       •

25363 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jan 2013 at 3:49 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-03 04:46:04 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: In both cases it was known immediately that it was terrorism. In one case, that was told to the public, in the other, a lie was substituted for a period of time.

Yes, that's true. The Bush Administration did try to tie the attacks to Iraq for months. Good of you to point that out.


lol

THIS, FTW
 
2013-01-03 04:46:32 PM  
Because she was in the hospital specifically to avoid answering for it.
 
2013-01-03 04:46:38 PM  

Silly Jesus: unexplained bacon: Silly Jesus: calm like a bomb: Silly Jesus: Somehow athletes get concussed and come back into the football game minutes later while Clinton can't seem to talk weeks later.

The fact that the concussion came from passing out due to dehydration secondary to a really bad gastrointestinal virus certainly has no bearing on this at all.

You're right. Good point. When I have the shiats I am unable to speak for a week.

and if after all this conspiracy nut, wink and nod BS from the GOP Hillary does in fact testify. What then?

was she just stalling? for what?
or will it be like that little Patraeus scandal? the FOXers cry, "look he's trying to dodge the hearing!!" OMG see it's a conspiracy!!! oh he is testifying? uh...*crickets*

it's going to go like it did with Patraeus isn't it?
what a rollercoaster for the dim this is.

I think that her waiting to testify isn't that big of a deal. The weeks of lies were though.


why were they lying? what were they hiding?

/I'm gonna go do something more productive, so I'll answer for you...they weren't hiding anything and just because you confuse evolving facts coming in from a confused situation for lies doesn't mean the rest of us will....and that really is the problem with the 'scandal' you fellas hope to make out of this tragedy.
 
2013-01-03 04:47:24 PM  

FTDA: Bill O'Reillys whackadoodle news talk show on Fox. Follow the link and scroll down to the paragraph on it.

First aired on October 7th, 1996.


Bump your sarcasm meter up a few notches.
 
2013-01-03 04:47:58 PM  
Heck, just get the CIA director to testify. Worked for Iran-Contra.
4.bp.blogspot.com
/the subpoena flu
 
2013-01-03 04:48:24 PM  
Silly Jesus:
The report said that there was never any reason to believe that it was not a terrorist attack. From the first second, nobody thought it was about the video. What's so hard to understand that? The administration knew that from the beginning. Are you arguing that it took them two weeks to verify that they knew from the start and that they needed to make up a lie in the interim?

no, the administration DIDN'T know that from the beginning. they had to verify that for themselves...and they were right to do so, and when things became clear they followed up and changed their view of the situation.  you make some very interesting (and extremely incorrect) assumptions about how this played out.
 
2013-01-03 04:48:25 PM  

NeverDrunk23: What is with all these political threads getting main paged today? When they are mained they are even derpier than usual and i just answered my own question, didn't I?


It's Fark's desperate bid to stay relevant (and solvent). That's how you know they side with the conservative derpers in Congress: when the derp they're shoveling isn't working, DOUBLE DOWN ON THE DERP!
 
2013-01-03 04:49:15 PM  

unexplained bacon: Silly Jesus: unexplained bacon: Silly Jesus: calm like a bomb: Silly Jesus: Somehow athletes get concussed and come back into the football game minutes later while Clinton can't seem to talk weeks later.

The fact that the concussion came from passing out due to dehydration secondary to a really bad gastrointestinal virus certainly has no bearing on this at all.

You're right. Good point. When I have the shiats I am unable to speak for a week.

and if after all this conspiracy nut, wink and nod BS from the GOP Hillary does in fact testify. What then?

was she just stalling? for what?
or will it be like that little Patraeus scandal? the FOXers cry, "look he's trying to dodge the hearing!!" OMG see it's a conspiracy!!! oh he is testifying? uh...*crickets*

it's going to go like it did with Patraeus isn't it?
what a rollercoaster for the dim this is.

I think that her waiting to testify isn't that big of a deal. The weeks of lies were though.

why were they lying? what were they hiding?

/I'm gonna go do something more productive, so I'll answer for you...they weren't hiding anything and just because you confuse evolving facts coming in from a confused situation for lies doesn't mean the rest of us will....and that really is the problem with the 'scandal' you fellas hope to make out of this tragedy.


The report said that FROM THE BEGINNING they knew it was a terrorist attack. It says that thinking that it was about the video was at no time legitimate. The only thing that evolved was the lie.
 
2013-01-03 04:49:44 PM  

ccundiff: [pagead2.googlesyndication.com image 300x250]
The internet seems to think that I am a single christian these days. And that I would find her attractive.



I haven't gotten that one yet -- these days the internet apparently thinks I'm a bi-curious aficionado of expensive saucepans who's interested in traveling to Muskegon via high-speed ferry.
 
2013-01-03 04:50:32 PM  

James F. Campbell: It's Fark's desperate bid to stay relevant (and solvent).


That and the stupid banner at the top of any pageview for the last few weeks if you run an adblocker and aren't a TFer.
 
2013-01-03 04:50:39 PM  

gerrymander: This is a thing not because the spy network failed (though it might have), but because: A) the State Department fell down on the job of doing the most basic security for an embassy in a country in turmoil, B) four US citizens on the government payroll died because of it, and C) the executive branch spent weeks telling the US and the world that it was our fault for inciting those wacky Mooslems with a Monty Python-level quality YouTube video. Like the kids say, it's not the crime that gets you; it's the cover-up.


So there was a cover-up?  You have evidence that somebody in the US government undertook a cover-up?
 
2013-01-03 04:52:26 PM  

Silly Jesus: The report said that FROM THE BEGINNING they knew it was a terrorist attack. It says that thinking that it was about the video was at no time legitimate. The only thing that evolved was the lie.


For a moment, let's pretend I accept your premise.

Why does it matter?

Especially if, say, they wanted to broadcast false information to those involved? (That is, did not want to tip off those involved that they *knew* it was an attack?)

What ever happened to the "PETREAUS CONSPIRACY TRYING TO KEEP HIM FROM TESTIFYING!" screaming? That just sorta evaporated into the air, didn't it?

/Just asking questions.
 
2013-01-03 04:53:31 PM  
quickdraw:
I think they just still havent adjusted to the digital age. They keep thinking they can control the narrative with smoke and mirrors. They have progressed to using these newfangled social media outlets but they really have no idea how it all works so they rely on Drudge. All Drudge cares about is selling guns. He doesnt give one whit about these peoples careers. And so he leads them merrily on. Hes like the pied piper of derp.

the point about losing control of the narrative is well taken.  Limbaugh, Hannity and the rest have been whiny since the election, mostly that voters just don't seem to be listening to them anymore.  hell, the Romney campaign even tried to make 'fact checking' a dirty word.  the GOP seems terrified of facts, and does their best to insulate their voter base from ever thinking objectively.
 
2013-01-03 04:54:19 PM  

Weaver95: I have no idea what point it is you think you're trying to make.


Actually I was answering someone's question, when you interjected with typical partisan bullshiat.

Take a look:

Weaver95: halfof33:

MY ANSWER TO A QUESTION: Yes, sometime about mid-September the Administration dropped that story from their explanation, and then announced a couple of months later that the claim that the attack was the spontaneous outgrowth of a protest outside the consulate in Benghazi was "incorrect."

YOUR ODDLY ALTHOUGH PREDICTABLE PARTISAN RESPONSE: you mean that the administration shifted their view as more detailed and accurate information became available?  THOSE MONSTERS!  Republicans, on the other hand, come up with an explanation based pm inaccurate data and NEVER change their opinion no matter what.  because that's how a country should be run, gotdammit!

yeesh.

 
2013-01-03 04:54:21 PM  

Silly Jesus: unexplained bacon: Silly Jesus: unexplained bacon: Silly Jesus: calm like a bomb: Silly Jesus: Somehow athletes get concussed and come back into the football game minutes later while Clinton can't seem to talk weeks later.

The fact that the concussion came from passing out due to dehydration secondary to a really bad gastrointestinal virus certainly has no bearing on this at all.

You're right. Good point. When I have the shiats I am unable to speak for a week.

and if after all this conspiracy nut, wink and nod BS from the GOP Hillary does in fact testify. What then?

was she just stalling? for what?
or will it be like that little Patraeus scandal? the FOXers cry, "look he's trying to dodge the hearing!!" OMG see it's a conspiracy!!! oh he is testifying? uh...*crickets*

it's going to go like it did with Patraeus isn't it?
what a rollercoaster for the dim this is.

I think that her waiting to testify isn't that big of a deal. The weeks of lies were though.

why were they lying? what were they hiding?

/I'm gonna go do something more productive, so I'll answer for you...they weren't hiding anything and just because you confuse evolving facts coming in from a confused situation for lies doesn't mean the rest of us will....and that really is the problem with the 'scandal' you fellas hope to make out of this tragedy.

The report said that FROM THE BEGINNING they knew it was a terrorist attack. It says that thinking that it was about the video was at no time legitimate. The only thing that evolved was the lie.


dammit saw this before I closed it out...ok

right from the beginning Obama said it was a terrorist attack.
now pretend it would be crazy to think a terrorist attack and a riot about a video similar to those happening in several other areas at that time could happen around the same time.

/the main problem with your 'scandal' is that what you call lies do not appear to be lies to most people.
//makes you look silly
///really gotta go, keep humping that scandal. it's gonna pay off.
 
2013-01-03 04:54:44 PM  

Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Somehow athletes get concussed and come back into the football game minutes later while Clinton can't seem to talk weeks later.

and of course professional athletes and 65 year old politicians react exactly the same way to physiocal injury.

Talking is hard.


Sure - let's get her up and about. Get her blood pressure elevated by getting up, heading to Congress and then being subjected to questioning on live television.

No way that could have any effect on a BLOOD CLOT IN YOUR FARKING BRAIN.

Threads like this are why the admins gave us that easy "ignore" button.
 
2013-01-03 04:55:57 PM  
How dare someone ask a government official of information and accountability! How daaarrrrreeeee.
 
2013-01-03 04:56:28 PM  

halfof33: Gee, a Clinton pit bull acting like an extinction level event douchebag, again. Who'd a thought?


halfof33: Weaver95: your point here is...?

Just stating objective facts, you are the one who went with the partisan whharggbbll.


FAIL.
 
2013-01-03 04:56:39 PM  

HAMMERTOE: Zasteva: Sorry, but I thought this week we were busy blaming violence in movies for causing school shootings. Did I miss a newsletter explaining how Americans can be influenced to violence by movies but Libyans are immune?

I seem to remember a study that offered a figure of 16,000 as the number of murders the average U.S. child sees on TV by the age of 18. Exactly how many murders were in this movie? The fact is, the media here are all about the glorification of violence. From "If it bleeds, it leads," to the average Action Hero who is ultra-efficient at being violent (and always oh so rationalized, of course,) violence and cheap sex are the chief commodity of the media, with the obvious side effect of the desensitization of the public to all the violence and sex. Another fact: guns have been ubiquitous for the entire history of the country, but the violence didn't get out of hand until the portrayals of it in the media did. Then they want to point at firearms as the culprit.


That's an interesting hypothesis.

Here are some things to consider if you ever want to try to support it:
- When did violence in media get "out of hand"? How do you quantify that?
- Has the trend lately been for more violence in media or less?
- How does that compare to the trends we've seen in real world violence?
- When did video games first come into the picture, and how did that correlate to real world violence.
- What's the connection between "desensitization to sex" and "desensitization to violence"?

In addition, I should point out that the liberal position is not that guns are the culprit in gun violence. It's well understood that the gun is a tool used by the culprit to commit violence, not the culprit itself. The gun, however, is a more effective tool for killing than most other ubiquitous items. That's why we use them to fight wars rather than using swords or baseball bats.

Obviously if we didn't have guns, we would still have murders and violence. But the overall lethality of those events would be reduced, especially with mass murder for things like school shootings. As a case in point there was a chinese guy who did a similar attack in a school in china (I think on the same day as the Connecticut attack). He wounded a lot of people but last I heard he didn't manage to kill anyone.

I don't recall anybody rushing to blame any anti-Islam movies back in September of 2001. Wonder why that is?

Because the Bush administration wisely took their time to investigate and find out who was behind the attack before pointing fingers. And, as mentioned many other times in this thread, the Obama administration didn't blame the movie for the attack on the consulate or the deaths of the staff. He vowed to bring the perpetrators to justice. He referred to it as an "act of terror". All this on the day after the attacks. Link
 
2013-01-03 04:56:56 PM  

ginandbacon: When did this level of crass vitriol become socially acceptable in public?


August 29, 1997.
 
2013-01-03 04:57:10 PM  

vpb: Shadowknight: What, it's not like blood clots in your brain are life threatening, eh?

Well, some people don't have that problem to worry about.


images.forum-auto.com
 
2013-01-03 04:57:11 PM  

halfof33: Weaver95: I have no idea what point it is you think you're trying to make.

Actually I was answering someone's question, when you interjected with typical partisan bullshiat.

Take a look:

Weaver95: halfof33:

MY ANSWER TO A QUESTION: Yes, sometime about mid-September the Administration dropped that story from their explanation, and then announced a couple of months later that the claim that the attack was the spontaneous outgrowth of a protest outside the consulate in Benghazi was "incorrect."

YOUR ODDLY ALTHOUGH PREDICTABLE PARTISAN RESPONSE: you mean that the administration shifted their view as more detailed and accurate information became available?  THOSE MONSTERS!  Republicans, on the other hand, come up with an explanation based pm inaccurate data and NEVER change their opinion no matter what.  because that's how a country should be run, gotdammit!

yeesh.


and i'll repeat my earlier comment - to me, you sound rambling and almost incoherent, with no logic or reason to what you are saying.  the only thing I can sort of imply is that you believe the Obama administration did something wrong.  I can't tell what it is you think it is they did wrong, or why its bad.  can you shed some light on that for me?
 
2013-01-03 04:57:19 PM  

unexplained bacon: right from the beginning Obama said it was a terrorist attack.


That is not accurate.

After his Rose Garden speech, Obama tapes an interview for "60 Minutes." Obama says he didn't use the word "terrorism" in his Rose Garden speech because "it's too early to know exactly how this came about."
 
2013-01-03 04:57:36 PM  

Buffalo77: You are probably correct. The funny thing is he was asked a question and responded appropriately and factually where he could.


What apparently passes for 'appropriately and factually':

"C) the executive branch spent weeks telling the US and the world that it was our fault for inciting those wacky Mooslems with a Monty Python-level quality YouTube video "

"Derp" was the most appropriate 'response'.
 
2013-01-03 04:57:46 PM  

FTDA: Arumat: H31N0US: Buffalo77: I expect dueling to be back in fashion in 2 years.

We can only hope!

Now THAT's change we can believe in.

/mandatory pistol marksmanship training for all congresscritters
//if they're going to duel they'd better not farking miss
///third slashy tells me that they should still be charged with murder if they win

What if they choose the sword as their dueling weapon?


Someone should sell tickets? I don't think it's all that likely though, given how old a lot of these people (and I use the term loosely) are. Most of them probably couldn't even lift an actual combat-ready sword, let alone swing it for any length of time.
 
2013-01-03 04:57:52 PM  

unexplained bacon: Gentoolive: Just another coverup.. only ones that can't see it are libtards.

what was covered up?

/libtard


4 state officials were removed from office for gross negligence according to the white house. By removed I mean still working.

Even the state department internal audit found gross incompetence. Do you not follow the news at all or did daily kos miss that report?
 
2013-01-03 04:57:57 PM  

Weaver95: Silly Jesus:
The report said that there was never any reason to believe that it was not a terrorist attack. From the first second, nobody thought it was about the video. What's so hard to understand that? The administration knew that from the beginning. Are you arguing that it took them two weeks to verify that they knew from the start and that they needed to make up a lie in the interim?

no, the administration DIDN'T know that from the beginning. they had to verify that for themselves...and they were right to do so, and when things became clear they followed up and changed their view of the situation.  you make some very interesting (and extremely incorrect) assumptions about how this played out.


Just saying what the report said.
 
2013-01-03 04:58:10 PM  

calm like a bomb: FTDA: Bill O'Reillys whackadoodle news talk show on Fox. Follow the link and scroll down to the paragraph on it.

First aired on October 7th, 1996.

Bump your sarcasm meter up a few notches.


I'm waiting for my coffee to kick in. I'm sure that blasted wonky sarcasometer of mine will start working shortly. Sorry if I messed up your joke earlier.

/Carry on with the snark on Fark!
 
2013-01-03 04:58:38 PM  

ThatBillmanGuy: Wait, its now a lie that the government spent a lot of time trying to blame this on a Muslim parody film? I'm sort of out of the loop on this, but I remember everyone talking about how that film was to blame. When did that change? What the hell was everyone talking about that film for, then? I'm not up on this Benghazi thing, so I'm seriously asking and not trying to troll, since bringing it up seems to provoke that kind of reaction.

/not my intent.


But it was always the media saying the attacks were protests that got out of hand, not the government. Hell Susan Rice's story was straight from the media. If she's guilty of anything it's being so stupid she believes the 'news'.
 
2013-01-03 04:58:57 PM  

Silly Jesus: Weaver95: Silly Jesus:
The report said that there was never any reason to believe that it was not a terrorist attack. From the first second, nobody thought it was about the video. What's so hard to understand that? The administration knew that from the beginning. Are you arguing that it took them two weeks to verify that they knew from the start and that they needed to make up a lie in the interim?

no, the administration DIDN'T know that from the beginning. they had to verify that for themselves...and they were right to do so, and when things became clear they followed up and changed their view of the situation.  you make some very interesting (and extremely incorrect) assumptions about how this played out.

Just saying what the report said.


um...what report?
 
2013-01-03 04:59:35 PM  

Buffalo77: ginandbacon


When did this level of crass vitriol become socially acceptable in public?


I think this is where we are heading to or regressing back to. The level of disrespect and vitriol among the opposing parties is degrading rapidily.

I remember years ago when a very similar exchange happened between David Gregory and Bush spokesperson, Bush spokesperson had to apologize.

Reid calls Boehner a dictator, Boehner tells Ried to F--- off.

I expect dueling to be back in fashion in 2 years.


I'm pro-this.
 
2013-01-03 04:59:36 PM  

Gentoolive: Just another coverup.. only ones that can't see it are libtards.


Damn you, Poe's Law.  Damn you.
 
2013-01-03 05:00:02 PM  

Weaver95: um...what report?


Drudge.
 
2013-01-03 05:00:06 PM  
so many political headlines on main...
i dont like this thing we are in
 
2013-01-03 05:01:05 PM  

Weaver95: I can't tell what it is you think it is they did wrong, or why its bad. can you shed some light on that for me?


I'll just let the facts speak for themselves, how's that? That work for you? Good.

Tell us more about the mean Republicans some other time, hmmmkay?
 
2013-01-03 05:01:20 PM  

calm like a bomb: Weaver95: um...what report?

Drudge.


dear gods, I hope that's not the basis for all this mess....
 
2013-01-03 05:01:43 PM  

Weaver95: calm like a bomb: Weaver95: um...what report?

Drudge.

dear gods, I hope that's not the basis for all this mess....


Might as well be.
 
2013-01-03 05:02:13 PM  

calm like a bomb: Weaver95: um...what report?

Drudge.


I'd imagine he was referring to the Benghazi report. Dunno what is in there but it exists
 
2013-01-03 05:02:44 PM  
Hung Like A Tic-Tac:
i51.photobucket.com
That actually looks like it'd be a lot of fun, if there weren't any barriers in the way and you could go sailing off the pier at full speed.  I'd love to do that.
 
2013-01-03 05:04:09 PM  

Silly Jesus: Huh? Even in the report after the fact that came out recently they stated clearly that there was no reason whatsoever to ever believe that the attacks were related to the video. The idea that it was ever a rational thought or seriously considered by those in the know has been discredited.


Other than them occurring on the same day and in the same manner as protests in other muslim cities.  But still, why does this even matter?  So it took a few days to sort out in the chaos what went down.  Is that seriously scandal-worthy?  In fact, what you've just said supports the idea that they may have been intentionally vague on the reasons as they investigated.

So you're either saying that they either exercised due dilligence in investigating, were harmlessly incompetent but well meaning, or we should hold those people who ignored pleas for extra security over the volcano.  If it's the latter, then of course you would mean congress who denied extra funding for exactly this purpose.

/nevermind that Benghazi would be a smouldering crater under Ghadaffi's heel if Republicans had their way a year ago
 
2013-01-03 05:04:27 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: ThatBillmanGuy: Wait, its now a lie that the government spent a lot of time trying to blame this on a Muslim parody film? I'm sort of out of the loop on this, but I remember everyone talking about how that film was to blame.

The various protests really were triggered by the video; the terrorists just used the one in Benghazi as a cover.


No they didnt. Stop repeating debunked white house talking points. There was never a protest in benghazi.
 
2013-01-03 05:04:34 PM  

halfof33: unexplained bacon: right from the beginning Obama said it was a terrorist attack.

That is not accurate.

After his Rose Garden speech, Obama tapes an interview for "60 Minutes." Obama says he didn't use the word "terrorism" in his Rose Garden speech because "it's too early to know exactly how this came about."


He was cautious because he didn't have facts.

BURN HIM!
 
2013-01-03 05:04:51 PM  

strathmeyer: But it was always the media saying the attacks were protests that got out of hand, not the government. Hell Susan Rice's story was straight from the media. If she's guilty of anything it's being so stupid she believes the 'news'.


That is completely untrue.There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 - nearly a month after the attack. the first time it was mentioned:

9/11/12:

Clinton: Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.
 
2013-01-03 05:05:23 PM  

halfof33: Weaver95: I can't tell what it is you think it is they did wrong, or why its bad. can you shed some light on that for me?

I'll just let the facts speak for themselves, how's that? That work for you? Good.

Tell us more about the mean Republicans some other time, hmmmkay?


so again i'm left with this vague impression that you blame Obama for something.  You can't tell me what that something is, or why its bad...but that you really believe that Obama screwed up something somewhere along the line.  you can't tell me what should be done about it either.  i'm not allowed to ask you to clarify any of this because...well, you won't talk about that, so I don't know.  further, you imply that I should somehow mystically already know all these things to be true and not ask any questions about it.

And that's basically where I'm at with you.
 
2013-01-03 05:05:35 PM  

Silly Jesus: The report said that FROM THE BEGINNING they knew it was a terrorist attack. It says that thinking that it was about the video was at no time legitimate. The only thing that evolved was the lie.


Just curious, but how did these dastardly lies a) harm the US, b) benefit Obama or the administration, c) have any effect whatsoever on anything. I mean, I get that you are upset that Rice said 5 days later that "the best information we have at this time" while stating about half a dozen caveats was a bunch of information that was not accurate... I really do. Is that shocking though?  I mean, for goodness sakes... 5 days. It took a YEAR before they even set up a friggin' commission to investigate the original 9/11 attacks and you are losing your shiat over stuff said on a TV news show 5 days after the event happened. AND... the 'lies' benefitted noone. What in good God's name are you so farking upset about??!?!?
 
2013-01-03 05:06:25 PM  

d23: He was cautious because he didn't have facts.


So I was correct. Thanks for posting.
 
2013-01-03 05:06:42 PM  

Buffalo77: Cyclometh: gerrymander:
This is a thing not because the spy network failed (though it might have), but because: A) the State Department fell down on the job of doing the most basic security for an embassy in a country in turmoil, B) four US citizens on the government payroll died because of it, and C) the executive branch spent weeks telling the US and the world that it was our fault for inciting those wacky Mooslems with a Monty Python-level quality YouTube video. Like the kids say, it's not the crime that gets you; it's the cover-up.

This thread is going to go very badly for you.

You are probably correct. The funny thing is he was asked a question and responded appropriately and factually where he could. Of course the responses will be predictable.



I kinda wonder what drugs you have to take to get "appropriately and factually " out of anything gerrymander said.  Bath salts?  Spice?  I'm not really into the culture, so I don't really know.
 
2013-01-03 05:07:32 PM  

Weaver95: so again i'm left with this vague impression.......


Sigh. Thanks for posting, Weaves.
 
2013-01-03 05:07:46 PM  
Jesus christ already.  The report. Link, .pdf
 
2013-01-03 05:07:56 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: No way that could have any effect on a BLOOD CLOT IN YOUR FARKING BRAIN.


detriotgirl.com
 
Displayed 50 of 687 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report